Hi Karen, yes Massachusetts has an assault weapons ban, but the worry among some of the selectmen is that it doesn't go far enough. It's legal to own a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle without specific characteristics that are primarily for military use (bayonet lugs, flash hider, folding stock, etc.) Jeffries' proposal would go further than existing state law -- and surpass even the recent proposal by Gov. Patrick -- and prohibit entire classes of weapons in town. There was a secondary proposal that would direct owners of semi-auto rifles to be involved with a militia. (There are a number of legal questions about this, but it would be possible via existing license rules.)

Banning all semi-auto weapons would likely be HUGELY opposed. Here's a small example of why: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/72541_4703730163146_436422627_n.jpg

Not to mention joining any sort of militia would probably get the individual immediately branded as a terrorist and the group as a domestic terrorist group.

Vincent, we usually agree about as frequently as people find $100 bills in pants pockets, but I have to say you're absolutely right on this. It's a poorly-reasoned emotional move.

Vinny, does that mean you'll actually attend a TM???? We'll save you a seat next to the third ring. :p

Mary, as horrific as those tragedies were, it's a pointless comparison. They could have been shot by a pistol (used in 72 percent of all gun homicides, not included in this proposal) or by shotguns (most popular hunting and home defense weapon, also not included in this proposal).

At the close-range distance in both incidents, a .22 caliber rifle (again, not included) would be about as lethal as other firearms)

Just checked: a 9mm pistol was used in the Marchand shooting: http://www.wickedlocal.com/westford/newsnow/x1103042139/17-year-old-Westford-Academy-student-killed-during-shooting-at-her-home

A .357 Magnum pistol was used in the Leduc shooting: https://sunpoliceline.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/two_dead_in_wes/

It sounds like you do have an interest in learning about different types of guns, Mary. Since the ban would only affect certain weapons, it is important to understand which weapons would be banned. In both of the tragic murders you mentioned, handguns were used. They are discussing banning "assault weapons" which would not include handguns. Assault weapons are category of rifles that have the cosmetic appearance of a military rifle. They function like a hunting rifle, the only significant differences in how they work is that they are lighter and often shorter.

Understand that the law would only ban the possession of “large capacity weapons” by Westford residents. This clearly wouldn't affect anyone coming into town to commit a crime, so really doesn't offer much in terms of protection, and removes from Westford residents guns typically used for self-defence.

Also, the law bans both almost all semiauto rifles and handguns, not just the so-called assault rifles. And real assault rifles are classified by the ATF as machine guns, and regulated accordingly.

And your point ?

Mary, At least in the case of Leduc, it wouldn't have mattered. The husbands guns were unregistered, illegal, and he was unlicensed. I suspect he would have never turned them in if they were banned. Criminals never do.

Because there are various aspects of the proposal that would likely pass muster.

A blanket ban wouldn't work, but additional registration rules and other requirements would be within the existing jurisdiction of the Chief of Police....

Town Counsel has issued an opinion, at considerable taxpayer expense I am sure. Just more examples of the Town throwing money away, and these people NEED a reality check when it comes to spending OUR money.

Hi Mary, check again to see why the comparison is so pointless. :) Also, regarding domestic violence and guns, please take a look at the data: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/intimates.cfm#intweap

Of particular interest is the type of weapon used in intimate partner violence.

Mary, the weapons used in those two murders were both handguns. The ban they are discussing would prohibit certain types of rifles. (rifles that have the appearance of a military weapon, although they function like a hunting rifle) As I understand it, this ban would not affect the two weapons used in those murders.

Exactly, MaryG. The proposed Westford regulation would do nothing to limit handguns (although the proposed STATE law would likely affect owners of most semi-auto handguns).

Karen, machine guns are fully-automatic weapons that require a separate state and federal licensing. The few machine gun licenses that were issued in town were likely issued to trained gun instructors or current law enforcement.

A machine gun is an assault weapon, but what we consider "assault weapons" and not necessarily machine guns. It's an important distinction. This proposal would seek to ban or further restrict semi-automatic weapons.

Mary, you're absolutely right. It wasn't an actual comparison, but an out of context non sequitur.

