Massachusetts Lawmakers Weigh Confiscatory Gun Bill

Massachusetts Statehouse. (Photo: Shaun Ganley/WCVB)

The Massholes who run Massachusetts never seem to get tired of trying to stick it to the state’s gun owners. Just think about Attorney General Maura Healey. As the chief law enforcement officer, she has made it her personal mission to chill gun rights in every possible way, from freezing sales on black rifles to handing out fines to mom and pop gun dealers to launching “consumer safety” investigations into major gun manufacturers.

But she’s not alone. Enter Democratic state Rep. David Linsky. This clown lawmaker recently introduced a bill (H.3081) that would allow people to petition judges to confiscate one’s firearms under an “extreme risk protective order.”

Say you’re going through a nasty divorce and your ex wants to hit you where it hurts. All she has to do is tell a judge that you are “experiencing a personal crisis” and are at “risk of dangerous behavior” and in comes the nanny-state jackboots to snatch up your guns for at least 10 days! Now, a judge can prolong the order for up to a year if he or she wishes. Needless to say, if you get an anti-gun judge, you’re screwed!

“If someone is having a temporary mental health problem but is a firearms owner, this will be a mechanism for mental health providers to temporarily get those guns out of their hands,” Linsky told The Associated Press.

Linsky’s bill, which currently has 32 co-sponsors is nothing more than a way to circumvent Due Process. Instead of abiding by the U.S. Constitution that requires one to have a fair shake in court before their lawfully owned property is apprehended, lawmakers want to confiscate today and litigate tomorrow. That’s not the way the system works nor the way the system is designed to work.

“We’re actually pretty concerned about the bill. I think it’s an extraordinarily dangerous bill in terms of civil rights and public safety,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts. “It’s a sound bite.”

Indeed, it is a sound bite. The reality is that if someone is a real danger to themselves or others there is a way to deal with that individual. Notify law enforcement! If that individual has committed a crime or if there is a preponderance of the evidence that the individual intends to commit a crime then law enforcement will make an arrest and place that individual in jail. If that individual is on the verge of mental collapse with suicidal ideations, law enforcement will likely remand that individual to a mental health facility for psychiatric evaluation.  Or, as a concerned family member or friend, you can talk to that individual (there’s a novel idea, actually communicating with someone) and assist them in getting them the help that they need.  Point is, there are already many paths to helping individuals in need.

SEE ALSO: Justice Prevails: California DOJ Forced to Return 500+ Guns to FFL Dealer

What we can’t do is order law enforcement to lock someone away or take someone’s property on an unsubstantiated hunch or spite-filled accusation from a relative or friend or ex-spouse. Linsky’s bill would, in effect, create a system where that is possible under the “extreme risk protective order.”

There’s also another flaw with the bill, that is even if it does what it’s supposed to do, it doesn’t guarantee that the individual receives help or treatment.

“We’re labeling someone an extreme risk and taking their civil rights away and letting them walk away? That’s a horrific situation,” said Wallace. “We’re ignoring the human element. We’re ignoring the situation. There are a lot of other ways they can hurt themselves and others.”

Right, just because you’ve confiscated one’s firearms doesn’t mean the individual won’t jump off a bridge or steal a truck and run over a crowd of teens outside a shopping mall. The end goal ought to be getting those struggling with mental health issues the help that they need and putting bad guys behind bars yet Linsky’s bill is less concerned about that than it is focused on confiscating firearms. We need to get the guns, we need to get the guns, we need to get the guns!

What this all boils down to is a nanny-state gun grab. Dangerous people have guns, aahhhhhh! What can we do to stop them? I know, let’s shred the Constitution and lower the evidentiary bar for what constitutes a dangerous person and start grabbing guns from everyone! If we’re wrong, who cares, those dreaded gun owners can always get their firearms back after a lengthy and costly appeal in court.

Yeah, that’s the mindset we’re dealing with.  The government is always looking for ways to maximize “public safety” at the cost of individual freedoms. For politicians, anyone with a gun is a threat.  Therefore, everyone with a gun is a target.  Which is why they keep dreaming up new ways to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

We’ll keep you posted on the status of Linsky’s bill.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • GERRY C. January 17, 2020, 8:42 am

    This article is so old, it is ludicrous for it to still be on here. The law that is “proposed” here is no longer a proposed law, it is actual law now in Massachusetts…….I know,,,,,,I live there. Get some current info going on this site, not links to ancient history!

