Patrick vows to veto 'stand your ground'

[SecularMotion]

Source: Berkshire Eagle

BOSTON -- Gov. Deval Patrick is vowing to veto a bill that would create a so-called stand your ground law in Massachusetts.

More than two dozen state lawmakers are backing the bill, which mirrors the law at the heart of the debate over the killing of an unarmed black teenager in Florida by a neighborhood watch captain.

State Sen. Stephen Brewer has sponsored the bill for the past five years. The Barre Democrat said his main goal is to protect individuals who defend themselves in public from criminal and civil penalties.

Massachusetts residents already have the right to defend themselves if they’re attacked inside their homes.

Read more: http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_20287223/patrick-vows-veto-stand-your-ground

[geckosfeet]

1. Stand your ground is of limited usefulness when you are restricted to buying

the state approved firearms on the "roster".

There are some decent firearms there, but it represents a small percentage of what is on the market in many other states.

The "roster" is a job killing, income limiting, state sponsored method of extortion.

[Dragonfli]

5. Please explain, I know little of "the roster" or why it is "job killing state sponsored extortion."

I must be wrong, but with so little knowledge of Mass, law and only your post to go on,
I at first took you to mean that unless there were many more types of guns to use to shoot people the law didn't do enough.

That sounds wrong, so please explain so that I may understand your post.

[geckosfeet]

12. The state maintains a "roster" - the list of guns that dealers can sell.

If a dealer sells a gun not on the "roster" he is fined and probably has his license pulled. (There goes at least one job, probably more.)

In order to even be considered for the "roster" a firearm manufacturer has to submit samples and file paperwork to the state. For a manufacturer to actually get on the "roster" their firearm needs to pass the states list of approved safety features. Needless to say, the "roster" represents a fraction of the firearms available in some other states. A lot of manufacturers won't even bother trying to get on the MA "roster". Some manufacturers get 1 or 2 of their best selling firearms on it. And we are not talking about exotic firearms or companies. Colt can't sell in the state. Glock can only sell pre-ban firearms. Springfield will not sell here. Beretta sells the 92, 96 and the Cheetah. There are more.

In any event, manufacturers could potentially sell much more of their product line here, if dealers were allowed to market them. So manufacturers have limited or no sales in MA. Probably not a huge market, but I know they lose sales rather than deal with the states nonsense.

on edit: My point being - that a state that artificially restricts the firearms market has a snowballs chance on the sun of passing a stand your ground law. And I suppose I am glad of that - I think the syg laws are seriously flawed. But then I think the idea of a "roster" is flawed as well.

[Dragonfli]

13. Thank you for the response, I understand you much better now.

You certainly have a point, a very valid one about jobs and sales being chocked in that sector in your state because of such a roster.

I also have a better understanding of how you feel this relates to the SYG legislation, my take now, (please correct me if I am mistaken) is "the law would have had very little effect anyway due to the limited roster of firearms to choose from". That sounds perfectly reasonable if one is a firearms enthusiast, certainly understandable.

I think you overstated the extortion angle, perhaps (in fact most likely) without meaning to. It would only be extortion if the state profited from the exclusionary gun roster regulations. I believe the opposite is true, the state loses revenue because of the limited sales in that sector, so in my opinion that charge is overstated.

On whether or not less gun sales is a good or bad thing, I hope you are one do be able to amicably agree to disagree, I feel less gun sales are better, even if some jobs or revenue is lost, I favor less weaponry in the hands of people as I see it as a temptation to resolve conflicts in a less civilized manner (and in a more deadly manner). I imagine you feel the opposite and neither will ever convince the other. This does not mean we need must be enemies, in fact in Mass. you and your peers and not I will decide these matters as it is not my state.

Thanks again for responding, and your points regarding job and revenue are very good points that can stand on their own.
Peace

[geckosfeet]

14. Perhaps I did overstate the extortion anagle. But it is important to not understate it as well.

There are substantial state imposed cost and regulatory requirements that manufacturers must submit to in order to be permitted to market their firearms in this state. Many manufacturers simply choose not to sell here because of that. The state in fact applies it's ridiculous safety standards to force firearm manufacturers to design to their requirements, then requires them to pay to apply to get on the "roster" to sell in the state. It is in fact a form of extortion.

I am not convinced that fewer sales is good thing. There is more than just the selling of firearms. There are stores and shops that employ salespeople and stock people. Truck drivers that deliver firearms and ammunition. Clubs and ranges that employ people and generate jobs. This is all intimately link to the market.

From the "a less armed society is a safer society" perspective, I might be tempted to agree, however you hand criminals and bad guys a green light when you completely disarm society. It is the proverbial double edged sword. If you don't provide a large and omnipresent police force (read increased taxes and municipal infrastructure) you must allow individuals to protect themselves. You must also allow certain sporting and recreational activities to exist.

I look at Vermont, one of our neighboring states. It has one of the lowest firearm crime and death rates in the country, but also has some of the least regulatory firearm laws.
http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm
http://flowingdata.com/2011/01/19/states-with-the-most-and-least-firearms-murders/

[Warren Stupidity]

17. SYG is an invitation for sociopaths to commit murder and get away with it.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Massachusetts has a very low rate of gun fatalities

And I hope we stay that way.

[krispos42]

10. They also have a very low rate of non-gun fatalities.

I believe it is do to the "plate-o'-spaghetti" system of roads you have there.

"I'd kill that motherfucker... if I could find his house!"







I understand that GPS units have a high suicide rate when they try to operate in Massachusettes.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. The roads in Boston are a riot

Big mess. Took me years to digger out.

[krispos42]

18. I'm convinced that everybody there stays there...

...because all the roads simply lead back to Boston, and they eventually just gave up and bought a house.

[pangaia]

22. Is that why

I haven't been able to find Fenway Park for 20 years? :&gt )

[Dragonfli]

3. I know little of Mass. politics, but I am relieved to hear this

These ALEC laws have more to do with supporting the NRA and Gun maker lobbies than encouraging death.

The reality is however that they amount to a wild west use of firearms to solve conflicts rather than enter at least the 1900's and a more civilized method of solving one's problems than who can draw first or faster, in many ways it is worse than the wild west, back then the other had to be armed if you wished to avoid hanging.

[JI7]

4. does this actually have a chance of even getting to his desk ?

[Fearless]

7. Not if only "two dozen" supporters are found in the Congress.

[KamaAina]

6. "The Barre Democrat"??!!

He must be one of the turncoat DINOs who's part of ALEC, because that's where "stand your ground" is coming from.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Barre is Western MA

Very, very different from Eastern MA.

[Arkana]

24. Barre's actually Central MA, which is different from Western and Eastern MA.

Republicans typically dominate Central MA and the North Shore in state and national cycles, but since Democrats have a death grip on Northampton, Springfield, Amherst, the Cape, and (most importantly) Boston, they usually take the west, east, and a lot of the Cape towns.

[JDPriestly]

8. Good news. The law does not work in many situations.

Bar fights are an example. Two people are in a public place. They both have the right to be there. It is often very difficult to determine who started the brawl. And if one brawler has a gun . . . . . it gets really ugly.

[roguevalley]

9. a sane governor. yea!

[grantcart]

11. I hope that he stands his ground on this.

[jpak]

19. Backlash

yup

[Herlong]

20. Voters should stand their ground

n/t

[onehandle]

21. Good. Fuck the NRA. nt

[Arkana]

23. Jesus fuck, Brewer's my senator and he's pushing this.

The sick part is that the people that vote for him would support it.

For anyone who doesn't know, Steve Brewer receives around 80% of the vote in every election because no one will challenge him--so he gets away with this crap.