Springfield PD seems upset they will no longer to be able to deny residents their 2a rights to defend them selves because they decided you reason for wanting to not get murdered or attacked in Springfield isn't enough.
1 posted on
08/01/2022 11:18:40 AM PDT by
matt04
To: matt04
2 posted on
08/01/2022 11:21:37 AM PDT by
cgbg
(A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
To: matt04
Most of MA infringements are unconstitutional.
I wish the Supreme Court had been more unequivocal.
There are still lots of communist states infringing on the rights of their citizens.
3 posted on
08/01/2022 11:22:14 AM PDT by
Lurkinanloomin
( (Natural born citizens are born here of citizen parents)(Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
To: matt04
you do not need the GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION to exercise your rights....
Unless you have been convicted of a crime or declared mentally incompetent of exercising your rights.. you don’t need anyone’s permission to exercise them... that’s the entire point of a right.. it flows from YOU, not from anyone or anything else... it is YOURS.
To: matt04
I spent time on the grand jury in Springfield. I can tell you that all of the bad guys carry guns. All of them.
To: matt04
These commie bastards are hell bent on disarming us. It’s ironically shameful that in the birthplace of liberty, it has been taken hostage by these jerkwads. My family heritage is from Dedham Massachusetts and they built the first wood framed house in America. Some might be familiar with the Fairbanks house. They had tunnels leading out from the house to escape the Indian attacks. Not much has changed here in the Divided States of Amerika.
8 posted on
08/01/2022 11:28:36 AM PDT by
HighSierra5
(The only way you know a commie is lying is when they open their pieholes.)
To: matt04
In Massachusetts, we have strong gun laws that save (criminals) lives. There, fixed it.
CC
11 posted on
08/01/2022 11:32:55 AM PDT by
Celtic Conservative
(My cats are more amusing than 200 channels worth of TV.)
To: matt04
“In Massachusetts, we have strong gun laws that save lives, and our license-to-carry statute has been a critical component to ensure public safety,” Healey said in her clarification to police. Because, Attorney General Healey, criminals always heed concealed carry laws and issuing more concealed carry licenses will lead to more criminals with guns?
13 posted on
08/01/2022 11:35:46 AM PDT by
Yo-Yo
(Is the /Sarc tag really necessary? Pray for President Biden: Psalm 109:8)
To: matt04
“In Massachusetts, we have strong gun laws that save lives”
I wonder why those strong gun laws don’t work in Chicago. Or Philadelphia. Or New York. Or, or, or.
14 posted on
08/01/2022 11:37:01 AM PDT by
ProtectOurFreedom
(“May your neighbors respect you, trouble neglect you, angels protect you and heaven accept you”)
To: matt04
...found its decades-old practice of routinely restricting — or even denying — licenses to carry firearms was suddenly unconstitutional. Suddenly? Wrong. It's always been unconstitutional. If they enforced the Constitution as aggressively as they enforce pronouns...
16 posted on
08/01/2022 11:40:49 AM PDT by
JimRed
(TERM LIMITS, NOW! Militia to the border! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
To: matt04
Healy is a form of life lower than that which cattlemen scrape off their boots.
17 posted on
08/01/2022 11:45:24 AM PDT by
muir_redwoods
(Freedom isn't free, liberty isn't liberal and you'll never find anything Right on the Left)
To: matt04
“The concern among lawmakers is that Bruen will chip away at Massachusetts’ gun laws”
the truth is 180 off that
The concern among THE PEOPLE is that Bruen will FINALLY DEMOLISH the chip-away that Massachusetts’ UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws have foisted on THE PEOPLE
there. Much better now.
19 posted on
08/01/2022 11:51:01 AM PDT by
Macoozie
(Handcuffs and Orange Jumpsuits)
To: matt04
The concern among lawmakers is that Bruen will chip away at Massachusetts’ gun laws, considered among the toughest in the nation, that have been on the books for decades and longer in some instances. The first law giving the police chief to authority to grant or deny a license to carry dates back to 1906, for example. Wow, that's a long time.
Constitution was written even longer ago. Let's stick with it.
22 posted on
08/01/2022 11:54:14 AM PDT by
pepsi_junkie
(Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
To: matt04
At least, from what I’ve read, MA is not defying SCOTUS by passing new requirements for concealed carry like NY is.
25 posted on
08/01/2022 12:22:44 PM PDT by
hanamizu
To: matt04
decades-old practice of routinely restricting — or even denying — licenses to carry firearms was suddenly unconstitutional. No, it was always unconstitutional but other Supreme Courts had ignored the Constitution or just made up their own rules.
“With the new changes from the Supreme Court decision, that’s all gone,”
Again, the Supreme Court didn't change the Constitution, they only clarified what is says.
28 posted on
08/01/2022 1:27:30 PM PDT by
libertylover
(Our biggest problem, BY FAR, is that almost all of big media is agenda-driven, not-truth driven.)
To: matt04
Springfield PD seems upset they will no longer to be able to deny residents their 2a rights Yes, they were apparently enjoying their role in totalitarian government.
29 posted on
08/01/2022 1:28:26 PM PDT by
libertylover
(Our biggest problem, BY FAR, is that almost all of big media is agenda-driven, not-truth driven.)
To: matt04
My FOID card expired long ago. No plans to apply for another.
31 posted on
08/01/2022 2:04:31 PM PDT by
roving
(Blue Lives Matter More Than Children)
To: matt04
More likely no longer able to shake down applicants to make “Donations” to the Sheriff’s election or “Widows and orphans fund”.
32 posted on
08/01/2022 2:10:20 PM PDT by
Ex gun maker.
(Free thinking is now a radical concept, I will not be assimilated by PC or EV groupthink!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson