Governor Patrick Files Bill to Drastically Increase License Fees

[BOBKATT]

That's why we need to get more people into shooting, and firearms ownership and get the right people in office to represent us. It isn't an easy path, but it's definitely do-able.

This is true.

This is so true that it scares the anti's.

This is so true that deval patrick created a bill to double the cost of license fees to $200.00 to curb newcomers from getting into shooting, and firearms ownership because he knows that would end up with more of the right people in office to represent us.

Any questions?

 

[2ndAmendment]

see http://www.thoseshirts.com/atf.html

 

[jcliff]

I don't have any more money left for Deval. I'm still waiting for my property tax relief. Beware he is a DEVAL in sheep's clothing.

 

[glockguy17]

What ever happened to this Bill???

http://www.goal.org/news/Licensing/licensefeebill.htm

License Fee Bill Update - 1/30/08

GOAL's license fee bill “An Act to End the Taxation of Civil Rights” has been given a Docket Number of H4777. The House of Representatives ordered the bill the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. In order for the bill to receive a bill number and actually go to the Committee the Senate must concur.

_____________________________________________________________

License Fee Bill Update

Today Representative George Peterson officially filed GOAL's bill "An Act to End the Taxation of Civil Rights." We are pleased to announce that the bill received several cosponsors.

Senator Stephen Brewer

Senator Michael Knapik

Representative Anne Gobi

Representative Christine Canavan

Representative Richard Ross

Representative Donald Humason

Representative Geoffrey Hall

Representative James Vallee



The bill does not yet have a number attached to it. GOAL will post more information as it is available.

__________________________________________________________

GOAL Files Bill to do Away with License Fees

Gun Owners’ Action League is filing a new bill to do away with the fees associated with Firearm Identification Cards and Licenses to Carry Firearms. This new bill, “An Act to End the Taxation of Civil Rights” is being filed on behalf of GOAL by State Representative George Peterson. The bill states that “…no fees, taxes or other financial requirements placed on any application or card processed or issued…”

“It is bad enough that we are required to pay a tax on our civil right to own a firearm, but to have to pay for a licensing system that is discriminatory, unresponsive to the needs of license holders and in some cases corrupt is simply too much to ask of lawful citizens.” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of Gun Owners’ Action League “Since the state is clearly unwilling to take responsibility for this contemptible system and it can’t demonstrate any public safety benefits to the licensing process, then we should not be forced to pay for it. In fact, if the general public falsely “feels” safer by requiring us to have licenses then they should pay for it.”

GOAL has sent the following letter to the Massachusetts legislators looking for their support of this measure.

_________________________________________________________

December 13, 2007

Dear Legislator,

For many years, Gun Owners’ Action League has been trying to reform our state’s licensing system to make it just and fair to gun owners. The legislature has amended the gun laws in 38 places in the last ten years, but serious reform of the actual licensing process has never been accomplished.

A few years ago the Firearms Record Bureau wasted millions of dollars creating the Massachusetts Instant Records Check system. This system was created and implemented with no input from the legislature or gun owners and has turned out to be an enormous waste of resources.

Additionally, there have been constant problems with local licensing authorities making up their own licensing procedures. At the local level our members face unreasonable delays, illegal additional requirements, arbitrary denials and restrictions, etc. Many gun owners have arbitrary restrictions placed on their licenses that are not explained what they mean or why they were applied to the license. Yet the state continues to tell our members that it has no control over its licensing agents even when the law is being clearly violated.

The laws and regulations in the state are so complicated that licensees many times have no knowledge of what they can or can’t do with a particular license. When they contact the state for help, they are told to hire an attorney to interpret laws for them. If they do have an idea of what they can legally purchase and own, they are often told by licensed dealers that they can’t buy it because one agency says it is alright to own, but another one claims it is not.

The final straw was the implementation of the Chapter 177 of the Acts of 2006. This was a unanimously supported effort in the legislature to create a Formal Target Shooters Roster of firearms that could be legally purchased for competition. It took over a year to implement the regulations to create the roster. The regulatory process is such a sham that currently only two firearms have made the roster.

