Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
OfficerObie59 said:
No, but it does allow you to appeal your restrictions to a court, something you couldn't previously do. The problem is there has to be "no reasonable grounds" for the restriction, which seems to me like burden shifting to the plaintiff. See Section 36.
Click to expand...
As it was before, unfortunately, this will have to be fought in the courts and future bills.
 
exodious said:
I think it does "constitute the sale" because they struck out all the other parts of 128A that talked about how you're supposed to report the transaction (FA-10).
Click to expand...

I wonder what - if anything - the "reporting the transactions via FA-10" revisions will do with regard to the purchasing of long guns out of state from an out-of-state FFL. Anyone???
 
LenS said:
Derek said:
Who votes against liberty?
Click to expand...
The MA Legislature . . . and every time too! [rolleyes]
Click to expand...
+1776

Voters in this state have banked on laws applying to "thee and not me" for nearly 4 centuries...

Elect people who ban fireworks and then go buy them in surrounding states.
Elect people who tax the !@#$ out of alcohol and then drive to NH for their booze.
Elect people who tax the !@#$ out of everything and then buy online and bitch when they try to tax it.
and so on...
 
I tried to read and comprehend the entire bill, but I get lost in it. In some sections the Class A and Class B designations are clearly being stricken. But then I see this:

SECTION 33. Said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out paragraph (d) and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:-

(d) Any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority or any law enforcement officer employed by the licensing authority or any person residing in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction located within a city or town may submit to such licensing authority or the colonel of state police, an application for a Class A license to carry firearms, or renewal of the same, which such licensing authority or said colonel may issue if it appears that the applicant is not a prohibited person as hereinafter set forth to be issued such license, and that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property, or for any other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only, subject to such restrictions expressed or authorized under this section.

It calls out Class A again, so now I'm confused. Is Class A gone or not?
 
wheelgun said:
I tried to read and comprehend the entire bill, but I get lost in it. In some sections the Class A and Class B designations are clearly being stricken. But then I see this:

SECTION 33. Said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out paragraph (d) and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:-

(d) Any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority or any law enforcement officer employed by the licensing authority or any person residing in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction located within a city or town may submit to such licensing authority or the colonel of state police, an application for a Class A license to carry firearms, or renewal of the same, which such licensing authority or said colonel may issue if it appears that the applicant is not a prohibited person as hereinafter set forth to be issued such license, and that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property, or for any other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only, subject to such restrictions expressed or authorized under this section.

It calls out Class A again, so now I'm confused. Is Class A gone or not?
Click to expand...

As I read the bill, they got rid of the Class B and left Class A alone. It might seem a bit archaic, but FRB/DCJIS breaks all the licenses break down into classes. FID's are Class C, FID/Defensive Spray are Class D, and Machine Gun Licenses are Class E.
 
derek said:
The vote wasn't close, and besides that who votes against liberty?
Click to expand...
Well, the 100+ people who would have voted for the original bill.

Unless you believe that somehow magically the original bill would have failed if all 30+ Rs voted against it.

When the NES/GOAL response took them by surprise, they would have been forced to either abandon the bill and lose face to the 30 Republicans (not gonna happen) or they were going to be forced to vote Yea for the bill by the speaker and "take the heat"

Peterson gave them a way out; he turned this bill into what appears to be a net positive for us.

Make no mistake -- we were going to get a gun control bill.

When GOAL suggested they wanted heat on the FID issue and they were not looking for heat on the FTF issue, I was fearful that they wee aimed in the wrong direction. I thought that a double PIN eFA-10 solution would give the anti's a face-saving win. That's what we got, give or take. So perhaps that had already been negotiated. I don't know.

Peterson/GOAL/NES got more than I possibly imagined was possible in "concessions" from the other side. Us subjects in MA are in no position to be demanding no compromises. We are too far down the path of subjugation. This result is something to build on, to understand the role NES and GOAL had, to learn and internalize the lessons and maybe -just maybe- begin to work on some pro-active aspect.

Maybe we could start with getting through the Senate without negative amendment.

Then maybe getting the condiment bill passed.
 
cmcgraw2 said:
"Peterson has no intentions of moving to Florida...don't be surprised to hear his voice of advocacy in the future — or see him in a deer stand during the November rut."
Click to expand...
Of course he already has his LTC, so he doesn't care about those saps who want their FIDs
 
cekim said:
+1776

Voters in this state have banked on laws applying to "thee and not me" for nearly 4 centuries...

Elect people who ban fireworks and then go buy them in surrounding states.
Elect people who tax the !@#$ out of alcohol and then drive to NH for their booze.
Elect people who tax the !@#$ out of everything and then buy online and bitch when they try to tax it.
and so on...
Click to expand...

I like this as the basis of an idea for an ad campaign to talk to some fence sitting imbeciles. Not that I'd refer to them that way.
 
Quiet said:
Without Peterson, I'd be headed over to my local dealer with $25 to transfer my Raven to Jason Flare
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that and before you know it his men will be at your door looking for all your electronically filed FA10 firearms.
 