Mike, I disagree that a question about two recent cases of gun violence in Westford is somehow off-topic when discussing a proposed measure to prevent gun violence in Westford!

Mary, please read what I said. I said it was an "out-of-context non sequitur" because these cases of gun violence weren't the types of mass killing events committed with "assault rifles" that the proposed legislation seeks to end. You're bringing up incidents that were't part of the local discussion, and don't actually play much of a part in the national discussion, mainly because of the types of weapons used.

Yes Mike, I can read. The reason I asked the question in the first place was because I was UNAWARE of what type of gun was used in the local tragedies and what type of gun the local measure seeks to ban. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in Westford who may have been wondering about that. Again, I appreciate MaryG's succinct answer!

Hi Mary, I see your point. I, too, was unaware of what types of weapons were used, although I knew that it was an irrelevant question completely unrelated to the warrant article. Nevertheless, with the help of my trusty friend Google I was able to discover the answer to your question in exactly 20 minutes. (Check the time stamps above.)

You're welcome, and have have a pleasant tomorrow.

In this state you can't "just walk right in and buy a gun off the street." Any purchase of a pistol requires an appropriate LTC, or License To Carry. Obtaining one requires a background check, and the LTCs are issued by each town for its residents. Also, the purchase must be approved via the NICS federal system to verify that the person isn't prohibited from buying the gun.

Margo, you can't walk in off the street and buy a gun legally. In Massachusetts, you need to have a license, which requires a training class and a background check. In any state, buying a gun from a licensed dealer requires a background check. In Massachusetts, non-dealer sales can only happen between licensed individuals, so there's already a background check involved.

You can't just "go buy a gun". Massachusetts has the toughest gun laws in the country already. All these new laws do is make it harder for normal people.

Hi Steven,

Welcome to Westford and breathe easier...The "no large capacity" bylaw won't go anywhere because it's been superseded by a proposed state law, and because it would be immediately challenged. The "gun owners must join a militia" proposal could actually work -- and might not be a bad thing -- because it might require gun owners to get additional training before the Chief of Police issues or renews a Class A LTC. This wouldn't require any state intervention because the Chief holds sole jurisdiction over which class of license to issue. (Some Mass. towns only issue Class B). Requiring that people get additional training would be a good thing. Current state license requirements are ridiculously lax; you can get a Class A with only a 4-hour class and never actually shoot a gun.

You're absolutely correct that we have the right to own a gun and put it in a glass case, but please understand that if you put anything other than an antique, non-working firearm in a glass case, you're part of the problem.

Adam Lanza's mother kept her semi-auto weapons in something about as secure as a glass case: her closet.

You can leave your guns in a glass case but if the case is in MA, you better have trigger locks on them.

As for the training, who decides when you're proficient enough to use a weapon in self defense? The local police chief? Put even more power in the hands of non-elected tyrants to decide who gets to exercise his 2nd amendment rights and who does not. What part of "shall not be infringed" do these tyrants not understand? The 2nd amendment says what it says in plain English. It is not open to interpretation by the progressive lefties. It is there to make sure the 1st amendment is protected. Without the 1st amendment being staunchly protected by the 2nd amendment, we might as well live in some 3rd world islamic country where they cut out your tongue if you dare to criticize the imam because that's where we are heading.

Maybe in my attempt at humor saying," I could put them in a glass case," wasn't the best choice of words. I have a very secure safe. What I was alluding to was an antique gun, like a musket, hanging over the fireplace as a decoration. As far as the training goes, I'm all for extra training for a an A license. You have to have a special license to drive a certain kind of truck, or motorcycle, so owning certain weapons should require special training.

Rich, actually, yes....I think you, or your neighbor, or my neighbor -- or I -- should have additional training before being issued a Class A LTC. Those who don't opt to get additional training can be issued a Class B license, a move that wouldn't infringe on your 2A rights.

I think you're over-reaching on the whole "tryanny" aspect, Rich. The WPD Chief already has the jurisdiction to deny renewals or to specify which class of license you get....and frankly, that's a good thing. I'd like to know that every wacko who wants one can't just get a licence for a large-capacity weapon.

