HR 4269

[Slipknot]

we already register guns in this state, I don't see how it will help anything at all if it is enforced acrosss the country for all existing guns. Do you think criminals are going to register their guns?
read the link above by ezduzitgood


registration is the first step the government needs to then disarm us law abiding citizens.
I don't want to see our country end up like Australia




Australian Gun Law Update;
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria.....alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....'

You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.
DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.
BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON 'T STAND FOR NONSENSE
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I don't want to see our country end up like Australia

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-in-australia/

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;1089921]http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-in-australia/[/QUOTE

Did you write that Snopes article ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

spin numbers all you want
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
a simple fact, check it with snopes



In Lexington of all places, there is a guy proposing a ban on certain weapons he refers to as the made up term of assault weapons.
Figures he's from Harvard University

here is what I found

Dear Fellow Town Meeting Members and other Concerned Citizens:



For all of the obvious reasons, and because Lexington has first mover advantage and responsibilities, I have submitted a Citizen’s Article to the Warrant to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity gun magazines within the Town of Lexington. I hope that it will have your support now, and when the article comes before Town Meeting in March.



The proposed legislation will be modeled strictly on an ordinance enacted by Highland Park, IL (a suburb of Chicago) in 2013, approved in a Federal district court there, and by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, implicitly suggesting that local town and city bans on large scale weaponry do not impinge on Second Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution, and are permissible despite its ruling in Miller in 2014. The U.S. has a long tradition of regulating weapons at the local level – think Dodge City, Kansas, and Tombstone, Ariz., not to mention Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.



The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court’s welcome inaction in the Highland Park case was the seventieth time since 2008 that the Court has declined to consider a challenge to state or local gun regulation. “This creates a big opportunity,” it said, “for Americans to put pressure on their…local leaders.”



As Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park and candidate for Congress wrote recently, the Supreme Court’s decision encourages “other cities and villages across the nation to follow our lead and pursue assault weapons without the threat of legal action under the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.” She also wrote: “One piece of legislation is not going to prevent every gun violence tragedy, but with courageous leadership, we can take steps to protect American lives.” I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.



My proposed amendment to Chapter 97 of the Code of Lexington (Public Conduct) would in no way affect ordinary gun or hand-gun ownership in Lexington. It would, however, prohibit the possession within town limits of assault weapons – semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to accept large capacity magazines. (The proposed article would specify in great detail exactly what kinds of weapons and magazines were covered.) The Highland Park legislation enumerates the brands outlawed. Large capacity magazines are defined as holding ten or more rounds.



Assault weapons do not include antique weapons. Citizens of the town would still be able to bear arms, just not weapons of mass murder.



I have consulted with the Selectmen, the Town Manager (and Town Counsel), the Moderator, and the Chief of Police. Everyone has been very helpful.



I will welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions for improvement, and so on, but, please as few NRA rants as possible. This proposal will, I hope, attract widespread support from TM voters and from citizens of the Town. It is the least we can do to try to limit harm.



Robert I. Rotberg


so if you live in Lexington, protect your constitutional rights and let your town know this should not be considered.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

spin numbers all you want
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
a simple fact, check it with snopes



In Lexington of all places, there is a guy proposing a ban on certain weapons he refers to as the made up term of assault weapons.
Figures he's from Harvard University

here is what I found

Dear Fellow Town Meeting Members and other Concerned Citizens:



For all of the obvious reasons, and because Lexington has first mover advantage and responsibilities, I have submitted a Citizen’s Article to the Warrant to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity gun magazines within the Town of Lexington. I hope that it will have your support now, and when the article comes before Town Meeting in March.



The proposed legislation will be modeled strictly on an ordinance enacted by Highland Park, IL (a suburb of Chicago) in 2013, approved in a Federal district court there, and by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, implicitly suggesting that local town and city bans on large scale weaponry do not impinge on Second Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution, and are permissible despite its ruling in Miller in 2014. The U.S. has a long tradition of regulating weapons at the local level – think Dodge City, Kansas, and Tombstone, Ariz., not to mention Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.



The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court’s welcome inaction in the Highland Park case was the seventieth time since 2008 that the Court has declined to consider a challenge to state or local gun regulation. “This creates a big opportunity,” it said, “for Americans to put pressure on their…local leaders.”



As Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park and candidate for Congress wrote recently, the Supreme Court’s decision encourages “other cities and villages across the nation to follow our lead and pursue assault weapons without the threat of legal action under the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.” She also wrote: “One piece of legislation is not going to prevent every gun violence tragedy, but with courageous leadership, we can take steps to protect American lives.” I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.



My proposed amendment to Chapter 97 of the Code of Lexington (Public Conduct) would in no way affect ordinary gun or hand-gun ownership in Lexington. It would, however, prohibit the possession within town limits of assault weapons – semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to accept large capacity magazines. (The proposed article would specify in great detail exactly what kinds of weapons and magazines were covered.) The Highland Park legislation enumerates the brands outlawed. Large capacity magazines are defined as holding ten or more rounds.



Assault weapons do not include antique weapons. Citizens of the town would still be able to bear arms, just not weapons of mass murder.



I have consulted with the Selectmen, the Town Manager (and Town Counsel), the Moderator, and the Chief of Police. Everyone has been very helpful.



I will welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions for improvement, and so on, but, please as few NRA rants as possible. This proposal will, I hope, attract widespread support from TM voters and from citizens of the Town. It is the least we can do to try to limit harm.



Robert I. Rotberg


so if you live in Lexington, protect your constitutional rights and let your town know this should not be considered.

I wonder when, if ever an "assault weapon " was used to commit a murder in Lexington .
Man has that place changed in the last few hundred years .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-in-australia/

Yes, because what works in Australia, would necessarily work the same here. Because Australia is exactly like the US, Australia has just as many blacks, and shares a similar open border with Mexico, right?

We don't have a problem here in the US with Australian immigrants committing a lot of crime. Our violent crime is predominantly taking place within population cells which have no socioeconomic counterpart in Australia.

Spence, gun ownership is huge in South Dakota, yet there is almost zero gun crime. Gun ownership is very low in Chicago, yet every weekend looks like a re-enactment of D-Day at Omaha Beach.

There is one, and exactly one, reason for these facts...cultural values (or lack thereof) will ultimately determine crime rates, moreso than the existence of guns.

There's also that pesky Constitution. Despite what the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave believes, we don't get to ignore the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like. Australia, as far as I know, isn't bound by the same constitution.

Encourage people in Chicago to behave more like people in South Dakota, and then it doesn't matter if everyone owns a machine gun. Liberal policies have the exact opposite effect, they have incentivized exactly what we are seeing in Chicago every weekend.

When you plant potatoes, you get potatoes. For reasons that I will never grasp, liberals cannot comprehend that notion.