Article from the Telegram and Gazette about H. 2259

[GOAL C.M.]

A House bill to reform and simplify Massachusetts’ firearm licensing laws is a welcome step toward protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens, preventing dangerous persons from obtaining weapons, and clarifying the ambiguous language that led to the death of an 8-year-old boy at a Westfield gun show in 2008.

House Bill 2259, presented by state Rep. George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton, received a favorable hearing on Beacon Hill last week. The bill enjoys bipartisan support, including that of Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, chairman of the Senate’s Public Safety Committee.

The bill recognizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership was struck down. The Massachusetts bill reads: “The right to keep and bear arms as an individual civil right shall be presumed to exist … unless expressly prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”

The bill would simplify the process of obtaining a firearm license by consolidating issuing authority with the state Executive Office of Public Safety, while police chiefs would serve as licensing agents. Under current law, each community’s chief holds the power to issue licenses — leading to a system where law-abiding persons find it relatively easy to obtain a firearms license in some communities, yet nearly impossible in others.

In addition, the legislation creates 13 categories of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including those convicted of violent crimes, subject to restraining orders, fugitives from justice, and undocumented immigrants. This puts the focus exactly where it belongs — on those who have violated the law, are recognized threats, or have no legal claim to reside in Massachusetts, and thus no claim to the rights and responsibilities accorded to residents.

The bill would also specify that no one under age 18 may handle a machine gun, under any circumstances, while those over 18 may do so only in the presence of an individual licensed to handle such weapons.

Massachusetts has an enviable record on gun safety, but current law is imperfect. House Bill 2259 moves us toward that goal by reasserting the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens in this state, and helping law enforcement authorities crack down on those who violate gun laws. It deserves full debate and speedy enactment.

Link to the story to leave comments below.



http://www.telegram.com/article/20100201/NEWS/2010342/1020

 

[EddieCoyle]

Wow! Great article. Did you write it Mike?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Is this mainly a conservative newspaper, or are we starting to break a little more into MA mainstream? Does it have much readership?

 

[GOAL C.M.]

Can't take credit for that one. The "Massachusetts has an enviable record on gun safety" part is not true and wouldn't have made it to the article had I wrote it.

Also in the "RKBA" part they shouldn't have edited it, this is how it reads.

"No county, municipality, township or other community entity within the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts may enact, pass or enforce any law, ordinance or regulation
concerning the lawful ownership, use, possession, transfer, purchase, receipt or transportation of
firearms, antique firearms, ammunition or ammunition components.
The right to keep and bear arms as an individual civil right shall be presumed to exist in
all matters regarding the ownership, use, possession, transfer, purchase, receipt or transportation
of firearms, antique firearms, ammunition or ammunition components unless expressly
prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."

 

[Dirtypacman]

Does not show the author of the article.
I would love to know also.

 

[Cato]

The bill would simplify the process of obtaining a firearm license by consolidating issuing authority with the state Executive Office of Public Safety, while police chiefs would serve as licensing agents. Under current law, each community’s chief holds the power to issue licenses — leading to a system where law-abiding persons find it relatively easy to obtain a firearms license in some communities, yet nearly impossible in others.

This does not address the "may issue" problem with the current law. By consolidating the issuing authority, the state Executive Office of Public Safety could potentially restrict ALL licenses to target only.

 

[lord1234]

AFAIK the TG is a relatively liberal paper. Also, Cato, 2259 would make MA a shall issue state.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

This does not address the "may issue" problem with the current law. By consolidating the issuing authority, the state Executive Office of Public Safety could potentially restrict ALL licenses to target only.

Yes it does, it changes the license from "may issue" to "shall issue"

 

[Cato]

Yes it does, it changes the license from "may issue" to "shall issue"

Ok, thanks.

 

[cekim]

Wow! Great article. Did you write it Mike?

Did you miss this little tidbit?

and clarifying the ambiguous language that led to the death of an 8-year-old boy at a Westfield gun show in 2008.

Getting better, but still have a long way to go...

 

[rwl1955]

Yes it does, it changes the license from "may issue" to "shall issue"

So what`s the chance of it passing?

 

[Scrivener]

The Massachusetts bill reads: “The right to keep and bear arms as an individual civil right shall be presumed to exist … unless expressly prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”

FAIL

Since when can Massachusetts law legally trump Federal law, still less a Constitutional right?

 

[TomH]

Getting better, but still have a long way to go...

No kidding. No offense to goal, but this bill is sacrificing some certain rights farther (mg rights as well as the supposedly "prohibited" persons restrictions not authorized in the constitution) to gain some other rights. Unfortunately since it is backed by pro-gun groups, there will be little to no chance at removing any of this later.

