HARRYM
NES Member
GOAL - Home
www.goal.org
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
2023 MA Gun Ban: House has engrossed H.4139, waiting on Senate
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
www.goal.org
It's not listed on the site yet, but it will be.
Thanks, it's in GardnerGOAL - Home
It doesn't even have a bill number yet. What committee has it?
Mesatchornug
NES Member
House Ways and Means with the Judiciary.
Per the above GOAL page:
I just signed up to speak virtually.
LTCRN
NES Member
How is gun control working for them now and how will it in the future? Answer: IT AIN'T! Only a fool thinks it does or will!
Exactly!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,616
- Likes
- 33,738
I have not read the entire thread, but a couple of points from a quick skim of the bill:
Firearms and ammunition not disposed of within 1 year following of delivery or surrender pursuant to this section shall be sold at public auction by the colonel of the state police to the highest bidding person legally permitted to purchase and possess said firearms and ammunition and the proceeds shall be remitted to the General Fund.
My guess is they will declare it "dealers only" despite the clear wording of the law.
Biggest day to day impact if many of us will have to buy low cap "carry mags", and the carry mag limit may encourage a shift from 9x19 to 45.
- The "private property ban without explicit permission" now applies only to places not open to the public (homes for example)
- Ban on any facility used for government administration
- High cap mag grandfathering now limited to range use; have to carry neutered mags for public carry.
- School ban reiterated to include parking areas explicitly, but the law provides storing a gun in your car in a prohibited area as a defense to the charge of possessing in a prohibited area (go figger)
- Loads of stuff about serializing personalized guns; did not see anything about serializing magazines
- No private sales of high cap mags except vie inheritance, sale to dealer or out of state buyer
Firearms and ammunition not disposed of within 1 year following of delivery or surrender pursuant to this section shall be sold at public auction by the colonel of the state police to the highest bidding person legally permitted to purchase and possess said firearms and ammunition and the proceeds shall be remitted to the General Fund.
My guess is they will declare it "dealers only" despite the clear wording of the law.
Biggest day to day impact if many of us will have to buy low cap "carry mags", and the carry mag limit may encourage a shift from 9x19 to 45.
Last edited:
Register here to testify in person or remote:
forms.gle
Motor Vehicles, Criminal Records & Miscellaneous: December 19th, 2023 at 1:00pm
The public is invited to participate in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary's hybrid hearing on December 19, 2023 at 1:00pm. Please note that the Chair will limit testimony to one time, for a total of three minutes, per individual. Individuals who wish to testify virtually at this hearing...
forms.gle
This sucks. I can’t take 3 days off in as many weeks.Register here to testify in person or remote:
Motor Vehicles, Criminal Records & Miscellaneous: December 19th, 2023 at 1:00pm
The public is invited to participate in the Joint Committee on the Judiciary's hybrid hearing on December 19, 2023 at 1:00pm. Please note that the Chair will limit testimony to one time, for a total of three minutes, per individual. Individuals who wish to testify virtually at this hearing...
GL2020
NES Member
I had an appointment in the Norfolk area today and then had to head up to Norwood auto mile to be financially assaulted by my dealership on a service call.
I was beyond pleased to see several STOP HD4420 signs as I wandered through Wrentham, Norfolk and Walpole. If nothing else it could make a few say "What the heck is HD4420?"
I was beyond pleased to see several STOP HD4420 signs as I wandered through Wrentham, Norfolk and Walpole. If nothing else it could make a few say "What the heck is HD4420?"
Since threads constantly getting locked... I most of people at the rally were senior citizens. Somebody took insult to that and assumed that was a dig. I'm pointing that out as someone who obviously also supports gun ownership.
I'm saying that out of concern since there is a glaring lack of young people who are interested in gun rights in this state. We need to change that. If we do not get more young people into guns and the like, it's going to be a problem for obvious reasons.
I'm saying that out of concern since there is a glaring lack of young people who are interested in gun rights in this state. We need to change that. If we do not get more young people into guns and the like, it's going to be a problem for obvious reasons.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,616
- Likes
- 33,738
Younger people also have to deal with that pesky job thing.
556USER
NES Member
They won't complain about it causing more work for them on licensing procedures. They'll just smirk and say, "That's why it now takes us at least a year to process your unconstitutional permit."
I read it this way too... just about any semi auto rifle has one of those features or is capable
True but it's simply my opinion that the lack of younger people was shocking. And since people here are insatiably sensitive, I have to say again that I appreciate everybody's efforts regardless of age but we need to get more young people interested in gun ownership
Emailed my rep who is not on either of the committees and asked what other sweeping reform legislation had a hearing within 5 days.
Can't help but notice it doesn't say "large capacity feeding device" and the feeding device definition currently includes strips and links if we ignore the question of "how many".
I would posit that the m1 enblock clip may be a "feeding device" that is detachable.
Following is our initial review of the new docket bill. We still have much work to do working through the implications. This is VERY preliminary and may not be completely accurate or comprehensive.
www.goal.org/resources/HD4607InitialReview.pdf
www.goal.org/resources/HD4607InitialReview.pdf
knucklehead
NES Member
This is what i sent out today to all the politicians at the statehouse
Dear Sir or Ma’am,
On 10/4/2023 there was a new filing on HD 4607 (old HD 4420) here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Micheal Day (31st Middlesex District). This Bill is an absolute abomination of law and commonsense (which this state seems to have clear lack of in most constitutional cases). This Bill spits in the face of every free citizen in the Commonwealth who just wish to use their 2d Amendment Rights to own and bear arms for the Right of Home or Self Defense.
HD 4607 essentially outlaws all semiautomatic firearms (except for some shotguns) in a style only Fascists, Communists and Monarchists could agree with. The author/s of this Bill must be under the influence of some new illicit drug to author a Bill that has such disregard for Rights and Liberties of the people. That Right being the 2d Amendments clear and plain text and the Declaration of Independences reading of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I’m guessing the author/s have never read either, if they did they would understand that the Bill of Rights is not a permission slip from the Government but a actual Restraining Order against it (and in this Bill the Governments firearms would be taken away under the expansion of the ERPO law).
This Bill is also clearly a 2 tiered law by making something lawful for one class to own (Law Enforcement Officers and Chiefs of Police) and outlawing it for the average citizen. This is where the State should be asking itself who’s life is worth more. The Officer who patrols the street or the Average Citizen who has to live there, work there, commute there.. etc, etc, etc. The only correct answer is of course both. There is no two tiered system in the Bill of Rights (unless you’re an Inmate or a patient at a State Hospital). It is only one tier of Rights, EVERYONES Rights, even those of lawful immigrants.
This Bill outlaws (and from what i can see doesn’t grandfather in already owned firearms) that are semiautomatic centerfire rifles that have the capacity to accept detachable feeding devices (magazines) with folding or telescoping stocks (possible violation of the American with Disability Act, you’re now saying people can’t adjust the length of pull to fit their body shouldn’t own a center fire rifle), thumbhole stocks a forward grip (forward grips actually help you maintain being on target by stabilizing the firearm a case of home or self defense or), a threaded barrel designed to accept a flash suppressor (this helps you not be blinded by muzzle flash in a case of home or self defense), a muzzle break (muzzle breaks help control recoil while using it in home or self defense) and a “shroud” that encircles either all or part of a barrel that is designed to protect the bearers hand (that’s actually called a hand guard or fore end grip. Those are actually quite important for keeping control of the rifle while in use for home or self defense) excluding the slide that encloses the barrel. In all honesty i know of no center fire rifles that doesn’t have any of these features unless its an M1 Garand like the one my Grandfather used while with the 1st Infantry Division in World War II.
This Bill also outlaws semi automatic pistols that can accept a feeding device that takes more than 10 rounds. The most common firearm for self defense is the Glock G17, its also the most common pistol carried by Police Departments. The Glock G17 even though it can be bought and carried here in the Commonwealth would now be outlawed because that pistol can take a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and that can also be said for any other semiautomatic pistol used here in the commonwealth and in the United States .
This Bill would also outlaw firearms that have serial numbers in places that are easily reached by those that wish to file down or remove the serial number completely. To the best of my knowledge there is no such firearm that has its serial number hidden on it. This would also outlaw revolvers and single shot pistols. Hiding the serial numbers would make it all but impossible to buy, own, carry, use a firearm in defense of ones self or home.