Since it is clear the state has no intention of reforming this contemptible licensing process, Gun Owners’ Action League has filed “An Act To End the Taxation of Civil Rights” (see enclosed copy). There is no reason why lawful citizens should be forced to pay for exercising their civil rights. It is a further insult when the system they are forced to pay for was clearly designed to spite them. We would ask for your support of this measure by contacting the sponsor, Rep. George Peterson, by December 28, 2007 and signing on as a co-sponsor.



Sincerely,

James L. Wallace

Executive Director

________________________________________________________________________

An Act to End the Taxation of Civil Rights



Whereas the Commonwealth should not levy taxes or fees on any citizen wishing to practice their civil rights; and

Whereas citizens who are being forced to pay fees for licenses and cards are not receiving any services in return for those fees; and

Whereas the Commonwealth has wasted millions of dollars in creating a licensing system that was never needed; and

Whereas the Commonwealth cannot demonstrate any increased public safety as a result of the licensing of civil rights; and

Whereas the Commonwealth continues to ignore the unlawful and discriminatory acts of its licensing agents;

Now we therefore do propose the following An Act to End the Taxation of Civil Rights

Section 1. Section 129B of Chapter 140 is hereby amended by striking paragraph (9A) in its entirety and replacing it with the following: - “(9A) There shall be no fees, taxes or other financial requirements placed on any application or card processed or issued under this section.

Section 2. Section 129B of Chapter 140 is hereby amended by striking paragraph (9B) in its entirety.

Section 3. Section 131 of Chapter 140 is hereby amended by striking paragraph (i) in its entirety and replacing it with the following: - A license to carry or possess firearms shall be valid, unless revoked or suspended, for a period of not more than 6 years from the date of issue and shall expire on the anniversary of the licensee’s date of birth occurring not less than 5 years but not more than 6 years from the date of issue, except that if the licensee applied for renewal before the license expired, the license shall remain valid for a period of 90 days beyond the stated expiration date on the license, unless the application for renewal is denied. Any renewal thereof shall expire on the anniversary of the licensee’s date of birth occurring not less than 5 years but not more than 6 years from the effective date of such license. Any license issued to an applicant born on February 29 shall expire on March 1. There shall be no fees, taxes or other financial requirements placed on any application or license processed or issued under this section.

 

[Admin]

What ever happened to this Bill???

It was voted down. IIRC

 

[JRyan]

I just got of the phone with a lackey from Stan Rosenberg's Office and got absolutely nowhere...

You need to write to him, I actually got a decent response the last time I wrote.

This is really outrageous.

 

[center442]

I am hoping someone would take on the MA LTC fees since it is a tax on a right (you need the license/tax to even own a firearm for self protection).

Emails sent. Skald has a good point. It seems that in Massachusetts there are only two minority groups that are fair game for our elected leaders: smokers and gun owners.

I am so pissed off right now that it's not even funny.

Maybe the sheeple will get angry enough that they'll vote to end the income tax in November. Maybe they'll get angry enough to vote some of these asshats out of office.

Well, I can dream....

 

[RG617]

Just finished writing my letter. Used the initial piece on the G.O.A.L. site for a starting point then went from there. Figured I'd throw it up here for you all to read/slam.




Governor Deval Patrick recently filed an appropriations bill for 2008. This bill has not yet been assigned a number. Within this bill sections 24 - 27 drastically increase certain firearm licenses.

Sections 24 & 25 attack lawfully licensed firearm dealers by increasing their license fees from $100 for three years to $250. Then it adds a $100 inspection fee in years two and three of the license. This tactic would now turn a $100 three year dealer's license into a $450 three year license.
Section 26 would increase a resident License to Carry fee from $100 for six years to $200 for six years.
Section 27 would increase a non-resident License to Carry fee from $100 for one year to $250 for one year.

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, this bill can only be seen as an attempt to impose taxes disguised as fees so as to make it difficult for the average citizen to exercise a most basic Constitutional right.