I point out, however, that the proposed bylaw goes farther than a ban on so-called "assault weapons". It bans anything that meet's Massachusetts' definition of a 'large capacity weapon'. This includes anything capable of accepting a magazine which holds more than ten rounds, whether or not you actually have one. In other words, it would ban almost all semi-auto handguns other than small pocket pistols and almost any detachable magazine rifle.

Jeff, the proposed state legislation would change the definition of large capacity to 7 rounds, making the town's law a moot point.

Mike, the difference is the state law bans large capacity *magazines*. The town law would ban anything that could possibly *use* a large capacity magazine, whether or not you have one.

Jeff, after watching the BOS meeting, I get the sense that they don't actually know what they want. They can't actually ban possession of mag-fed weapons, which would be something akin to what's in Australia. (And Australia used buy-backs, registration, and additional licensing to gain compliance, not confiscation.)

Watching that portion of the meeting just reinforced that most people are clueless about what actually constitutes an "assault weapon." I can definitely see the town requiring additional training for Class A LTC (I've railed about this here and elsewhere) but an outright ban? Not. Going. To. Happen.

A great fact from that online ppt:
"Further illustrating the small role so-called assault weapons play in crime, FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives."

Does this mean hammers, clubs, and knives are next on the BoS' agenda?

He was spot on. Especially his point about the threat of tyranny being no less today than it was when this country was founded. I just don't understand why American citizens would stand by and allow the very government that we keep in check with the ability to fight back to regulate and restrict the tools that we would need.

Sorry to break this to you, but you won't be taking on our government with your rifles. I agree that you should be able to protect yourself from an intruder or attacker and I think that's a valid reason for well trained people who've passed a background check to own a gun. I think this ban is ridiculous. But thinking you can fight back against the USA military? That's really ridiculous. We have a national guard now, they're our militia. Our reason to own firearms is to defend our homes and our families while we wait for the police to arrive. Having a gun to take on our "fascist" democratically elected government is ludicrous.

Mary G, the federal government has deployed our militia, the National Guard, overseas to fight illegal and undeclared wars. The National Guard is little more than an extension of the US military. They are no longer the peoples' malitia. They work for the US government.
And, you're right. Because of limitations put upon us regarding what weapons we are allowed to own, the US government has put the citizens at a huge disadvantage. But, the simple fact that the government will not be able to trample on our God given rights without bloodshed will make them think twice before enacting their tyrannical agenda. If any government representative wants to go house to house trying to confiscate weapons, they have to be ready for the death toll that will follow unless they can disarm the citizens first. That's why our forefathers included gun ownership in the bill of rights.

Mary G:

I think you need to do some historical research about a little town called, Athens, Tennessee. A government--this government--can become corrupted to the degree that the citizens need to prevent tyranny with guns. Second, you are correct that we cannot compete with a tank or the National Guard, however, it is unconstitutional for any service member to fire upon an American citizen, so there would be dissent amongst the ranks, furthermore, if the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything is that the most powerful militaries in the world (US/USSR) cannot suppress an armed populace. When does Obama want to get out?

Westford Parent, the training to get a Class A LTC is ridiculously lax. I wouldn't even go as far as to call it "basic." That should change.

The process to initially get a gin is involved, but once the license is granted, it's all too easy to set up a private sale and buy a gun at a McDonalds. That, too, should change.

What shouldn't change is the 10-round mag standard for hi-cap weapons. I'd leave that alone, and institute mandatory gun registration on the state level

First off, you can only do a face-to-tace transaction with another duly licensed individual, aside from the fact that nobody's going to sit down at a McDonalds and transfer a gun.

Second, you have 7 days to register the transaction, so *all guns* are already registered. Unless you consider those people selling them illegally, but then additional laws won't stop them.

Lastly, I took a 10 evening, 3 hour per class course for my LTC. I wouldn't call that "basic."

Don, private transfers can and do happen in all sorts of places, and it's extremely easy to make a deal on armslist or gunsamerica and then drive to meet the person at a convenient location. It's no different than a transaction on Craigslist, outside of the after-the-fact filing of FA-10s.