  • Earl Haehl September 27, 2019, 7:34 pm

    You would think that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would have learned from what happened when the Governor ordered a confiscation of firearms in 1775. Actually one could make an argument was that the primary mission was the arrest of Sam Adams and John Hancock who were on their way to Philadelphia. Also they would pick up a cache of weapons, powder and ball that was stashed at Concord.In Lexington, 800 grenadiers and marines were distracted by 40 to 60 armed subjects on the green while Paul Revere loaded Adams\’ and Hancock\’s luggage in a carriage and saw them off to the south.When they arrived at Concord, there were colonists from all over MIddlesex County which changed the dynamic of force because i have read estimates from 900 to 1200. Also recall that among the colonists were veterans of the French and Indian Wars.Imagine a SWAT operation where it went really bad. This was the trigger that changed the American Revolution from petition to open war. On the way back to Boston muskets and ammunition were picket up by colonists to augment their supplies,

  • Earl Haehl September 27, 2019, 7:30 pm

    You would think that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would have learned from what happened when the Governor ordered a confiscation of firearms in 1775. Actually one could make an argument was that the primary mission was the arrest of Sam Adams and John Hancock who were on their way to Philadelphia. Also they would pick up a cache of weapons, powder and ball that was stashed at Concord.

    In Lexington, 800 grenadiers and marines were distracted by 40 to 60 armed subjects on the green while Paul Revere loaded Adams’ and Hancock’s luggage in a carriage and saw them off to the south.

    When they arrived at Concord, there were colonists from all over MIddlesex County which changed the dynamic of force because i have read estimates from 900 to 1200. Also recall that among the colonists were veterans of the French and Indian Wars.

    Imagine a SWAT operation where it went really bad. This was the trigger that changed the American Revolution from petition to open war. On the way back to Boston muskets and ammunition were picket up by colonists to augment their supplies,

  • loupgarous December 1, 2017, 5:27 am

    What part of “The Second Amendment defines a civil right” don’t people like Rep. David Linsky get? Change his bill to allow judges to suspend or remove the right to free speech, to be secure in your property (one thing the Linsky bill violates), to decline to testify against yourself, and so on, all the way down the Bill of Rights, and the problem is clear.
    The right to keep and bear arms is a “worst case scenario civil right” – an right that is despised and hated by a significant number of people in our nation, just as the freedom to peaceably assemble and speak out against government policy was unpopular by nearly half the citizens of the USA in the early 1960s – an antipathy that led to civil rights abuses by the FBI and local police agencies. The Second Amendment is that canary in a coal mine that shows us when all of our liberties are in danger.
    Liberals assured us all through the twentieth century they were for civil rights – except when they wanted to sterilize some of us for being the wrong color, for having intelligence outside of a certain acceptable range (in my native state of Louisiana, having an IQ at or above ‘genius’ level was a legal reason to be sterilized against your will), until the Nazis demonstrated where eugenics ultimately leads. Margaret Sanger was a “progressive”, sort of Big Mother, who wanted to abort black fetuses , sterilize blacks and eliminate them and other ethnic groups from the American populace.
    The fact is, Massachusetts is a hotbed of liberalism in which all civil rights are in deep jeopardy. If politicians can deprive you of a civil right defended in TWO landmark Supreme Court decisions this century, they can go after all of your civil rights. Conservatives and libertarians have a common interest in defending everyone’s civil rights – all of them. People like Michael Bloomberg show we can’t depend on liberals to protect our civil rights. They’ve usually dedicated themselves to destroying civil rights for most people.
    C.S. Lewis once said “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
    If you read the comment spaces under, say, articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Huffington Post and the articles above them, you see the liberal mindset as Lewis described it – seeing the rest of us in this country as having no more rights than farm animals. The reporters writing in the articles may be more artful in how they say it, but their fans in the comment spaces are the liberal id, its fetid, unwashed psychological crotch, tumescent with hatred and contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their opinions. Gun owners are among their favorite targets, because the haters of the Left have been taught by the mainstream media to hate and fear us. Eventually they elect a Rep. David Linsky to do the dirty work they tell us on the Internet they want to do to us.
    Articles like this put us on our guard. I want all of my civil rights. I do not want David Linsky or his spiritual siblings deciding for me which of my civil rights I can do without. Thanks for letting us know when people like him are trying to rob us of what our friends, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers have sacrificed and died to give us.

