Here is what all this is leading to,

David Linsky, a legislator from Natick has proposed a "gun control" bill at state level that:

·         Having one standard of the issuance of all gun licenses, giving local police chiefs the ability to evaluate all aspects of an application for a gun license.

Local Police Chiefs deciding who gets a permit?  They already do this.  In some towns, no one gets a permit.  In others a permit with restrictions.  This is obviously a system that is ripe for abuse and is in fact abused by some Chiefs.  State law currently says that a decision has to be made in 40 days.  Some towns take almost a year, sending prospective license applicants a clear message:  Do not bother to apply.

And just what are "all aspects" according to Linsky?  Obviously anything that a Police Chief can dream up, or Linsky can think of.

·         Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

Does Linsky think that criminals are going to take out insurance on their illegal firearms?  This does absolutely nothing to prevent Sandy Hook type shootings or prevent criminals from using guns.  It is nothing more than an attempt to make it more difficult to legitmately own a firearm.

·         Requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges.

Here it is, the "gun grab".  Notice that he has boldly included guns that were legally obtained (grandfathered).  They would have to be stored at gun clubs or target ranges.  Very convenient for his next move of totally banning them, and having the state pick them up at central locations.  Also notice that since guns must be registered in this state, Linsky would no doubt make use of that registry to harass gun owners.  This is exactly why gun owners and the NRA do not want a National registry of guns, it leads to moves like this one.

·         Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course; this is not a current requirement.

On the surface this looks good and even reasonable.  However, once Linsky starts writing "regulations" to enact this provision, the standards can be set so high that virtually no one would be able to "qualify" for a license.  Also, the fees for such training could become very prohibitive for the less affluent.  This is actually a civil rights violation.

·         Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.

What a neat way to violate the 4th amendment!  To excercise a constitutional right, a person must give up another constitutional right (privacy).  Linsky neatly covers his invasive tracks by stating they would be destroyed after the violation of rights occured.  How nice of Comrade Linsky.

·         Imposes 25% sales tax on ammunition, firearms, shotguns, and rifles; dedicates funds towards firearms licensing, police training, mental health services, and victim’s services.

Here we go, we just knew that MA was going to profit somehow from all this. Dedicates funds towards licensing?  The VAST majority of states do not have licensing!  How about MA getting in line with the other states?  Police training?  Really?  Would that be training in how to bust down doors of legal gun owners to see if their "assault weapons" had been moved to "gun clubs"?  Why would legal gun owners have to start paying for crimes committed by criminals via "victim's services"?  We have had a long standing tradition in this country that a person can only sue a responsible party.  Comrade Linsky neatly sidesteps this practice and law.

Linsky could care less about hunters, people interested in defending themselves or the constitution of this country.  He wants to grab guns and does not care how he does it.  Rights are something that get in his way.

If you gun haters wonder why the NRA fights so hard, blocks every attempt to change gun laws, look no further than the Linsky's of this country.  They are the future, and about 100 million gun owners do not like the Linsky's.

I view the proposal concerning liability differently from the way you do. 

I already live with the requirement of carrying auto liability insurance in Massachusetts.  Given that law, is there any reason to think that you should not be held similarly responsible for securing your guns and for the consequences of their use?   

To me, that's a lot different from infringing your right to own one. 

The Feds can find out how many blood thinners I request per year because these drugs are dangerous in the wrong hands. The NRA has successfully blocked any registry or simple list of Tyne guns I own. Plus, I can buy what guns I want at a gun show. The gun lobby will win by scanning the flames, but think of how many innocent people would have died at Gabby Giffords public appearance had the Good Guys been all holstered up!