Then again most people, even within this forum, seem to believe in the prohibited person restrictions and restricted MG licensing.

FAIL

Since when can Massachusetts law legally trump Federal law, still less a Constitutional right?

Since a long time ago apparently, but that doesn't make it right. Both state and federal laws will still be trumping the Constitution illegally.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

FAIL

Since when can Massachusetts law legally trump Federal law, still less a Constitutional right?

It's currently happening Scriv.

I'm working on finding out why that language was used, it makes no sense to me but I'm just a lowly comms/web guy...

 

[jar]

No kidding. No offense to goal, but this bill is sacrificing some certain rights farther (mg rights as well as the supposedly "prohibited" persons restrictions not authorized in the constitution) to gain some other rights. Unfortunately since it is backed by pro-gun groups, there will be little to no chance at removing any of this later.

Then again most people, even within this forum, seem to believe in the prohibited person restrictions and restricted MG licensing.

There's a somewhat plausible reading of the current law that's MORE restrictive wrt machine guns. You could reasonably read it as no one without a machine gun license is allowed to handle machine guns ever. Similarly, police chiefs can make anyone prohibited from handgun ownership for any reason or no reason.

 

[Scrivener]

There's a somewhat plausible reading of the current law that's MORE restrictive wrt machine guns. You could reasonably read it as no one without a machine gun license is allowed to handle machine guns ever. Similarly, police chiefs can make anyone prohibited from handgun ownership for any reason or no reason.

The regulations proposed last summer REMOVED actually shooting an MG from the list of authorized activities.

Few, if any, noticed that because the attention was focused on the anti-training/competition aspect of the proposed regs.

 

[Len-2A Training]

There's a somewhat plausible reading of the current law that's MORE restrictive wrt machine guns. You could reasonably read it as no one without a machine gun license is allowed to handle machine guns ever. Similarly, police chiefs can make anyone prohibited from handgun ownership for any reason or no reason.

It is the current "ruling" from EOPS Legal Dept! My (IANAL) interpretation of their "ruling" is that none of us w/o a "green card" can even touch (and I do mean "touch" rather than shoot or take it off a rack) a smg/mg in a Class 3 Dealer's shop!! How's that for insanity? And sadly, I'm sure that most MA and Fed judges in this district would rule that EOPS "ruling" is correct! [If you doubt this last comment, read the story on Pg. 1 of the latest The Outdoor Message!!!! Comments by that Fed judge will make your head explode.]

 

[terraformer]

It is the current "ruling" from EOPS Legal Dept! My (IANAL) interpretation of their "ruling" is that none of us w/o a "green card" can even touch (and I do mean "touch" rather than shoot or take it off a rack) a smg/mg in a Class 3 Dealer's shop!! How's that for insanity? And sadly, I'm sure that most MA and Fed judges in this district would rule that EOPS "ruling" is correct! [If you doubt this last comment, read the story on Pg. 1 of the latest The Outdoor Message!!!! Comments by that Fed judge will make your head explode.]

I can confirm this. A letter was sent to a club where an "informal, members only" MG shoot was to take place sometime this winter stating as much about their legal opinion on the matter. In other words, the EOPS opinion was that current law prohibited any touching whatsoever of MGs by non green card holders. No, I won't say which club as the club brass has not seen fit to publicize the letter or the circumstances around it and I won't be over ruling their decision.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Yes it does, it changes the license from "may issue" to "shall issue"

Well, unless they decide to "modify" that part as the bill makes it's way

 

[cekim]

Well, unless they decide to "modify" that part as the bill makes it's way

From the comments made at the hearing, I think its a safe bet they will attempt to modify this to give a means of letting the chief "have his say"... [sad2]

It will still be a step forward so long as this keeps the burden of proof on the state...

Keep pressing your legislators and focus on the need to protect our civil rights, due process rights and specifically our presumption of innocence...

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

From the comments made at the hearing, I think its a safe bet they will attempt to modify this to give a means of letting the chief "have his say"... [sad2]

It will still be a step forward so long as this keeps the burden of proof on the state...

Keep pressing your legislators and focus on the need to protect our civil rights, due process rights and specifically our presumption of innocence...

That's why I was trying to get those letters together.

 

[buketduder]

Does H. 2259 change anything about Non-Resident LTC's or carrying pepper spray?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Does H. 2259 change anything about Non-Resident LTC's or carrying pepper spray?

Something was floating around a couple of weeks ago about a separate bill making it legal for anyone of a certain age to carry pepper spray. Does anyone here remember the details?