This Bill also outlaws firearms by name and by its manner of operation for feeding rounds of ammunition of those firearms explicitly named. Examples are“All AK Types, including AK, AK47, AK47S, AK74, AKM, AKS” AK style rifles use a Long Stroke Gas Piston System that was developed as early as the 1880s. Also in this Bill it outlaws by name and Operating System the AR type rifles. AR’s or Armalite Rifles use a Gas Impingement system developed in France for the ENT B1 automatic rifle in the 1930’s. Again in this Bill it outlaws by name and operating system the CZ Bren which uses what is called a short stroke gas piston system. Now on to a different type of rifle that would be banned by name and its Operating System is the CETME Sporter, this rifle uses a Roller Delayed Gas Blowback System originally designed in the 1940s and is still used in the G3 style rifles. The FN FAL and its operating system will be banned. The FAL even though designed after WWII was an off shoot of the FN FN49 that was designed in Belgium in the late 30’s before Germany invaded. This is a long list but this is the last rifle by name and its operating system, the UZI Mini Carbine that uses direct blowback from the gas being expelled by the fired round.
There is also laws in here for safe storage of firearms. laws like this were shot down in Heller v District of Columbia “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Here’s a cite from Ceatano v Massachusetts (Stun Gun Law). “The Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Citing District of Columbia v. Heller (and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States". The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584”. The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court. First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller. Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not “readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that
Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment. To use the Commonwealths own words against them in this email “only those weapons useful in warfare”.
Here’s the Majority Opinion from NYSPRA v Bruen (to which all gun laws are deemed constitutional or not. “Thomas' majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts (and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett , effectively rendered public carry a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. Thomas wrote, "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject
to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” Also from NYSPRA v Bruen "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.” The only Firearms Laws that the Commonwealth ever had traditionally were those that kept firearms away from Native Americans, Catholics (pre 1791) and minorities in the now defunct licensing laws the NYSPRA v Bruen took down.
So under the guise of safety and at the cost of Individual Rights the author/s of this Bill have outlawed every firearm now known to man and firearms that haven even come out yet with “Smart Technology”. On the topic of “Smart Technology” in this Bill, it works less reliably than the least reliable modern pistol or rifle, making everyone (other than LEO’s and their Chiefs) to the mercy of socially degenerate criminals.
Sincerely,
Dear Sir or Ma’am,
On 10/4/2023 there was a new filing on HD 4607 (old HD 4420) here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Micheal Day (31st Middlesex District). This Bill is an absolute abomination of law and commonsense (which this state seems to have clear lack of in most constitutional cases). This Bill spits in the face of every free citizen in the Commonwealth who just wish to use their 2d Amendment Rights to own and bear arms for the Right of Home or Self Defense.
HD 4607 essentially outlaws all semiautomatic firearms (except for some shotguns) in a style only Fascists, Communists and Monarchists could agree with. The author/s of this Bill must be under the influence of some new illicit drug to author a Bill that has such disregard for Rights and Liberties of the people. That Right being the 2d Amendments clear and plain text and the Declaration of Independences reading of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I’m guessing the author/s have never read either, if they did they would understand that the Bill of Rights is not a permission slip from the Government but a actual Restraining Order against it (and in this Bill the Governments firearms would be taken away under the expansion of the ERPO law).
This Bill is also clearly a 2 tiered law by making something lawful for one class to own (Law Enforcement Officers and Chiefs of Police) and outlawing it for the average citizen. This is where the State should be asking itself who’s life is worth more. The Officer who patrols the street or the Average Citizen who has to live there, work there, commute there.. etc, etc, etc. The only correct answer is of course both. There is no two tiered system in the Bill of Rights (unless you’re an Inmate or a patient at a State Hospital). It is only one tier of Rights, EVERYONES Rights, even those of lawful immigrants.
This Bill outlaws (and from what i can see doesn’t grandfather in already owned firearms) that are semiautomatic centerfire rifles that have the capacity to accept detachable feeding devices (magazines) with folding or telescoping stocks (possible violation of the American with Disability Act, you’re now saying people can’t adjust the length of pull to fit their body shouldn’t own a center fire rifle), thumbhole stocks a forward grip (forward grips actually help you maintain being on target by stabilizing the firearm a case of home or self defense or), a threaded barrel designed to accept a flash suppressor (this helps you not be blinded by muzzle flash in a case of home or self defense), a muzzle break (muzzle breaks help control recoil while using it in home or self defense) and a “shroud” that encircles either all or part of a barrel that is designed to protect the bearers hand (that’s actually called a hand guard or fore end grip. Those are actually quite important for keeping control of the rifle while in use for home or self defense) excluding the slide that encloses the barrel. In all honesty i know of no center fire rifles that doesn’t have any of these features unless its an M1 Garand like the one my Grandfather used while with the 1st Infantry Division in World War II.
