Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
JJ4 said:
He means a private seller without a FFL. He's asking about the interpretation of h4121 that does NOT force a NICS check because his interpretation is that is DOES force a NICS check. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't know what he means (and I submit that nobody outside of the circle really does) because he doesn't say what he means. If the point of that provision is to force all sales to go through the federal process why doesn't the bill just say so? Why the double-talk in the bill?

And what would this accomplish anyway? How would making private sales more expensive and less convenient encourage more people to do them legally? We know that the existing criminal element who ignore the current laws are just going to ignore this one too so what's the point? What is it that this provision accomplishes, and is there a better way that won't further impose on law-abiding gun owners? What is the problem that he's trying to solve? Does the problem even exist?


Here's what the bill actually says:
SECTION 18. Section 128A of said chapter 140 is hereby amended by adding the following 2 sentences:- Any sale or transfer conducted pursuant to this section shall comply with section 131E and shall take place at the location of a dealer licensed pursuant to section 122, who shall transmit the information required by this section for purchases and sales to the department of criminal justice information services. A licensed dealer may charge the seller a fee not to exceed $25 for each sale or transfer submitted on behalf of the seller to the department of criminal justice information services.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mbullism said:
The more I think about this FTF transfer thing, the worse it gets... If the AG regs were to apply, what happens, for example, if i want to sell a MA compliant model shield, but I've put an Apex kit in it and it no longer has the 300lb trigger pull?... This could get fubar without some clarity written in. Otherwise its just more gray area to be interpreted by the barons that would enforce it...
Click to expand...

We have likely candidates for the AG's office on record saying that they would use the power of the office to ban the sale of 99.999999% of guns made today (the only exception being "smart guns," which are neither widely available nor commercially viable.) Combine that with a provision that forces ALL sales to be subject to the AG's regulations and the result is a defacto ban on sales and transfers. That's their end goal here, make no mistake about it.

exodious said:
The problem, as these people see it, is that there are people who own guns in MA legally.
Click to expand...

This.
 
- - - Updated - - -

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by jasons
Unless I'm mistaken, the AG's regs are already settled law. Nothing Comm2A can do about them.


terraformer said:
I wouldn't be so sure....
Click to expand...

I love hearing stuff like this!!!
 
Last edited:
MA Advocates Demand Gun Bill Rewrite After Talk with Speaker DeLeo

Jim Wallace:
While many think that Wallace and the rest of the pro-gun advocates want this bill destroyed, Wallace admits that he would rather see a rewrite. Wallace has noticed that in addition to pro-gun advocates being opposed, mental health and school groups have also shown some opposition.

Wallace ultimately wants to see a bill that all can agree to, hoping that GOAL and member outreach can convince the House committee to reconsider the bill in its current form. While willing to let a few things slide through with the current legislation, Wallace really wants to see the piece on FID cards eliminated.
Click to expand...

Some Jewish lady (What ever happened to their "NEVER AGAIN" slogan?):
Rather than empathizing with pro-gun advocates, Sheila Decter, the Director of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, says that GOAL’s advocacy efforts are too little too late.

Decter believes that Wallace and other members of GOAL, while saying that they want an amendment, are looking to kill this bill. Because of this, Decter believes that legislators should work to pass this bill instead of focusing on trying to make pro-gun advocates happy.

When asked about what piece within the bill she could do without under a compromise, Decter says that the time to compromise is over. If GOAL really wanted to provide input and create a bill that everyone could agree to, then they should have shown more effort earlier in discussions.

“I think that this is a decent bill the way that it is,” said Decter. “I think that there is a real effort to kill this bill and time is absolutely of the essence. This bill has been under discussion for 18 months now; to wait until the 11th hour to try to participate in discussions really is an effort to delay this bill. I have never been convinced that GOAL wants a bill that would curb gun violence.”
Click to expand...
 
Oh really!

When asked about what piece within the bill she could do without under a compromise, Decter says that the time to compromise is over. If GOAL really wanted to provide input and create a bill that everyone could agree to, then they should have shown more effort earlier in discussions.
Click to expand...

Maybe... just maybe, if GOAL had been invited to take part in DeLeos investigative panel of "experts" (or

even a lawyer well acquainted with the 2nd amendment and MA gun control laws), we wouldn't have this cluster

**** of a bill to begin with.
 
Last edited:
LoginName said:
Oh really!