    • Jon Peckat December 3, 2019, 1:23 pm

      Well said patriot. These “Civil Rights” come from God not man or government.

  • BR549 April 15, 2017, 1:57 pm

    The reason all these liberal asswipes are so eager to violate other people’s boundaries is because they have such poor personal boundaries of their own. It comes as the result of dysfunctional upbringing ….. but don’t tell them that; that throw a hissy fit and assault you for even suggesting that they were somehow socially and emotionally unstable.They’re all hypocrites.

  • The Observer April 14, 2017, 7:27 pm

    They are trying to do the same thing in Illinois. I doubt it will pass because there are too many downstate DemonRats whose constituents are very pro-gun. It is the Chitcago sphincters are are promoting this.

  • Todd April 14, 2017, 6:12 pm

    Serving their constituency…. or as my Niece loves to say: “Not my circus, not my monkeys.” I have lived in Mass, Minnesota AND California – now, I don’t.

    The article was well written and informative but look to resisting things like; “Massholes, the line-struck “clown” or “chill” as a verb. The level of the writing for omitting only those three would rise a couple-three degrees.


  • mike April 14, 2017, 5:23 pm

    the problem with Massachusetts is there are not eneough gun owners there. The majority of its citizens despise guns and gun owners. It is also a blue state, republicans are outnumbered. Mass has some of the toughest gunlaws. You can NOT buy AR15 or AK47 there. Maura Healey has banned them. New or used….you cannot buy one. thats the truth!

  • Jay S Leonard April 14, 2017, 3:56 pm

    Time to remind these “MASSHOLES” who exactly they work for…..Vote them out!!!!

  • James Summers April 14, 2017, 3:46 pm

    Why cry and whimper.
    Petition for recall of the politico that does not follow what the PEOPLE want.
    Start up petitions letting the state government you are holding the ELECTED officals responsible for their actions.
    Get every gun owner, hunter, shop owner rallying behind the petitions and blanket the state government.
    Or just hide in a corner and make noises like a person.

  • Silverbullet April 14, 2017, 3:37 pm

    The people vote these asses in , the only way your going to win is vote them out. Term limits will take a complete takeover to be put in use. But as long we let them rule as they want it’s our fault. They get millions in kickbacks , side deals for government contracts. Till all these are addressed there money and power remains. You have to follow the money.

  • Neil April 14, 2017, 1:41 pm

    Taking your guns away in Mass. is nothing new. I went through a brutal divorce in 1994 while living there. My ex kept getting phony 209A orders from several courts. I’d get one thrown out, and she’d petition another court for another. I finally fled that crazy place for Arizona in 2000. The Police would take your guns, and send them to a bonded warehouse. You would be charged an exorbitant amount to store them. The idea being you could no longer afford to store them, so the warehouse would buy them for pennies on the dollar. They never got my guns, as I had them hidden. I get nightmares thinking about those days.

  • Howard K April 14, 2017, 12:59 pm

    Hell the Oregon legislature is trying the same thing.

  • Grant Stevens April 14, 2017, 12:21 pm

    Firearms ownership in America is not a privilege bestowed by government, it is a God-given right to be protected by government. Every politician in every state of the Union who introduces or supports legislation that infringes on the unalienable right of American citizens to keep and bear arms should be immediately removed from office and tried for treason. Until we the people start holding politicians accountable with more than just our votes, our hard-won liberties will continue to be tread upon by these enemies of the Republic. There should be no compromise and no quarter given politicians who violate their oaths to the Constitution of the United States. Such tyranny must have severe consequences. The issue of firearms ownership in America was settled more than 240 years ago. Politicians who are ignorant of this fact need to take a remedial course in American History before they force the tree of liberty to be refreshed.

  • Kalashnikov Dude April 14, 2017, 12:17 pm

    Yes. The bill is dangerous. But the politicians behind it are criminal and need to be held accountable for their crimes, as well as made to surrender their titles and offices. We can do it the easy way, regular channels of accountability the system has built in. Ballots first and foremost. Then investigations, charges, and sentences. Or we can do it the hard way. Pitchforks, torches, and rope. Your choice. One thing that surely will not happen is hard working, ordinary citizens being made into criminals with the stroke of a pen. Because regardless of their elected and appointed positions these dirt bags cannot change the highest law of our land which clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s there for all to see and will be for all time. That is the authority on which I will stand when I shoot in the face anybody attempting to illegally disarm me under any illegal legislation made by these outlaw politicians and judges. Think I’m kidding? Try me.