Your "10-evening, 3-hour per class course" was way out of the norm, and far beyond the state-mandated standard 4-hour course to get a Class A LTC. You may have taken a dual course that serves as both hunter education and LTC certification. The state's requirement is actually called, in statute, "Basic Firearms Safety" and that's what's printed on your state police certificate.

I was so unnerved by how limited the training was, I ended up taking additional classes.

The important point is that all legal face-to-face gun sales in this state must take place between two licensed individuals. It's not like you can just answer a Craigslist ad and go buy a gun, because the seller wouldn't/shouldn't sell to an unlicensed individual.

Of course, if you're talking about illegal sales, then passing additional laws obviously won't fix that problem, only putting those people in jail will.

Don, as it stands, there's no way to actually know that one or both parties are licensed because the transactions don't have to go through a FFL-holder, which is what the proposed state law would prevent. Essentially, for a nominal transfer fee, the authorized location (usually a gun shop) would be required to run instant checks on both parties in the transaction.

Unfortunately, the FA-10 system doesn't require you to actually verify a person's LTC at the time of the sale. You can just take down their info and walk away -- and hope that the info was legit when you submit your FA-10 online.

First off, I'm not arguing against making all transaction be done through an FFL, I'm just commenting on the current situation.

If a person sells a gun directly to another individual, he's responsible for checking the person's LTC. If he doesn't, he has no way to determine if the person is legal, and he could be prosecuted for that. The only issue with a face-to-face transaction is that it doesn't verify the other person's status with NICS. Requiring an FFL to do all transactions would fix that issue. However, if the person commits a crime after the LTC is issued, the LTC is revoked, so it's not really the gaping hole people seem to think it is.

Don, the law says that a valid FID or LTC needs to be presented but there's no way for either party to certify the validity. (High school kids forge drivers licenses all the time; why would an LTC be any tougher?)

Mandating that an FFL handle all transactions eliminates that potential loophole and drives a bit of traffic to gun shops.

Again, not arguing against mandating using an FFL, but realistically, when an LTC is invalidated the document would be pulled. And, they're not really easy to forge. Besides, statistically, it's almost a non-issue. The real problem is the sale of guns on the black market, where neither party is licensed, and the transaction will not be recorded. You can pass any law you want, but it won't stop these kinds of sales, which are already illegal, only tightened enforcement will.

Don, you're missing the point: How will a private seller know if someone's LTC has been invalidated? Answer: currently they don't.

And private sales are incredibly significant. ATF/FBI stats show that only about 10-15 percent of guns used in crimes are stolen. The remainder are initially possessed legally and then filter down into the black market, often via straw purchases by legal LTC holders. So yes, more enforcement would be a good thing, but even the NRA supported instant checks back in 1998, then completely reversed itself...

No, I think you're missing the point. If someone is a straw purchaser, and knowingly sells a gun to a prohibited person, are you actually suggesting that mandating all sales go through FFLs will stop that? The person is intentionally committing a crime, and if you pass more laws he will just be breaking more laws. The first rule is that laws only affect the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, ignore them. A better suggestion would be to go after the people trafficking in firearms, rather than hassle legal gun owners.

The crux here is that mandating people use FFLs to transfer guns won't stop people who knowingly sell guns illegally in the first place.

Don, tightening the channels of legal purchases will make straw purchases more expensive. Market forces will likely do a better job of slowing the gun trade than typical enforcement methods, although maybe it's a good idea to renew the ATF's level of funding that was slashed during the Bush administration.

What's troubling is that you're parroting the NRA line that more rules are unnecessary because the existing rules aren't enforced, but you're not acknowledging that the NRA has lobbied that the existing rules shouldn't be enforced. The group was one of the major reasons for the aforementioned cut in ATF funding.

All firearms transactions should be routed through national database that includes stronger mental health restrictions (which, finally, the NRA might come around to support).

Your argument ignores the fact that stopping the slide of firearms into the black market is contingent on making the slide difficult and expensive.

Wow, all of a sudden I'm supposed to be an NRA spokesperson?