Maybe... just maybe, if GOAL had been offered the opportunity to take part in DeLeos investigative panel of "experts" (or

even a lawyer well acquainted with the 2nd amendment and MA gun control laws), we wouldn't have this cluster

**** of a bill to begin with.
Click to expand...

And its complete bullshit to claim that GOAL is trying to come in at the 11th hour. GOAL has several bills every ****ing year. I can't come uo with words vulgar enough to describe this lady.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
I had to talk with the BATFE today regarding the C&R status of the P-1's and since the guy in the Worcester Office seemed to be very up to date on the DeLeo bill, in fact he called it a piece of trash! I decided to ask him about the end of FTF.
He said BATFE's reading of the laws would be that the dealer when "facilitating" a FTF between two parties in MA would HAVE to take the gun in and put it in his bound book and then do a 4473 for the buyer as well as the FA10, no if and's for butts. and that means the list (which he also made fun of)
He said 01FFL dealers first responsibility is to the BATFE and then to the state.

I did ask him "what if the dealer never touches the gun" he said that would be determined by the BATFE, however that is a possibility that if the dealer never touches it at all then he wouldn't have to book it but then there would be an issue with the NICS check which he felt the bill seems to ask for. We will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

This is very interesting and upon careful reading of Speaker DeLeo's bill I think that this was probably NOT the intent. I think the expectation was that dealers would 'facilitate' the PTP transfer by verifying licenses and entering the information into MIRCS without doing a 4473 and a NICS check. It's not hard to see how the drafters of H.4121 would fail to consider a dealer's obligations under federal law.
 
jasons said:
First of all there's no such thing as a legal "unlicensed private seller." An "unlicensed private seller" is already a criminal and will continue to be after this bill is passed. Joey Gangbanger is not going to bring his stolen Raven down to Four Seasons to do a legal transfer no matter what laws are passed.

The author of this bill is either very confused or is intentionally trying to obfuscate his true goal. In order to do a legal transfer in MA both parties must have a license. In order to get a license they must pass a background check. Ergo, all legal transfers are already subject to background checks. Simple.
Click to expand...
When you explain this to people you need to add in one more bit so that your explanation covers all bases.

After the issuance of the license, if the person breaks the law, an electronic notice is sent to his police department who may choose to suspend or revoke the license immediately, and upon conviction or other disqualifying event the license can be immediately revoked by the state. So if an electronic eFA10 required both buyer and seller's PINs at the transaction, it is a full-on complete background check that is completely up to date, not up to 6 years old as some would have you believe.

Knuckle Dragger said:
This is very interesting and upon careful reading of Speaker DeLeo's bill I think that this was probably NOT the intent. I think the expectation was that dealers would 'facilitate' the PTP transfer by verifying licenses and entering the information into MIRCS without doing a 4473 and a NICS check. It's not hard to see how the drafters of H.4121 would fail to consider a dealer's obligations under federal law.
Click to expand...

That's the way *I* read the bill a well, for whatever that means. But the representative who talked to someone to clarify about the dealer's location crap said the response they got was it was going to require the NICS.

*IF* that's true then the reps are voting on whether to eliminate private transfers even at the dealer's locations; THEY ARE MAKING THE DEALER A PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION.

We ought to be pushing for the eFA10 double PIN solution as our compromise. It adds the requirement of the buyer's PIN to prove the identity of the buyer. We give up basically nothing since we have to do the eFA10 anyway, but it gives them the headlines they crave.

THAT should be Jim Wallace's position and his "deal breaker" item, not the fricken FID suitability crap which affects few of us, and which we have already won at the SCOTUS and can be overturned in the courts "easily".

I don't get what GOAL is doing here.
 
Last edited:
Rather than empathizing with pro-gun advocates, Sheila Decter, the Director of the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, says that GOAL’s advocacy efforts are too little too late.

Decter believes that Wallace and other members of GOAL, while saying that they want an amendment, are looking to kill this bill. Because of this, Decter believes that legislators should work to pass this bill instead of focusing on trying to make pro-gun advocates happy.

When asked about what piece within the bill she could do without under a compromise, Decter says that the time to compromise is over. If GOAL really wanted to provide input and create a bill that everyone could agree to, then they should have shown more effort earlier in discussions.

“I think that this is a decent bill the way that it is,” said Decter. “I think that there is a real effort to kill this bill and time is absolutely of the essence. This bill has been under discussion for 18 months now; to wait until the 11th hour to try to participate in discussions really is an effort to delay this bill. I have never been convinced that GOAL wants a bill that would curb gun violence.”
Click to expand...

