Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[rchap36]

Oh yeah makes perfect sense...

Its not over (Patty needs to sign it)

- - - Updated - - -

Someone please explain how the NRA is "opposed" to the new bill while GOAL is "neutral" to it???

Its like your wife said NO you said YES and your son is in the middle

 

[SKS Ray]

Yup. This is merely a prostate exam compared to the full on bowlectomy NY got.

Yeah but unfortunately were still taking it in the ass.

I'm not buying into the whole victory thing.

 

[rchap36]

Will this bill eliminate the extraneous bullshit that some cities/towns require when applying or renewals of a LTC/FID (letters of references, gun club membership etc)?

No

 

[jefftk]

Peterson voted for this? http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/RollCallPdfs/188/00421.pdf

Not surprising - even considering may issue FID. I recall at one or more of the public hearings Peterson testifying against may issue but only because there was no recourse for the applicant - I got the distinct impression that he would be fine with may issue so long there was even a minor semblance of accountability, which this bill does in fact seem to offer.

They used constant contact one day before the vote.

Don't forget the postcards sent out with misinfo about the bill requiring you to submit a list of your guns.

 

[jasons]

Sorry to split hairs, but while section 33 of the bill does seem to define "unsuitable" as "could potentially create a risk to public safety" and requires a written explanation for the deny; it does not mention restrictions in that particular paragraph. It would appear to leave in place the previous standard for restriction of "as the licensing authority deems appropriate."

Restrictions are listed in the elements of the licensing decision that can be challenged in district courts. So does this somehow tie restrictions to the suitability standard of "risk to public safety"?

While this section does somewhat define suitability, it doesn't do it definitively. It starts by stating "reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests the applicant or licensee could potentially create a risk to public safety if issued a license" but then softens that standard or proof with "or (ii) existing factors that suggest that the applicant or licensee could potentially create a risk to public safety if issued a license." This seems to give the Chief quite a bit of wiggle room.

True and good point but section 36 does at least imply that the chiefs will be held to some sort of reasonability standard upon judicial review. Today they can throw a restriction on just because they feel like it and there is no real recourse. (And in fact many chiefs today do have unreasonable policies on restrictions - if you're not a cop you get a target and hunting, etc.)

A justice of such court, after a hearing, may direct that a license be issued or reinstated to the petitioner or may order the licensing authority to remove certain restrictions placed on the license, if such justice finds that there was no reasonable ground for denying, suspending, revoking or restricting such license and that the petitioner is not prohibited by law from possessing a license.

 

[dixidawg]

It does, and that's the worst part of the bill. On the brighter side, the suitability stuff is defined in the law and chiefs are forced to detail reasons for denials, revocations, restrictions, etc. in writing, all of which are subject to judicial review. Granted it's still a MA judge but at least there's some due process.

Why a MA judge? If denied on suitability why not go directly to Fed court? Seems to me a written denial for suitability would be just what the good folks at Comm2a would love to see.

 

[Squire]

Why a MA judge? If denied on suitability why not go directly to Fed court? Seems to me a written denial for suitability would be just what the good folks at Comm2a would love to see.

Can we help Comm2a sponsor some FID applicants in the REDDEST places (ie, train them and give them cash to buy a pump shot gun?). The sooner someone gets denied, the sooner we can get this horseshit in front of SCOTUS.

 

[jasons]

Why a MA judge? If denied on suitability why not go directly to Fed court? Seems to me a written denial for suitability would be just what the good folks at Comm2a would love to see.

I'm not sure how that stuff works, but if someone could go federal that would probably be a good thing.

I would guess that thing we'd need to be careful of (not that we can really do anything about it) is having bad cases go to review and then getting stuck with bad case law.

 

[sieveboy]

I am drunk right now but I do think our letters, calls, emails, and meetings had something to do with this just being a whackathon.

 

[SKS Ray]

I am drunk right now but I do think our letters, calls, emails, and meetings had something to do with this just being a whackathon.

Yeah, and I like to think a few dollar bills on the main stage at the strip club will get me laid.

You people don't get it do you? We got ****ed today! Sure it wasn't full on rape, but still, it happened. More of our liberty has been chipped away.

 

[Jason Flare]

Nope. I have a memory like a godamned elephant. They both yelled at everyone I believe petersons words were "you think your helping. It you are not!"

I was there. It wasn't Naughton.

 

[milktree]

I'm a little disturbed that nobody is pissed that the paper FA10 system has gone away.

If we're required to use computers to sell a gun, then only people who have access to, and are comfortable using, a computer can sell or a buy a gun privately.

Not only that, what happens when the state's computer that handles the instant checks stops working? It could "stop working" because the state takes it down for maintenance, it has a hardware failure, it is accidentally (or deliberately) neglected, the state's service provider screws up and it's not accessible, etc. The state can't even manage copyright on their own forms, I certainly don't believe that they'll put extra effort into maintaining a website.

When that happens, FTF transfers are de-facto illegal.

 

[Admin]

I'm a little disturbed that nobody is pissed that the paper FA10 system has gone away.

If we're required to use computers to sell a gun, then only people who have access to, and are comfortable using, a computer can sell or a buy a gun privately.

Not only that, what happens when the state's computer that handles the instant checks stops working? It could "stop working" because the state takes it down for maintenance, it has a hardware failure, it is accidentally (or deliberately) neglected, the state's service provider screws up and it's not accessible, etc. The state can't even manage copyright on their own forms, I certainly don't believe that they'll put extra effort into maintaining a website.

When that happens, FTF transfers are de-facto illegal.

Pick up that can serf!

