Home > New Proposal Will Force Gun Owners to Store Assault Weapons At Government Authorized Storage Depots
Print

New Proposal Will Force Gun Owners to Store Assault Weapons At Government Authorized Storage Depots

January 18th, 2013

government congressBecause you can never have too many laws, regulations and mandates, Massachusetts State Representative David Linsky has filed a new bill that would, among other things, force gun owners to undergo mental health background checks, acquire liability insurance, pay an additional 25% tax on all forms of ammunition, and require firearms categorized as “assault weapons” to be stored outside of their homes and only at government approved storage depots.

“This bill is a comprehensive effort to reduce all types of gun violence – murders, intentional shootings, accidental shootings and suicides.  There is not one solution to reducing gun violence – we can’t eliminate it – but there are a lot of common-sense steps that we can take to significantly reduce the everyday tragedy of gun violence and deaths,” said Linsky.

Have you ever wondered how billionaires continue to get RICHER, while the rest of the world is struggling?


"I study billionaires for a living. To be more specific, I study how these investors generate such huge and consistent profits in the stock markets -- year-in and year-out."

CLICK HERE to get your Free E-Book, “The Little Black Book Of Billionaires Secrets”

“I have spoken with hundreds of people over the past few weeks in developing this legislation – victims, police officers, criminologists, physicians, and yes – gun owners and sportsmen,” stated Linsky. “There are a lot of good ideas out there. We should all have one goal – reducing gun violence and trying to keep more tragedies from happening.”

Provisions in the bill include:

  • 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.
  • Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.
  • Requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges.
  • Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course; this is not a current requirement.
  • Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.
  • Imposes 25% sales tax on ammunition, firearms, shotguns, and rifles; dedicates funds towards firearms licensing, police training, mental health services, and victim’s services.
  •  Brings Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
  • Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month.

Source: Natick Patch

Bills such as this one are being filed by irrationally driven anti-gunners all over the country.

They are targeting every aspect of firearms in an effort to first reduce ownership, and then to ultimately ban it altogether.

They’ll expand the definitions for mental health to include basic forms of stress and normal human mood fluctuations and designate these as mental health conditions that would disqualify you from owning a gun.

They’ll tax gun purchases and ammunition like they’ve done with cigarettes (tripling the cost over a decade) and require huge insurance premiums, making ownership unaffordable for most Americans.

They’ll track the sale and transfer of all firearms through registration, with unjust punishments for anyone engaging in black-market trading.

And, eventually, another crisis – likely one that purports to threaten the very security and stability of the government of the United States – will be used in an attempt institute a complete roundup of the majority of modern firearms.

A full out assault on the Second Amendment is underway.

This article is brought to you courtesy of Mac Slavo.


Economy, Government



Tags: , , , ,

Facebook Comments

Comments



  1. Tony
    January 19th, 2013 at 21:16 | #1

    @ harvey sweeny. I was in the usmc. If the swat comes to take mine i will kill a minimum of 3 before they drone strike my house and kill me and my kids and wife. But there are atleast a million marines and former marines that will do just as me. At that rate. 3million king obama nazis will die to the 1million of us. GOOD LUCK WINNING LIKE THAT KING OBAMA. COME GET SOME!!!!!!

  2. Tony
    January 19th, 2013 at 21:12 | #2

    @ted blair. Join the military. …. The reason for the “civilan armory” is to deny the public accsess to their firearms for whatever reason they want to. Wake up. This is how people lose their rights and end up in concentration camps to die by the millions.

  3. January 19th, 2013 at 12:03 | #3

    The people that come up with these hair brain ideas must be on drugs.

  4. Dave
    January 19th, 2013 at 08:33 | #4

    Hmmm…”Linsky”…
    I think he’s of the same “chosen” tribe that are dedicated to disarming the Goyim (they call us cattle), but have no qualms about Israeli’s owning machineguns.
    Ironically, the same group of control freaks kicked off the Russian revolution which ended up killing 8 million Russian Christians, but just don’t expect to see a movie about that much larger, unembellished holocaust by Steven “Spielberg” or Roman “Polanksi”.

  5. Dave Mowers
    January 19th, 2013 at 06:23 | #5

    That is a fair compromise and I agree with everything in his bill. If your actions or the actions of persons such as drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, thieves affect society then society has the right to regulate your behavior. If people use guns to murder other people then guns need to be regulated; end of story. Accept reality and become part of the 21st century. This is not 1776 anymore. Criminals will always get around laws that is what they do but we should not make it easier for them and we should be vigilant on the mental health issue which is ironically a Bush Administration policy initiative for all you hater-Rethuglicans.

  6. escapefromobamastan
    January 19th, 2013 at 01:29 | #6

    I think those that want to ban firearms should move to another country. The Second Amendment and our God given right to self protection is non-negotiable.

  7. davidgmills
    January 19th, 2013 at 00:15 | #7

    I like the idea of civilian armories. I think the rest of the law probably goes too far; but civilian armories may be a means of preserving the right to keep military style weapons — the kind needed to fight a tyrannical government.

    And if there were thousands of them across the country, the government would have little means of shutting them down. In addition, since the civilian armories would really be designed to combat a tyrannical government, they might also be a place where other types of arms — say stinger missiles — could be kept. Maybe then this kind of weaponry would no longer be outlawed if there were a safe place to store them.

  8. Ted Blair
    January 18th, 2013 at 21:17 | #8

    Linsky, another one of those Trojan Horse dual citizens who Helen Thomas said should go back to Eastern Europe where they come from.

  9. oldranger68
    January 18th, 2013 at 19:29 | #9

    One word: Civildisobedience!

  10. Audrey Unruh
    January 18th, 2013 at 19:11 | #10

    To put it politely, this guy needs to screw himself, and read the second amendment to the constitution. The amendment was put there so that people are allowed to have guns to protect themselves from their own government.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Copyright 2009-2013 MarketDailyNews.COM

LOG