Among Massachusetts voters who are strong proponents of their second amendment rights, I am a rarity in Massachusetts: I am a Democrat. Issues involving gun rights, laws, and licensing are treated by most Democratic politicians in our state as if "going through the motions" and they follow the party line, since it can be argued that many gun advocates are going to vote Republican no matter the stance a politician takes on the matter. I can say in no uncertain terms because of the passion with which gun owners view this matter that not only is it not true, but it is also a gate that can swing the other way very easily: If those of us who are Democrats or Independents continue to find ourselves unfairly fighting against our elected officials for a most basic right, it *will* have an effect on our decision when we go to the polls.

This is a subject that is dear to many of us if for no other reason than it is one of the basic rights of being an American, and has been since the creation of our country. It is wrong to try and circumvent the document that our nation is based upon by creating laws and "fees" that turns a basic right into something that isn't financially affordable to all. As it currently stands in Massachusetts, it can easily cost upwards of $1000 just to exercise this Constitutional right. This cost substantially inflates if a person lives within certain city limits, such as Boston. I understand that there are costs associated with the licensing and incidentals associated with gun ownership, though the extent to which they are taken in the Commonwealth is an argument for another day. My only concern at the moment is that this appears to be yet another attempt to penalize good, law-abiding citizens who are already dealing with some of the most harsh and persecutory gun legislation in the country.

One of the most simple and effective reasonings used during the debate over gay marriage in Massachusetts was that it should not have been put to the vote because it's unconstitutional to vote on a person's civil rights. Time and time again it has been proven that sometimes even the most educated and liberal populace will vote in err of what is fair and right. It is an unfortunate thing, but true nonetheless. Why is it any more fair to effectively deny a person the most basic of his/her rights by taxing them for it? What's next? Will we be charged "fees" to vote? To receive a speedy trial? Will it eventually cost us an extra $100 for a jury trial? This is not the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Gun ownership is not a privilege: It is a RIGHT. If we start down the path of only allowing certain people to have access to their rights under the Constitution at the whim of those on Beacon Hill, where will it stop? I say this as one who believes in the document that is the bedrock of his country, and that it shouldn't only apply to those who can afford to pay for the rights written in it.

It is highly suspect, in my opinion, that any person - elected official or otherwise - would seek to deny a law-abiding citizen his/her any Constitutional rights or to create an economic divide in which only those with a certain level of financial standing are allowed to exercise those rights. I hope you can see that the way to address the mess that is Massachusetts gun laws lies not in using the average citizen as a blank check (if he/she can even afford to pay for the right to be a gun owner in the Commonwealth), but in revisiting the current system to see if it is financially wasteful, unfair to the average taxpayer, a damper on commerce, and little more than a roundabout method of circumventing the Second Amendment. With that in mind, I ask that you deny this appropriations bill when it comes to vote. Thank you for you time.

With all respect,

RXXXXXXXGXXXXXXXX

 

[Admin]

LenS sent me this.

Having called the Gov's office, my state Senator and state Rep offices, two
didn't sound like anyone else had called before me and the third told me
that I was only the 2nd call about it. I also whacked them with the BR&P
represents 3000 members spiel and that we'd be discussing it tonight. <G>

I used the "point of diminishing returns" approach . . . advising them that
a lot of folks will just "give up" and not renew, thus the windfall $$ they
are hoping for may vanish. Figure they might listen to that. I threw in the
1.5Million permits pre 1998 to 240K now. No need to tell them that a lot of
folks were DQ'd <vbseg> . . . let them think about it. If others stress the
approach of $ instead of Heller (not related in any way), perhaps we can
turn this around.

 

[glockguy17]

In my gut i don't think that money has anything to do with it...

I think it is just a way exclude us from being able to get the permits.

Devil gets to say that people do have the ability to own firearms to protect themselves but the majority of gun owners will not be able to pay that much.

 

[frville]

What ever happened to this Bill???

http://www.wickedlocal.com/gloucester/archive/x1946822672/Beacon-Hill-Roll-Call-Week-of-April-28


Lower firearms fee (H 4700) — The House, 75-83, rejected an amendment that would have reduced the firearms-licensing fee from $100 to $40 and expanded to six years the length of time for which the license is valid.