    • The Observer April 14, 2017, 7:23 pm

      “Pitchforks, torches, and rope. Your choice.”

      Actually use all three. Rope around there neck, run them through with pitchforks, then soak them in gasoline. As you “light them up”, kick the stool they had been standing on just as they are engulfed in flames. Make sure you have cameras recording the event from three different angles to post later on the internet. I would think it would give pause to any other neo-communist pinko gun grabber thinking of violating my birth right to self-defense.

      Just a thought. 🙂

    • Dan April 24, 2017, 1:07 pm

      Dude. I’m glad that you said elected or appointed. I’m glad to see you stand for what many people believe is the law. I think what many people forget is that the constitution is an amended document, thusly 2a. To stand on the amendment alone would imply that felons have the right to keep and bear arms. Generally speaking, they gave up that right when they violated the law. Yes, the constitution itself will remain unchanged. Amendments to it will never go away. Right now, four of the largest cities in the US have laws in place that say that you may own legal firearms, however you can not keep them in that county. Cook County was one such place until recently. As I read the constitution and its amendments, this looks like a direct violation of my constitutional right, thus illegal. When you make such strong statements you are likely going to lose any defense you may be due because you have stated premeditation. Please do yourself a favor so that we can continue to have your strong voice and advocacy, don’t make such public statements as shooting somebody in the face. You will have lost before your voice would be heard. You matter to those of us who follow the law. Be safe !

  • hortonhearsaretard April 14, 2017, 11:07 am

    I mean, the thing about the “mom and pop” shops being fined was about a gun dealer being fined for selling weapons illegal in the state. I don’t agree that Glock products should be banned, or that those laws help anyone, but if you blatantly violate the law, you’re going to get in trouble for it, and that’s exactly what they did. Marijuana is pretty harmless, and I don’t agree with the laws banning its cultivation and sale. But, if you sell weed in a state that doesn’t allow it, you’re going to go to prison. We are a nation of laws, and you don’t get to pick and choose which ones you follow.

  • Deadmeat99 April 14, 2017, 10:31 am

    The idiot Democrats in Nevada are pushing an identical bill right now. They are also advocating for medical marijuana users to get CCW permits, a clear federal felony, but they simply don’t care about inconvenient existing law. Isn’t it interesting how these liberal fascists all seem to get the same tyrannical idea at the same time? It’s almost as if there is some sort of coordination or higher level group pulling the strings behind the scenes…

    • Mark N. April 17, 2017, 1:30 am

      Felony? What felony? If you are a habitual user of marijuana, you are not qualified to purchase a firearm through an FFL, specifically because of a single question on the 4473. However, there is nothing in federal law that says that you cannot buy a firearm through a private sale in states that allow them, where there is no requirement for a 4473. Further, there is no law that I am aware of that says that people who use drugs are disabled from owning firearms, as long as the acquisition of the firearm was otherwise lawful, such as building your own or a private sale. Now, there are some states, such as California and a few others, that require a 4473 for every transfer, and in those states a buyer would have an issue except for exempt firearms (muzzle stuffers). California is also cracking down on homemade firearms, requiring the passing of a background check and the acquisition of a state-issued and mandates serial number prior to starting the manufacture of any firearm. Nevada has no such restrictions, at least not that I am aware of.
      Not that I have a dog in this fight, as I don’t smoke, drink, or enjoy “recreational” (but illegal) drugs.

  • Al April 14, 2017, 9:50 am

    I left Danvers Massachusetts in February of 1966 to serve in the Viet Nam War. My Federal government trained me in the use of firearms and furnished several different weapons to accomplish my assignments. After serving 6 years of active duty for my beloved USA I was discharged because the war was winding down in 1972. After watching current Massachusetts politicians and reading stories like this one, I am extremely happy I never went “home” after the war. These politician need to wake up and understand that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Guns are only one of many tools of choice. Other tools of choice are becoming more popular for terrorist use; cars, trucks, pressure cookers, and kitchen knives have been used in recent terrorist attacks. Will those be confiscated next?