This Bill also outlaws semi automatic pistols that can accept a feeding device that takes more than 10 rounds. The most common firearm for self defense is the Glock G17, its also the most common pistol carried by Police Departments. The Glock G17 even though it can be bought and carried here in the Commonwealth would now be outlawed because that pistol can take a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and that can also be said for any other semiautomatic pistol used here in the commonwealth and in the United States .
This Bill would also outlaw firearms that have serial numbers in places that are easily reached by those that wish to file down or remove the serial number completely. To the best of my knowledge there is no such firearm that has its serial number hidden on it. This would also outlaw revolvers and single shot pistols. Hiding the serial numbers would make it all but impossible to buy, own, carry, use a firearm in defense of ones self or home.
This Bill also outlaws firearms by name and by its manner of operation for feeding rounds of ammunition of those firearms explicitly named. Examples are“All AK Types, including AK, AK47, AK47S, AK74, AKM, AKS” AK style rifles use a Long Stroke Gas Piston System that was developed as early as the 1880s. Also in this Bill it outlaws by name and Operating System the AR type rifles. AR’s or Armalite Rifles use a Gas Impingement system developed in France for the ENT B1 automatic rifle in the 1930’s. Again in this Bill it outlaws by name and operating system the CZ Bren which uses what is called a short stroke gas piston system. Now on to a different type of rifle that would be banned by name and its Operating System is the CETME Sporter, this rifle uses a Roller Delayed Gas Blowback System originally designed in the 1940s and is still used in the G3 style rifles. The FN FAL and its operating system will be banned. The FAL even though designed after WWII was an off shoot of the FN FN49 that was designed in Belgium in the late 30’s before Germany invaded. This is a long list but this is the last rifle by name and its operating system, the UZI Mini Carbine that uses direct blowback from the gas being expelled by the fired round.
There is also laws in here for safe storage of firearms. laws like this were shot down in Heller v District of Columbia “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Here’s a cite from Ceatano v Massachusetts (Stun Gun Law). “The Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Citing District of Columbia v. Heller (and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States". The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584”. The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court. First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding". Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller. Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not “readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that
Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment. To use the Commonwealths own words against them in this email “only those weapons useful in warfare”.
Here’s the Majority Opinion from NYSPRA v Bruen (to which all gun laws are deemed constitutional or not. “Thomas' majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts (and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett , effectively rendered public carry a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. Thomas wrote, "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject
to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” Also from NYSPRA v Bruen "When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.” The only Firearms Laws that the Commonwealth ever had traditionally were those that kept firearms away from Native Americans, Catholics (pre 1791) and minorities in the now defunct licensing laws the NYSPRA v Bruen took down.
So under the guise of safety and at the cost of Individual Rights the author/s of this Bill have outlawed every firearm now known to man and firearms that haven even come out yet with “Smart Technology”. On the topic of “Smart Technology” in this Bill, it works less reliably than the least reliable modern pistol or rifle, making everyone (other than LEO’s and their Chiefs) to the mercy of socially degenerate criminals.
Sincerely,
Does this mean that anyone who got a license after June 1 1998 and their training course didn't include all of the below need to take another training course?
SECTION 48. Mandatory Firearm safety training
• Hunter Ed course valid for “long gun permit”.
• Exempts people licensed prior to June 1, 1998 from taking a course.
• Mandates a written examination.
• Safety course curriculum to include:
o The safe use, handling and storage of firearms.
o Methods for securing and childproofing firearms.
o The applicable laws relating to the possession, transportation and storage offirearms.
o Knowledge of operation, potential dangers and basic competency in theownership and use of firearms.
o Injury prevention and harm reduction education.
o Active shooter and emergency response training.
o Applicable laws relating to the use of force.
o De-escalation and disengagement tactics.
o Live firearms training.
SECTION 48. Mandatory Firearm safety training
• Hunter Ed course valid for “long gun permit”.
• Exempts people licensed prior to June 1, 1998 from taking a course.
• Mandates a written examination.
• Safety course curriculum to include:
o The safe use, handling and storage of firearms.
o Methods for securing and childproofing firearms.
o The applicable laws relating to the possession, transportation and storage offirearms.
o Knowledge of operation, potential dangers and basic competency in theownership and use of firearms.
o Injury prevention and harm reduction education.
o Active shooter and emergency response training.
o Applicable laws relating to the use of force.
o De-escalation and disengagement tactics.
o Live firearms training.
GL2020
NES Member
My kid (late 20's) is gun kid...anything that goes bang he wants to try. He was shooting bb's and pellets long before he picked up a 22. He thinks people should be able to carry anywhere, anytime.