Under current law, the license is valid for five or six years, depending on the birthday of the license holder.

The state receives $75 of the current $100 fee, while the local community gets $25. Under the new $40 fee, local communities would have still received the same $25 while the state’s share would have been reduced to $15.

Amendment supporters said that the fee was raised in 1998 in order to fund a new and more efficient system of licensing. They argued that the system is now in place and it is time to reduce the fee.

Amendment opponents said that the state cannot afford the revenue loss.

 

[Admin]

It's not about money, it's about getting rid of gun owners.

 

[Admin]

Amendment opponents said that the state cannot afford the revenue loss.

The state's budget is only going to get larger people... Keep that check book handy.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Amendment opponents said that the state cannot afford the revenue loss.

Newspeak - talking of not getting a raise as a loss.

 

[Patriot]

Called my Rep (Harkins) and Senator (Brown). Folks, these people aren't getting enough calls
as I had to explain what I was calling about to both of them. In fact, Brown's office hadn't
seen the document just yet, or at least the person I talked to knew nothing about it.

 

[pdm]

I sent emails. Not going to use company phone for this sort of political advocacy.

 

[Patriot]

Just finished writing my letter. Used the initial piece on the G.O.A.L. site for a starting point then went from there. Figured I'd throw it up here for you all to read/slam.




Governor Deval Patrick recently filed an appropriations bill for 2008. This bill has not yet been assigned a number. Within this bill sections 24 - 27 drastically increase certain firearm licenses.

Sections 24 & 25 attack lawfully licensed firearm dealers by increasing their license fees from $100 for three years to $250. Then it adds a $100 inspection fee in years two and three of the license. This tactic would now turn a $100 three year dealer's license into a $450 three year license.
Section 26 would increase a resident License to Carry fee from $100 for six years to $200 for six years.
Section 27 would increase a non-resident License to Carry fee from $100 for one year to $250 for one year.

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, this bill can only be seen as an attempt to impose taxes disguised as fees so as to make it difficult for the average citizen to exercise a most basic Constitutional right.

Among Massachusetts voters who are strong proponents of their second amendment rights, I am a rarity in Massachusetts: I am a Democrat. Issues involving gun rights, laws, and licensing are treated by most Democratic politicians in our state as if "going through the motions" and they follow the party line, since it can be argued that many gun advocates are going to vote Republican no matter the stance a politician takes on the matter. I can say in no uncertain terms because of the passion with which gun owners view this matter that not only is it not true, but it is also a gate that can swing the other way very easily: If those of us who are Democrats or Independents continue to find ourselves unfairly fighting against our elected officials for a most basic right, it *will* have an effect on our decision when we go to the polls.

This is a subject that is dear to many of us if for no other reason than it is one of the basic rights of being an American, and has been since the creation of our country. It is wrong to try and circumvent the document that our nation is based upon by creating laws and "fees" that turns a basic right into something that isn't financially affordable to all. As it currently stands in Massachusetts, it can easily cost upwards of $1000 just to exercise this Constitutional right. This cost substantially inflates if a person lives within certain city limits, such as Boston. I understand that there are costs associated with the licensing and incidentals associated with gun ownership, though the extent to which they are taken in the Commonwealth is an argument for another day. My only concern at the moment is that this appears to be yet another attempt to penalize good, law-abiding citizens who are already dealing with some of the most harsh and persecutory gun legislation in the country.

One of the most simple and effective reasonings used during the debate over gay marriage in Massachusetts was that it should not have been put to the vote because it's unconstitutional to vote on a person's civil rights. Time and time again it has been proven that sometimes even the most educated and liberal populace will vote in err of what is fair and right. It is an unfortunate thing, but true nonetheless. Why is it any more fair to effectively deny a person the most basic of his/her rights by taxing them for it? What's next? Will we be charged "fees" to vote? To receive a speedy trial? Will it eventually cost us an extra $100 for a jury trial? This is not the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Gun ownership is not a privilege: It is a RIGHT. If we start down the path of only allowing certain people to have access to their rights under the Constitution at the whim of those on Beacon Hill, where will it stop? I say this as one who believes in the document that is the bedrock of his country, and that it shouldn't only apply to those who can afford to pay for the rights written in it.