  • Don T April 14, 2017, 9:39 am

    North and N.W. Florida has plenty of land and fairly cheap real estate. Why not leave these crap hole states and let them collapse? Sure you may make a little more per hour but you have to deal with massive taxes, congestion and great politicians. Just a thought???

  • John April 14, 2017, 8:44 am

    As long as the people in Mass. continue to elect people like E. Warren there is no telling what crazy type laws will come in the future. People in Mass. should take a good look at what they are electing or you will need a special permit to wipe you butt in the future

  • Allen April 14, 2017, 8:22 am

    A long time ago, I was taught that Boston was the “Cradle of Liberty.” Not so much now. Perhaps it should be the Cradle of Oppression.

  • Luke April 14, 2017, 7:52 am

    Wow. The longer I live in, the more insane people seem. We’ve always had radical thought here. Hell, the Revolutionary War was started by a radical attitude held by many and acted on by very few. And, IT seemed crazy to most people at the time. I dunno’. It sure seems though that life here has been too soft for too long and people’s brains are turning to jello by not having enough to do: obsession is the new norm and women with law books and a badge seem to be the worse for it. Anyway, gotta’ love it when things don’t go as planned for wing nuts of every stripe.

  • JGlnNJ April 14, 2017, 6:54 am

    A lot of anti-gun sentiment comes from people scared about domestic violence. If I recall in one country a gun law was passed or was considered or was valid for some years that required a permit to purchase a gun, and one of the requirements was for a male to get permissions signed from ex-girlfriends going back several years. Of course we know that there are plenty of lethal items to worry about. But overall, would it not be better to focus our resources on reducing the levels of domestic violence rather than try to restrict the guns, knives, cars, flammable materials, construction tools, farm equipment, pillows and poisonous household chemicals that can be used to deliberately injure?

  • Al April 14, 2017, 6:27 am

    I’m in MA and used to this nonsense, but this is stepping way beyond their normal crazy boundaries. 100% agree all this equates to is “confiscate today and litigate tomorrow”.

    But I will note as far as your suggested remedy, there is actually nothing you or I could do to get law enforcement to apprehend anyone who is mentally ill and poses a risk, WITHOUT a) them committing an actual crime b) having detailed, evidenced plans that show they intend to commit
    an act of terror or c) you filing false charges against them that they committed a pretty heavy crime. Otherwise they will not be detained by law enforcement no matter how much you tell them they’re mentally unstable. We tried before just to get our friend help he needed since he won’t voluntarily commit himself.

  • Brenten Stevens April 14, 2017, 6:08 am

    Well I’m not surprised corrupt politicians are protecting them self over the people’s rights because they are “Special” . Every country missing gun ownership always becomes quickly a socialist country of flat out dictator run country and every citizen is a slave to the crown nothing more . 🤔🤔🤔

  • Mark N. April 13, 2017, 8:55 pm

    The author’s position is supported neither by logic nor the law. Sorry about that.
    1. If one has a spiteful about to be ex, that spouse already has the option of seeking a DVTRO (domestic violence temporary restraining order) which allows the police, on an ex parte basis (i.e. solely on the affidavit of the other spouse) to seize one’s guns until a hearing can be held to determine if there have been threats of harm. And such TROs can be made, after a hearing, permanent or very very long. That is a far more effective tool than one of these temporary orders.
    2. These temporary orders DO NOT violate due process. This issue has been directly raised in all or ,most all states, and the Supreme Court, and the due process argument has never prevailed. The reasons for this are two fold. One, they are temporary orders, and they can only be issued upon probable cause based on sworn testimony or affidavits. Second, all of these orders set a formal hearing in a short period of time after issuance, usually no more than 21 days. If the subject of the order is not served (which happens quite a bit with DVTROs) the order automatically expires. If there is service, the subject is entitled to a hearing on the merits, which hearing includes all of the usual features, such as the right to be represented by counsel, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to present evidence. Those rights comply with the incidents of due process of law.
    3. These orders originated in California, and are intended as a supplement to the power of the police/courts to order an individual who presents a serious risk of injury to him/herself or others to be held involuntarily for a psychiatric evaluation. There are many cases in which individuals can appear quite rational such that the police are unwilling to detain; this permits the close family to remove the incidents of self-destruction.

    Do these orders work? I doubt it. There are other ways of committing suicide. But that is a political question.

Send this to a friend