 

[oldsoldier29]

So, can someone cliff note this? And, no, from what I gather, we didn't get screwed at all. There was billionaire money and extreme anti gun people behind this, and we didn't lose anything. at least, not from what I can read. But, we need legislators to pass bills that the public can read. This legalese nonsense is bullshit.

 

[Boris]

True and good point but section 36 does at least imply that the chiefs will be held to some sort of reasonability standard upon judicial review. Today they can throw a restriction on just because they feel like it and there is no real recourse. (And in fact many chiefs today do have unreasonable policies on restrictions - if you're not a cop you get a target and hunting, etc.)

"or (ii) existing factors that suggest that the applicant or licensee could potentially create a risk to public safety if issued a license."

This is very broad, let's say you got a vet ... then he could possibly have PTSD, hence there is that potential, ... posting crap about not liking .gov and there we go again. Shit, anyone on NES is a "potential risk" in moonbat's eyes.

 

[Admin]

This is very broad, let's say you got a vet ... then he could possibly have PTSD, hence there is that potential, ... posting crap about not liking .gov and there we go again. Shit, anyone on NES is a "potential risk" in moonbat's eyes.

Come on dude the government would NEVER abuse power or keep people from owning guns. This was a VICTORY!

 

[SKS Ray]

So, can someone cliff note this?

Mass gun owners played the "Just the tip" game today.

 

[jefftk]

So, can someone cliff note this? And, no, from what I gather, we didn't get screwed at all. There was billionaire money and extreme anti gun people behind this, and we didn't lose anything. at least, not from what I can read. But, we need legislators to pass bills that the public can read. This legalese nonsense is bullshit.

FID cards are may issue, however you can appeal with a de novo hearing (with LTCs too)
Paper FA10s are gone - need to use a fancy new, to be designed, web portal to do transactions.
Increased penalties + arrestable offense for carrying on school grounds.
Probably lots of other penalties that we'll have to pass the bill to find out.

 

[Gillham]

NRA-ILA Sent this out.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...ate-house,-sent-to-senate.aspx?s=4121&st=&ps=

 

[drgrant]

I'm a little disturbed that nobody is pissed that the paper FA10 system has gone away.

They've already been doing that, so I'm not sure what difference it makes. It was only a matter of time before they stopped printing FA-10s altogether and just started telling people no. They've already been lying to callers about distribution of the forms to PDs for well over a year now. Although if the law is actually changed the one big thing that sucks is we now no longer have plausible deniability on rejected FA-10s anymore, so that DOES blow.

-Mike

 

[Boris]

NRA-ILA Sent this out.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...ate-house,-sent-to-senate.aspx?s=4121&st=&ps=

Comrades, reconcile this for me, NRA was involved in this:

While concessions were made and the NRA was able to scale back some of the anti-gun aspects

who?

 

[Admin]

They've already been doing that, so I'm not sure what difference it makes. It was only a matter of time before they stopped printing FA-10s altogether and just started telling people no. They've already been lying to callers about distribution of the forms to PDs for well over a year now. Although if the law is actually changed the one big thing that sucks is we now no longer have plausible deniability on rejected FA-10s anymore, so that DOES blow.

-Mike

Basically you need a computer and internet connection to sell a piece of personal property. Seems pretty legit. It's amazing how much you guys take.

 

[PaulD]

Yeah but unfortunately were still taking it in the ass.

I'm not buying into the whole victory thing.

We'll never have a legislative victory in MA. The best we can hope for is to not get full on rape raped.

 

[milktree]

They've already been doing that, so I'm not sure what difference it makes. It was only a matter of time before they stopped printing FA-10s altogether and just started telling people no. They've already been lying to callers about distribution of the forms to PDs for well over a year now. Although if the law is actually changed the one big thing that sucks is we now no longer have plausible deniability on rejected FA-10s anymore, so that DOES blow.

-Mike

The difference is that (assuming that this chunk of the bill passes unchanged) before you'd be in full compliance of the letter of the law by sending in a printed FA10 from the PDF the state published on their website, and you had 7 days to do it.

Now, *in law*, there's no legal way to transfer a gun without using a computer and The Internet (which is in fact a restriction on some people) *and* you have to do it *before* the transaction. It went from "reporting" to "approval", and that's very bad.

 

[Boris]

We'll never have a legislative victory in MA. The best we can hope for is to not get full on rape raped.

I don't know what's worse, slowly boiling to death or getting boiling water poured over us, I think that latter may be better ultimately.

I don't believe in these "compromises" and supposedly "pro-2a" politicians slipping roosters in voter's butts.

 

[whatluck]

I bought stock in KY jelly today.

 

[Boris]

yeah, so having internet/pin is a requirement to sell a gun, but showing a ****ing ID at the polling station is too much of a burden.

 

[LoginName]

Yup. This is merely a prostate exam compared to the full on bowlectomy NY got.

Yeah but unfortunately were still taking it in the ass.

I'm not buying into the whole victory thing.

We have what we have.

At least it's better than finger deep up to the 2nd knuckle (like we got), than elbow deep and double wide (like NY got).

 

[Garden12]

FID cards are may issue, however you can appeal with a de novo hearing (with LTCs too)

So would challenging an FID denial be the same process as how one challenges a LTC denial currently? I should add I'm talking of suitability denials only. If it is, I have very few hopes in anyone successfully appealing.

 

[jefftk]

yeah, so having internet/pin is a requirement to sell a gun, but showing a ****ing ID at the polling station is too much of a burden.

but it disenfranchises the elderly, poor, and minorities! And wtf do you think all the gun laws do???