It is highly suspect, in my opinion, that any person - elected official or otherwise - would seek to deny a law-abiding citizen his/her any Constitutional rights or to create an economic divide in which only those with a certain level of financial standing are allowed to exercise those rights. I hope you can see that the way to address the mess that is Massachusetts gun laws lies not in using the average citizen as a blank check (if he/she can even afford to pay for the right to be a gun owner in the Commonwealth), but in revisiting the current system to see if it is financially wasteful, unfair to the average taxpayer, a damper on commerce, and little more than a roundabout method of circumventing the Second Amendment. With that in mind, I ask that you deny this appropriations bill when it comes to vote. Thank you for you time.

With all respect,

RXXXXXXXGXXXXXXXX

Calling is a better way to go. Your letter is too long for the attention disadvantaged
(almost the entire legislature) and it won't be read.

 

[glockguy17]

He just filed it yesterday and convienently it has nothing about firearms in the title but the fee increase is buried in the meat of the bill..

It really get me angry how he keeps hiding stuff deep into the long winded and wordy bills in the hopes that something gets overlooked.

This man is an evil piece of crap and i hope that the people that voted for him are realizing their mistake.

 

[Coyote33]

...Personally I don't think there is a sinister agenda here . . . just a way to "raise money" without impacting the larger masses. Four hundred dealers (w/o even a functional dealers assn) and 240K licensees who mostly won't know anything about this until they go to renew the next time (much fewer than 10% belong to GOAL and many never read what GOAL publishes, regrettably), are a mere blip on the voting radar screen that Legislators need to worry about.

Which is why a rally might be order, to draw attention to the issue. This should be a combined event, along with the cigarette people, immigration people, tax people, and others.

...It's likely to dissuade a fair number of people in not renewing, thus not bringing in the windfall they are hoping for. Maybe that might get some folks thinking on Beacon Hill?? What do you think? Worth a shot?...

I guess when people all stop renewing at once, that might make a difference. Then what?

 

[wahsben]

How about a class action lawsuit against the Gov. and the state for harrassment, discrimination and for the taxation of a right?

 

[Admin]

I guess when people all stop renewing at once, that might make a difference. Then what?

Then the police start banging down doors and arresting people who let their LTC's expire knowing they still have firearms.

 

[drumenigma]

How about a class action lawsuit against the Gov. and the state for harrassment, discrimination and for the taxation of a right?

That's pretty much what I was thinking. It is just amazing that he would be such a douche as to file something like this right after the SCOTUS decision. It's obvious that he has no original ideas on how to cut costs in the government to raise funds that are needed. Instead they would make us foot the bill. Plus all of the underlying motives behind the bill such as creating a larger entry barrier to getting your license. It's clear our legislature does not have the interests of its people in mind but their own gains.

 

[frville]

How about a class action lawsuit against the Gov. and the state for harrassment, discrimination and for the taxation of a right?

We would need to retain the services of Denny Crane and/or Allan Shore to win such battle!

***************
I had to crack a joke this whole thread has got my head pounding right now

 

[Big_Red]

I don't mean to disrespect anyone over at GOAL but isn't it time for them to become more agressive. I can certainly appreciate GOAL keeping an eye on the proposed legislations but letting us know about them isn't enough. We need legal action just like in DC. As MassMark suggested, I too will gladly double or triple my GOAL membership to help pay for a legal action against the MA government and their unconstitutional practices. While calling and writing to our disrtrict reps may seem like we are fighting the figth, in the end nobody is going to listen to us. I see that time and time again.

Hey GOAL...how about it.

 

[Garys]

It's ironic that the frist gun control laws in this country were designed to keep poor black people from having access to firearms for self defense. Now, a RICH black Governor is trying to keep low and middle income people of ALL races from having access to firearms for self defense.

Now that's progress. NOT!

I've been involved in letter writing campaigns before and can pass along a few tips.