Whutmeworry said:
I wonder what - if anything - the "reporting the transactions via FA-10" revisions will do with regard to the purchasing of long guns out of state from an out-of-state FFL. Anyone???
Click to expand...

Reading the current 128A I still don't understand how we're required to report out of state purchases brought back into MA in the first place.

Edit: Nevermind, 128B is what governs that. I don't think anything with regard to out of state purchases is changed.
 
Last edited:
derek said:
Keep telling yourself that and before you know it his men will be at your door looking for all your electronically filed FA10 firearms.
Click to expand...
a. yep and they could have done that before with your paper FA10s or failing to have filed them, 4473's traces not matching your FA10s
b. see 4473 - most of your guns are registered in a free state too, its just a slightly more time consuming process to trace them...
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Is the suitability issue a step forward?

It seems that way. But we won't really know until the courts define the issue further. For example, are you a "risk to public safety" if you answered Question #10 incorrectly? What if you were charged with 131L violation after a gun you left unsecured was stolen from your home by a burglar? Are you a risk, or is the safety risk merely the burglar?

I predict it'll be years until the courts work out all the bugs. Certainly a few hours for the public to review it will leave a whole swarm. Shit, by the time I wrote my Rep about the failure to remove the unconstitutional alienage restrictions from sections 21 and 33, the bill had already passed.
Click to expand...

It still isn't clear to me what this means for those of us who have LTC-A but with T&H restrictions. Will restrictions still exist? It seems like we're a threat to public safety or not, right?
 
Last edited:
ntomsw said:
I think it's funny how so many people in this thread are actually happy with what's going on.

Pretty telling if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Theres a difference between feeling happy vs. grateful that we werent completely infringed upon. No question that .gov's goal here is to kill us w 1000 papercuts but the original H.4121 was far more than a papercut.

im guessing few of us are actually "happy".

personally I feel there are still too many ?'s on this BS bill to generate any conclusions and like Derek I refuse to consider any discussions on "suitability" to be fruitful....its all bull$hit and I want to see the feds rip it up.
 
Squib308 said:
Theres a difference between feeling happy vs. grateful that we werent completely infringed upon. No question that .gov's goal here is to kill us w 1000 papercuts but the original H.4121 was far more than a papercut.

im guessing few of us are actually "happy".

personally I feel there are still too many ?'s on this BS bill to generate any conclusions and like Derek I refuse to consider any discussions on "suitability" to be fruitful....its all bull$hit and I want to see the feds rip it up.
Click to expand...

+1

I'm pleased, not quite "happy" with the gun community's response, even if our fearless leader isn't. ;-)

I'm happy I'm not being asked to register sexennially* and visit an FFL to sell something.









*Yeah, that's the right word. Figures, don't it?
 
Last edited:
Just read the bill for the first time. Definitely a little hazy on a few issues, but I am pretty sure this bill will strip MA residents of selling FTF.

Line 266 reads:

SECTION 18: Section 128A of said chapter 140 is hereby amended by adding the following 2 sentences:- Any sale or transfer conducted to this section shall comply with section 131E and shall take place at the location of a deal licensed pursuant to seciton 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.

This is the most egregious section of the bill IMHO. Imagine inheriting your fathers gun collection when he passes away and paying $500 just to transfer the 20 guns he had in his collection to you!!
 
Babo said:
The final bill was introduced at 10:00AM today, but the leaderships decided to ram it through anyway. How is that transparent? Did anyone actually read this?
Click to expand...
I did say "for Mass".....

ntomsw said:
I think it's funny how so many people in this thread are actually happy with what's going on.

Pretty telling if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say 'happy', I think 'relieved' is a better way to describe my feelings at least.

They didn't eliminate suitability, and that was NEVER going to happen. But the new wording appears to require that chiefs bear more of the burden to justify their exercise of discretion. Not great, but marginally better. We won't really know until the courts start interpreting their role. They've also clarified that one can file an appeal if issued a restricted license of if the PD exceeds the allotted time for issuing a license. That's an improvement.

The NICS reporting thing got done bringing MA into compliance with federal law. As long as that was left undone there was always the temptation to open of the covers and tinker with other things.

The bottom line is that this was a political compromise, not a compromise on substance. Everyone (i.e. house members) got to walk away saying that they accomplished something. The Speaker didn't lose face - something was going to pass. The gun control nuts are happy and the Governor will declare victory. Most importantly, they can all check 'gun control' off their to-do lists for another few years, it's over for the foreseeable future. I look at this as an inoculation.
 
derek said:
Personal gain over liberty. The bill was going to pass regardless and he knew it, yet still voted for it. Yeah I can't wait to see what "gain" he gets for stomping on the Constitution.
Click to expand...

A pat on the back on his way out the door? Peterson is retiring this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gang-related music videos driving gun violence in DC: report
Replies
4
Views
211
StevieP
StevieP
Video: Threat of gun violence stressing out Americans
Replies
12
Views
395
thesyguy
thesyguy
Here's a list of states suing the BATFE/FEDS in opposition to the new ruling of who's a dealer and who's not.
Replies
5
Views
303
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
568
Zappa
Zappa
Samuel Whittemore - The inventor of FAFO
Replies
7
Views
387
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Back
Top Bottom