This lady is just making shit up: "18 months" "earlier discussions" blah blah bullshit

Just remember this bill--if nothing else--is horribly drafted. Multiple provisions that don't properly interact with each other, no federal law along with misstated facts to justify passage.

That should give you the utmost of confidence those who propose it are merely guided by emotion rather than reason. Even the staunchest of advocates of the policy the bill furthers should realize it's a train wreck of drafting.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
This is very interesting and upon careful reading of Speaker DeLeo's bill I think that this was probably NOT the intent. I think the expectation was that dealers would 'facilitate' the PTP transfer by verifying licenses and entering the information into MIRCS without doing a 4473 and a NICS check. It's not hard to see how the drafters of H.4121 would fail to consider a dealer's obligations under federal law.
Click to expand...
Quiet said:
That's the way *I* read the bill a well, for whatever that means. But the representative who talked to someone to clarify about the dealer's location crap said the response they got was it was going to require the NICS.
Click to expand...
It does seem like some persons involved in constructing this bill intended the dealer to merely "facilitate" the private transaction, principally to assure that it would be recorded. Those persons probably were aware of the conflicts with Federal law and with the "Lists" and this was their sneaky way around those obstacles.

On the other hand, it is no surprise that others (worst of anti-2A crowd) think this means a 4473 and a NICS check... and to Hell with Federal law (mere details to be worked out later) and the "Lists" (if it ends the transfer of "unapproved guns", all the better).

In short, they want to eat their anti-2A cake and have it too. [thinking] Do they care in the least about these conflicts? I think not.
 
I'm sorry, but I guess I'm far too cynical... I believe Mr. DeLeo to be a lot of things, but "idiot" is not one of them. You don't get to where he is without knowing how the system(s) work, broken or not.

Remember most of these people are lawyers, with staffs of lawyers at their disposal. If he and the AG didn't know exactly what this was and how the fed laws would apply,

...that scares me more

.02
 
LenS said:
If someone wants to point out that BATFE REQUIRES FFLs to book EVERYTHING that comes into their hands and thus EOPS List and AG's Regs would definitely apply for ALL transfers if this bill was passed, someone posted the 4 pg BATFE Procedure above, but here's the link that you might point friendly legislators to.

https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/f...-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf
Click to expand...
Well, assuming all our esteemed legislators were/are aware of this BATFE document while drafting the new anti-2A bill, that blows my theory (posted above) all to Hell. [thinking]

In particular, the part about being in compliance with all state laws and regulations clearly invokes the hated Massachusetts "Lists." [angry]

Thus, as written, the new anti-2A bill will stop the sale of all handguns not on the published EOPS and the AG's secret "Lists." [frown]
 
OK who thinks if they intended to do away with all private sales, this is the approach that they would take?

Take into account intentional subterfuge, trying to slip it by us, or naivite/stupidity if you like.
Then again they could have had transfers done in front of cops or unrelated notaries not just ffls if they didn't intend use of the NICS.
 
Quiet said:
OK who thinks if they intended to do away with all private sales, this is the approach that they would take?

Take into account intentional subterfuge, trying to slip it by us, or naivite/stupidity if you like.
Then again they could have had transfers done in front of cops or unrelated notaries not just ffls if they didn't intend use of the NICS.
Click to expand...

I think these people are smart - when it comes to chipping away at our rights - but ignorant with respect to existing law.
 
exodious said:
I think these people are smart - when it comes to chipping away at our rights - but ignorant with respect to existing law.
Click to expand...

this.

there is a good chance if you aren't on NES or a gun collector you are oblivious to half of MA's firearms laws, nevermind federal, and I can't imagine what people who don't even know what a gun feels like have for an understanding of the laws...
 
Quiet said:
OK who thinks if they intended to do away with all private sales, this is the approach that they would take?

Take into account intentional subterfuge, trying to slip it by us, or naivite/stupidity if you like.
Then again they could have had transfers done in front of cops or unrelated notaries not just ffls if they didn't intend use of the NICS.
Click to expand...

Here's the revision they'll come up with next:

"All transfers can only be facilitated by school principals at the location of their place of employment. All Massachusetts laws must be followed".
 
exodious said:
I think these people are smart - when it comes to chipping away at our rights - but ignorant with respect to existing law.
Click to expand...