But he has absolutely no faith in the political process...nor does he believe demonstrations actually accomplish anything. My experience with his different friend groups since his teenage years leads me to believe many of his friends have similar opinions (very similar to Carlin's "It's a big club and we aint in it" routine).
That may be in play as well
Tldr
There's supposedly a public hearing next week
There's supposedly a public hearing next week
EJFudd
NES Member
... or made so many law-abiding people into instant felons?
Too late 4 that now,i said this before and am saying this again:" most young people dont get into gun because it too hard to get into ,and even if they can pay to get their ltc there will be no place for them too shoot, most gunclubs are membership only,after u pay" ,not open to the public even if they willing to pay a bit just so they can pop off a few shots to zero their gun.
This is end of the road for 2a in yankee land, when all the old gunowner around here die off that gonabe it. Am in my 40, if i ever hit 60 and still living in this area it will be a gun free zone, and am willing to bet a case of beer over this.
CWulf
NES Member
I got this email from my State Rep Denise Garlick this afternoon. I am putting togehter a response protesting that the hearing is being scheduled less than a week after filing.
________________________________
Hello,
I am emailing you today because you have contacted me this session regarding firearms. I would like to notify you that a hybrid public hearing public hearing has been scheduled for a new bill, HD4607, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws. I have attached a copy of the bill and a bill FAQ.
The House Committee on Ways & Means, in conjunction with House Members of the Judiciary Committee, will be holding a hybrid public hearing on HD4607, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, on Tuesday, October 10th, 2023 at 11:00 A.M. in Garnder Auditorium at the Massachusetts State House and virtually.
Individuals who wish to testify in-person or virtually may register to do so by filling out this form An Act modernizing firearm laws: October 10, 2023 at 11:00am by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, October 9th. Testimony is limited to three minutes per person. You will receive a Teams invitation and further instructions on how to participate virtually a day or two before the hearing.
Written testimony can be submitted via email [email protected]. The deadline to submit written testimony is Friday, October 13th by 5:00 p.m.
Those who do not plan to testify but want to watch the public hearing may attend in person or view the live stream under the Hearings & Events section of the malegislature.gov/events legislative website.
This hearing will be chaired by Chairman Mike Day. If you have any questions, please reach out to committee staff by emailing [email protected].
Sincerely,
Denise
________________________________
Hello,
I am emailing you today because you have contacted me this session regarding firearms. I would like to notify you that a hybrid public hearing public hearing has been scheduled for a new bill, HD4607, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws. I have attached a copy of the bill and a bill FAQ.
The House Committee on Ways & Means, in conjunction with House Members of the Judiciary Committee, will be holding a hybrid public hearing on HD4607, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, on Tuesday, October 10th, 2023 at 11:00 A.M. in Garnder Auditorium at the Massachusetts State House and virtually.
Individuals who wish to testify in-person or virtually may register to do so by filling out this form An Act modernizing firearm laws: October 10, 2023 at 11:00am by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, October 9th. Testimony is limited to three minutes per person. You will receive a Teams invitation and further instructions on how to participate virtually a day or two before the hearing.
Written testimony can be submitted via email [email protected]. The deadline to submit written testimony is Friday, October 13th by 5:00 p.m.
Those who do not plan to testify but want to watch the public hearing may attend in person or view the live stream under the Hearings & Events section of the malegislature.gov/events legislative website.
This hearing will be chaired by Chairman Mike Day. If you have any questions, please reach out to committee staff by emailing [email protected].
Sincerely,
Denise
pastera
NES Member
I am working with Rep Doherty
They see exactly what we see, they don't get a copy of what the law will look like after signing so she has zero insight into what is actually in it.
So far two good points
1 - ltc relieves requirement to unload and case on ATV
2 - non-resident traveling through without exiting vehicle can carry.
That said they have increased the penalty for safe storage infractions are completely insane
Also, I have to reread it but it looks like when they put in exemptions for police they may have added exemptions for all state and federal employees.
They see exactly what we see, they don't get a copy of what the law will look like after signing so she has zero insight into what is actually in it.
So far two good points
1 - ltc relieves requirement to unload and case on ATV
2 - non-resident traveling through without exiting vehicle can carry.
That said they have increased the penalty for safe storage infractions are completely insane
Also, I have to reread it but it looks like when they put in exemptions for police they may have added exemptions for all state and federal employees.
pastera
NES Member
The bastards dropped the bill and leave one business day before scheduling a hearing.
Zero time to review and comment.