I'm not parroting anybody's line, I'm pointing out that if you have a transaction that is already illegal, making it more difficult to do that transaction legally isn't going to do anything to stop the flow of illegal guns. Simple logic. If Person A intends to sell a gun face-to-face to Person B, who is unlicensed, they're doing it illegally, and they know it's illegal. The transaction will not be reported. Changing the law so that a legal sale must go through an FFL will not stop this, and it will not raise the cost of the illegal transaction, and will not affect the black market. Too bad you don't actually understand economics or logic.

Don, are you capable of plugging directly into the NICS database and conducting your own instant check? No?

Then why do you presume that your ability to stop fraudulent or illegal firearms transactions is better than the tools used by FFLs?

Look, during a private sale you have ZERO way of knowing whether the person handing over cash has a valid LTC or FID. All you hope is that by filing the FA-10, you cover your rear from potential criminal liability. That's it. Period. It's not an illegal transaction on your end if you dutifully copy down someone's address and LTC number -- even if both are false. You've acted in good faith, as you have no way of checking out the information because -- surprise! -- you don't have access to the NICS and you're not an FFL holder.

This is exactly why the NRA supported routing all private sales through FFLs in 1999, until they flip-flopped under pressure from gunmakers.

You've apparently failed reading comprehension. Badly.

"Don, are you capable of plugging directly into the NICS database and conducting your own instant check? No?

Then why do you presume that your ability to stop fraudulent or illegal firearms transactions is better than the tools used by FFLs? "

I never made such a claim. Anywhere. I said that someone making an illegal sale on the black market won't be affected by enacting a law requiring all transactions to be done by an FFL. They're already breaking the law, so adding another law on top of that will do exactly nothing.

And there's nothing preventing someone from requiring that the transaction to be handled by an FFL, just to be safe, although I'd guess that most legal face-to-face transactions occur between parties that know each other. And I don't actually care if all transactions have to go through an FFL, but that won't affect the illegal black market gun sales at all.

Don, the only reasons I can see for your complete ignorance on this issue is that you're either willfully ignoring reality, or have been living in a cave. Perhaps in your Anti-Reality Cave you might have missed something called The Internet, which allows people who actually don't know each other to buy and sell items -- including firearms.

I'll repeat this so that you understand: filling out your FA-10 during a face-to-face sale does not guarantee that the other party in the sale has a valid LTC/FID. This happens in thousands of sales annually, according to the ATF.

I'll repeat this again so that perhaps this time, it might stick: Sending the sales through an FFL will reduce the number of sketchy transactions because it makes the process of an illegal transaction more difficult. Both sides of the transaction need to be party to the illegal act.

You said: "And there's nothing preventing someone from requiring that the transaction to be handled by an FFL, just to be safe, although I'd guess that most legal face-to-face transactions occur between parties that know each other.''

Facepalm. This was possibly your most ignorant statement because, besides ignoring the rise in online sales, it shows a complete cluelessness about why many people conduct private sales: to avoid the FFL background check!

Just think of all the 40 B projects that could be put on the property ,along
with more SPORT fields.

That's a sad idea.

A gentleman who I work with is a member of the WSC and lives in a different town. He told me exactly that. He said that if Westford were to pass that "rediculous" ordinance, he will not renew his membership at WSC. Not ahything against the club. Its because the town would limit what he could shoot there because he couldn't (legaly) transport them into town.

And, now a brief statement from the Massachusetts Constitution:

"Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence...."

Three of the Selectmen, Ross, Jefferies, and Peraner-Sweet apparently think it is the Selectmen's job to stimulate contentious debate about a proposed law that will be tossed out, according to Jefferies' own statements.. I'm not sure where they got the idea that pointless debate stimulation falls into the job we elected them to do. I'm not sure how that has any influence on how the town is run, what is spent, and what taxes are thrust upon us. Here's to LOTS of new candidates, time to change the guard!

Maybe an amendment to one of the other articles would be in order at the town meeting. Something to the effect that "Town meeting demands that elected officials initiating and supporting Article 30 (is that the right one) or other articles that are seen to be violating either the US Constitution or the Massachusetts Constitution or will be seen to fail at the State or other level will be asked to resign, effective at the close of this Town Meeting. "

The town is setting itself up to be spending money unnecessarily to defend a ordinance that the BoS already acknowledges will most likely not pass muster at the state level. The BoS has already used TC time on this. I have a big problem with the BoS using a resource that I, as a tax paying Westford resident, paid for through my property tax money to restrict a right that under the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed upon. Bottom line, the town should not be using tax payer monies to infringe upon the rights guaranteed us in the Constitution. Thanks to their bottomless supply of tax money, the Bos only has their feelings and opinions in the game. Law abiding gun owners and supporters of our 2nd amendment rights might be forced, through their tax dollars, to pay lawyers who will be chipping away at our 2nd amendment rights by defending this ridiculous ordinance while they dig into their own personal money to pay their own lawyer to shoot the ordinance down. Every one of the BoS members are at fault in this. Jefferies is the one who mindlessly pushed for this with his knee jerk reaction to the tragedy in CT but I didn't see any other BoS members making even a lame attempt at shutting Jefferies down on this. I hope every one of them are enjoying what should be their last term on the BoS. Its way past time to elect people who will act in the best interest of the town of Westford rather than wasting valuable time and $$resources$$ on something that is doomed to fail at the state.

Yes, I was wrong about that. Jim Sullivan did not take a stand on either side of the issue but he did feel it was too rushed and voted not to pass it. My bad.

I think it is clear that we stand up and not only "vote them out," which is easy, but to actually do some heavy lifting and volunteer to serve as a selectman or some other board. My whole life I've never served in local government due to lack of time, but now these same people who joined up so they can debate 3 1/3' vs. 3 1/6' signs, or planning the next Halloween Parade, are now in a position of effecting our Second Amendment rights. We get the government we deserve and while we can do little against the vast Democratic machine statewide---or even nationwide--we can make our stand here. As much as it will be a massive time suck on my schedule, I will be submitting my name to serve.

Which two are up this spring?

Andrea Peraner-Sweet and Bob Jefferies

I will sign for you. Suggestion: setup a time for folks to stop by, say hi, sign, ... maybe Starbucks for some time period one or two evenings, ... Vinny

I'll sign for you! If you can't get the 60. Let me know

I have three signatures for you, if you set up a time as Vinny suggested.

Would love to see a Libertarian on the ballot- got my vote.

Thank you Vincent, Sam and Amber!
How does February 6th (Wednesday) anytime between 7:00 p.m. and 8:30 at Panera at Cornerstone?
Best,
Steve

Steven I will stop in to say hi and sign, ~ 7:40 pm.

How will we recognize you at Panera tonight? I'm willing to sign for you to get on the ballot. I'm sickened by the thought that our BoS is forcing residents to cast a vote that could make their neighbors criminals overnight.

I'll be at a table drinking a coffee with a few brochures and little sign along with my nomination papers. I'm 6'0" slender and bald like (insert aging action hero here). It's a small place so I shouldn't be hard to find.

What happens if someone from a town other than Westford signs your form? Then your signatures won't all be legit. Will you check IDs? Better check them against a database to make sure they're not fake........

Mary G:

All candidates face this problem. Usually one ends up getting more than the required minimum just for this contingency. But you're right, if I only got 50, I'd be risking a lot.

Steven, that was a joke. You can't tell who is signing your form without a background check, just like a private gun seller can't verify the buyer's information. Just a little humor in this thread, I think I will save my vote for someone who can follow along.

Mary G:

I was raised to respect peoples' opinions and to take people at face value and not assume that when people are speaking they are actually joking. Afterall, it's hard to ascertain context from a post/email. If you knew me, you'd know that I'm actually a funny guy. My apologies for attempting to answer what I thought was a legitimate question on your part.

Thank you all who came out to sign my nomination papers. If all my signatures hold up I stand at 57, 7 more than I need to be an official candidate for Selectman. However, I will make sure I collect more just be sure! Glad to have met you all and I value the time you took to give me your suggestions and support.
Gratefully,
Steve

I am asking any Westford citizen that believes that our 2nd Amendment rights have nothing to do with hunting, sportsmanship and/or gun collecting to help me get on the ballot for the BoS. I will vote "no" on any proposal to limit any one of our Constitutional freedoms. Even if you don't have an opinion on the gun issue, the irresponsible behavior of the BoS have set us on a path for a lawsuit that will cost every Westford taxpayer. This is just poor management. As a Libertarian I am a staunch believer in personal freedom, self reliance, independence, fiscal responsibility and local control. But I need your help. I need 50 signatures to be eligible as a candidate. I will be making myself available on February 6th between 7:00p.m. and 8:30 p.m. @ the Panera Bread at Cornerstone. I can answer any questions you may have, and I'd appreciate your nomination.
Respectfully,
Steve

Steven, while I also believe that our Second Amendment rights go beyond hunting, sportsmanship and/or gun collecting, you might want to take a long look at Justice Scalia's opinion in DC vs Heller. There may actually be some legal standing for a semi-auto ban that goes beyond the 7-round mag limits proposed at the state level.

Some of the key passages: "ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Mike:
A well thought out reply and as one who enjoys a good debate, I appreciate a response that is not filled with misinformation or strawman fallacies. Justice Scalia has recently been quoted as saying that the Constitution is "dead." This includes all of our rights and Amendments other than the 2nd. Second, he will not be the sole adjudicator of any case that makes it to the SC. Unlike the last time when there was a gun ban in the 90's (that was counterproductive I might add) the court was more liberal. Lastly, government never goes backwards. Every program has expanded, every law has gotten tighter, penalties have gotten tougher and taxes go up. There is no reason to believe that if the government is successful in limiting magazines that it will just rest there and not take it further and further until we are completely beholden to them for everything: our safety, our liberty, our health care, our retirement, our....

Mike:

You need to go back and reread Heller. The Court said you can't ban commonly available firearms, only ones that are "unusual and dangerous," such as a sawed-off shotgun. When you have such a blanket ban as now being proposed it clearly goes against Heller. Banning essentially all semiauto firearms, and their magazines, won't pass court review.

Amber:
I can swing by on my way to Panera? I live off Forge Village Rd so I take that way on my way down to Cornerstone.

I got your message. I'll call you Monday and swing by your place at your convenience to get your signatures for my nomination. I'd also like to pick your brain about fighting the uphill battle against the machine here in Westford if you wouldn't mind.
Steve

Cad:
First, in full disclosure, I am atheist, however, I'm not a BIll Maher atheist, snarky and full of venom, but more of a Penn Gillette atheist. My study of history plus the people I personally know in my life have proven to me that religion has done good in the world and even if it's based upon a myth or self-preservation, the good deeds are done regardless.
That being said, the reason why it's important to state that our rights come from god is that if rights do not come from god they must come from man, or as you put it, "us, we made them up." Once god is taken out of the equation, if man gave us rights, man can then take those rights away. When the source of those rights is nebulous, where does a tyrant strike? The air? God is a moving target based upon the particular religion or philosophy you are addressing. But in the end, the only entity that will maintain rights are the people who demand that right, which is why we are having this gun debate in the first place. Our 2nd Amendment ends when the people no longer care about the 2nd Amendment.

CAD, I like that you think, but you give way your ignorance of political history and seem a little mixed up as to "why" these rights exist. First, we have amended the Constitution 27 times, with the first 10 being the Bill of Rights in 1791. The remainder do not amend our "rights" per se, but how the government runs (like voting, slavery, etc.). Next, just because internment happened in 1942 and people unconstitutionally lost rights by unilateral executive order (not by a vote of Congress), does not make it legal or moral at all. Finally, the Framers argued that humans are naturally born free and that we create a social contract with the "government" that allows them to govern us IF they protect our natural rights from that chaos of freedom. Chaos meaning that if we all had 100% freedom, we would inevitably then disrupt the liberty and rights of others to some degree (hence laws). Because of this social contract, you could argue that our government actually should lose its power to govern when our rights are infringed upon.