Letters are better than emails, which are better than phone calls. A letter, especially now, shows that you are interested enough in the topic to invest whatever a first class stamp costs this week in expressing yourself. A letter also allows the staffer who reads it to check the voter rolls to see if you are registered and to which party. If you aren't registered, your letter will go right into the shredder. Personally, I register as "unenrolled" which keeps them guessing and holds out the possibility that you might actually have voted for the politician.

Last bit of advice. Don't use form letters, they also go into the shredder. The staffer will recognize one at a glance. You can borrow phrasing, but write something original.

Express whether you support or oppose the bill, and why. Be brief.

Finally, don't expect an individual reply, or even a reply at all. The last time I sent a letter to my US Congressman opposing a firearms bill, I received a letter thanking me for supporting the bill.

 

[BOBKATT]

It's ironic that the frist gun control laws in this country were designed to keep poor black people from having access to firearms for self defense. Now, a RICH black Governor is trying to keep low and middle income people of ALL races from having access to firearms for self defense.

Now that's progress. NOT!

I've been involved in letter writing campaigns before and can pass along a few tips.

Letters are better than emails, which are better than phone calls. A letter, especially now, shows that you are interested enough in the topic to invest whatever a first class stamp costs this week in expressing yourself. A letter also allows the staffer who reads it to check the voter rolls to see if you are registered and to which party. If you aren't registered, your letter will go right into the shredder. Personally, I register as "unenrolled" which keeps them guessing and holds out the possibility that you might actually have voted for the politician.

Last bit of advice. Don't use form letters, they also go into the shredder. The staffer will recognize one at a glance. You can borrow phrasing, but write something original.

Express whether you support or oppose the bill, and why. Be brief.

Finally, don't expect an individual reply, or even a reply at all. The last time I sent a letter to my US Congressman opposing a firearms bill, I received a letter thanking me for supporting the bill.

Good points.

Just to add to that I would like to say that the most important thing is that we get out and actually vote for people who aren't going to be making the mess that people like deval patrick and our anti-gun reps are making. That way we won't have to keep trying to clean up after them.

 

[Mikey]

Just got an email from the NRA about this, I could be wrong but I don't remember getting too many emails from the NRA about MA state bills. Hopefully this means they will get involved... I wonder if making an LTC too expensive where as certain people can't afford it is the same as an out right ban, very similar in my eyes but might be harder to fight.

This state is a sad joke and a disgrace to revolution which started here...

Molon Labe...

 

[Knob Creek]

Yes voting is good but we don't generally have a lot of choices in this state. Kennedy, Kerry both have run largely unopposed although Kerry might have a challenge this year.
My State Rep and State senator have not had a challenger in a coons age.
And let's face it we had a weak Republican candidate for Governor last time around.

Best thing I can do is keep supporting GOAL

GOAL also needs liaisons to all the shooting sports. They do a great job with e-mails and through their web site and through this forum. They need a representative of USPSA, IDPA, CAS, Bullseye, Trap, Skeet, etc that can take their message down to the masses. A team they can contact with things like this. That can get to shooters that may not hear of this stuff till its maybe too late.

 

[Riverside]

Good points.

Just to add to that I would like to say that the most important thing is that we get out and actually vote for people who aren't going to be making the mess that people like deval patrick and our anti-gun reps are making. That way we won't have to keep trying to clean up after them.

For a lot of us there are no Republican or "other" choices. We have the same person running un-opposed year after year. I will start writing in my own name rather than vote for a candidate who refuses to consider less liberal points of view. I will not vote for anyone who does not uphold the RKBA.
I voted for Kerry Healey and got stuck with Deval.
I'm voting for John Mc Cain and I hope I get stuck with him rather than Barrack. I have contributed to local candidates for various reasons. I will not be doing that anymore and I will write back to them and tell them that I'm saving my money to pay for my gun license increases and associated legal fees.
That's the only leverage I have and I'm the only one who cares.[sad2]
Best Regards.

 

[Edzo]

So the "grandfather" clause is still in effect, where they waive the fee for the elderly? Not that I'm trying to make seniors pay full price, but wasn't that the argument in striking down poll taxes?