I think it's 100% ingorance, followed by "don't care". It feeeels good to shallowly say "no personal transfers, background checks for all" [turn off brain]. It's a struggle for us, the law abiding citizen to understand the layering laws in MA, after all. I'm sure they have neither the inclination nor time to understand them (even though it's their job). And they certainly do not want to have to explain this Rube Goldberg legislation to the public, it simply will not fit into a soundbyte, there's a high chance they'll articulate it incorrectly, and furthermore it's embarassing and exposes how ridiculous it is. Best to stick with the proposed law as written and blissfully consider it in a vacuum.

That's why when we fight this you have to do an "end around" and explain it backwards and in basic words. It should be stated that Section 18 effectively prohibits the sale or transfer of many makes/models lawfully held firearms property between licensed owners, and would prohibit a family member from bequeathing a firearms collection in many cases.
 
Last edited:
goodzilla said:
I think it's 100% ignorance, followed by "don't care". It feeeels good to shallowly say "no personal transfers, background checks for all" [turn off brain]. It's a struggle for us, the law abiding citizen to understand the layering laws in MA, after all. I'm sure they have neither the inclination nor time to understand them (even though it's their job). And they certainly do not want to have to explain this Rube Goldberg legislation to the public, it simply will not fit into a soundbyte, there's a high chance they'll articulate it incorrectly, and furthermore it's embarrassing and exposes how ridiculous it is. Best to stick with the proposed law as written and blissfully consider it in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Bottom line (for me anyway): Buy what you want/need for the rest of your natural life right now if you plan to stay in Taxachusetts... 'cause if this passes AND Warren Tolman becomes AG, active gun purchasing/collecting/trading likely becomes a near impossible hobby to enjoy very soon now. [thinking]
 
I honestly think you all are giving them too much credit for naivette and intent... this took 18 months to put together. If they were going to cobble this together kneejerk style (like NY and CT), they'd've been better served to strike while the metal was hot over a year ago while emotional support was much higher.

This was presented late in the session on purpose, the majority of folks will think it's innocuous to a minor inconvenience, and once it slips by and is actually law the "unintended" consequences will be discovered...

Am I the only one that had an FID for life, or was more than 16 years old in 1998? [crying]


ETA: and I did include the ATF link LenS posted above in my emails to my Rep (Fattman) and Sen (Moore)... and I got "not as written" from both, though Moore's canned response did expound on supporting the second amendment and legal gun owners-
 
Last edited:
EJFudd said:
Bottom line (for me anyway): Buy what you want/need for the rest of your natural life right now if you plan to stay in Taxachusetts... 'cause if this passes AND Warren Tolman becomes AG, active gun purchasing/collecting/trading likely becomes a near impossible hobby to enjoy very soon now. [thinking]
Click to expand...

EJ
You better watch out, I have heard that Tolman wants to mandate that all currently owned guns will have to retrofitted with smart gun technology. I hope I am wrong. If that is the case I will be selling my collector guns out of state rather than ruin them. I would assume if this is true it would be done as a condition of selling a used gun in MA as I can't see them going door to door checking for smart gun tech in existing guns or having people at the ranges to check your guns.
I can see it now, the gun police are at the range, you have your smart gun watch on, they want you to hand them the gun to see if they can fire it without the watch, if it goes off - you go off to jail!
 
mbullism said:
Am I the only one that had an FID for life, or was more than 16 years old in 1998? [crying]


ETA: and I did include the ATF link LenS posted above in my emails to my Rep (Fattman) and Sen (Moore)... and I got "not as written" from both, though Moore's canned response did expound on supporting the second amendment and legal gun owners-
Click to expand...


No, I had an FID that said "for life" as well.
I got mine around 1979.
The LEO that does the licenses asked me why I waited so long to get a LTC.

New guy here, but voiced my opinion for the cause.
I called Sen. Moore's office Friday and got the same response. He does not support the bill as written. Told that he has a history of siding with gun rights.
Sen Durant is my other rep.
 
EJFudd said:
Thus, as written, the new anti-2A bill will stop the sale of all handguns not on the published EOPS and the AG's secret "Lists." [frown]
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there wording in this atrocity that would allow the AG to add rifles and shotguns to "the list"? Thus, as written, the new anti-2A bill will stop the sale of all handguns, rifles and shotguns not on the published EOPS and the AG's secret "lists". [thinking]
 
Bill Katt said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there wording in this atrocity that would allow the AG to add rifles and shotguns to "the list"? Thus, as written, the new anti-2A bill will stop the sale of all handguns, rifles and shotguns not on the published EOPS and the AG's secret "lists". [thinking]
Click to expand...

You are not wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom