Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.
Click to expand...

I think this would be fantastic. (paging Comm2A!)
 
45collector said:
Not sure I understand how those two sentences fit together. The second sounds positive (for us) at first. But I think what they're getting at is that they believe some licensing authorities are handing out LTC's to individuals who might not be "suitable" enough. JFC.

ETA: also from the Globe...

Again, not sure what that means. I think what they're saying is that they believe FID's should no longer be "shall issue". But I'm taking the second sentence to read that they also want to make it so you can be statutorily denied an LTC based solely on an arrest and not specifically a conviction. (How many of you guys have CWOF's??) [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

That's how I read it.

Making FID's "may issue" is one of the proposed pieces of legislation that was filed last year, so it's not unreasonable to assume it's still on the table.

If they do forge ahead and pass something like that, it might not necessarily be a bad thing as it would unquestionably be in violation of the Heller/McDonald decisions and lead to an appeal
that challenges the whole concept of any "may issue" licensing.
 
rogues said:
How so? Can an FFL currently transfer something that's not on the AG's approved list?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not hearing of anything that will make this situation worse than it already is.

-Mike
 
45collector said:
Not sure I understand how those two sentences fit together. The second sounds positive (for us) at first. But I think what they're getting at is that they believe some licensing authorities are handing out LTC's to individuals who might not be "suitable" enough. JFC.

ETA: also from the Globe...



Again, not sure what that means. I think what they're saying is that they believe FID's should no longer be "shall issue". But I'm taking the second sentence to read that they also want to make it so you can be statutorily denied an LTC based solely on an arrest and not specifically a conviction. (How many of you guys have CWOF's??) [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

I have a CWOF but i have never been arrested. Would something like this effect me?
 
What I read was that ALL firearm sales must undergo a background check. The feeling on these boards and in other places took that to mean an end to FTF transfers and that all transactions must go through an FFL. So if an FFL cannot transfer a firearm that is not on the AG's list, which I assume they cannot since everybody in MA does them as an FTF, then the "background" checks that the state wants to enforce would prohibit people from transferring firearms that they currently can only transfer via an FTF/FA-10. I certainly hope I and others are misinterpreting that, but I cannot see what else the state can be trying to accomplish.

Of course they ignore the fact that when I do an FTF it is a de facto background check if I do it properly because the seller and buyer must both provide an LTC, and the buyer must have an LTC that allows for possession of the firearm being transferred.
 
The panel also recommended closing what it sees as a loophole in state law that allows people who may have been arrested repeatedly without being convicted to obtain a firearms identification card to purchase a rifle or shotgun even though they can be denied a handgun license.
Click to expand...

Yeah, **** due process. That shit's way overrated.
 
The report acknowledges the legality of open carry, although it does note that it's not common:

Current Massachusetts law provides for both a Class A and a Class B license. The Class B license allows the licensee to carry a non-large capacity firearm, and that firearm may not be concealed, while a Class A License allows the licensee to carry a concealed firearm for protection. Massachusetts is not a state where licensees routinely carry their firearms on their hip in the open. As a result, only a small number of Class B licenses are issued in any given year. The Class B license serves no practical purpose and should be eliminated.
Click to expand...
 
drgrant said:
Are you deductively assuming this from the "suggested background check requirement? " Or actual legislation?

-Mike
Click to expand...

rogues said:
What I read was that ALL firearm sales must undergo a background check. The feeling on these boards and in other places took that to mean an end to FTF transfers and that all transactions must go through an FFL. So if an FFL cannot transfer a firearm that is not on the AG's list, which I assume they cannot since everybody in MA does them as an FTF, then the "background" checks that the state wants to enforce would prohibit people from transferring firearms that they currently can only transfer via an FTF/FA-10. I certainly hope I and others are misinterpreting that, but I cannot see what else the state can be trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

This is what I am taking from it. But yeah Mike I guess I am just preparing for the worst right now.
 
PaulD said:
You can read the whole report here.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/02/03/mass-gun-laws-need-tightening
Click to expand...

"The committee also believes that placing a definition of suitability in statute will not provide the necessary flexibility and discretion needed in allowing the licensing authority to make a reasoned decision..."

FIFT

"The committee also believes that placing a definition of suitability in statute will not provide the necessary arbitrary and capriciousness n needed in allowing the licensing authority to make a reasoned decision..."
 
BattleSnail said:
might be the least onerous to most of us, but still pretty F'd up and grossly unconstitutional...not that that matters in MA.
Click to expand...
or any state it seems lately

out of all the potential ones to come out of this, it seems like the one that can actually be defeated in a court as opposed to being relegated to noncompliance/massive protests/revolution, or in other words "internet bitching"
 
rogues said:
What I read was that ALL firearm sales must undergo a background check.
Click to expand...

Where's the drafted legislation with this in it? Is there even a specification for a background check established? "Must have Background Check" can mean a lot of things, depending on who is doing the defining. I realize the temptation to go into alarmist arm flapping mode, but flapping and screeching does nothing until there's actually a target for it.

-Mike
 
Garys said:
Aspirin is a OTC drug, so no prescription is needed.

I think LenS is overstating the case a bit to make his point. The issue is the almost unfettered discretion that the issuing authorities have in terms of issuance, class of license, and restrictions. "Suitability" is left totally up to the issuing authority in most cases.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was pointing out that they can use "suitability" however they choose now. And I'm aware that there are some doses of aspirin that are Rx.

Giving MCOPA a charter to create policy and a list of DQs is akin to asking the fox to guard the hen house! MCOPA is a good part of the problem, no way that they are part of the solution (that would work)!
 
The report/committee is trying to put a lot of faith/power in to the hands of MCoPA....
 
mattyw said:
I hope this one out of all of them passes
Click to expand...

It might sound great, but it sounds like to me is that if what they're proposing passes, a lot of people who might have been arrested and CWOF'd for very minor (or say "victimless") crimes long ago, can now be not only denied an LTC, but an FID.
 
If we can only talk about drafted legislation in this thread then just about every post should go. I'm not trying to be alarmist, we're all attempting to interpret what this means. I sincerely hope I'm reading it wrong.
 
drgrant said:
Where's the drafted legislation with this in it? Is there even a specification for a background check established? "Must have Background Check" can mean a lot of things, depending on who is doing the defining. I realize the temptation to go into alarmist arm flapping mode, but flapping and screeching does nothing until there's actually a target for it.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Herding all FTF transfers onto the eFA10 system would seem to essentially accomplish the "100% background check" standard, for example.
 
The Committee recommends that the law should be changed to require background checks for all secondary private firearms sales and that these sales and checks should be completed through a licensed firearm dealer. The committee recognizes that exemptions may be necessary to this legislation (e.g. guns purchased before 1999)
Click to expand...

At least it sounds like they're aware of the problem of transferring "off list" handguns through an FFL.
 
The Committee recommends the development and implementation of firearms training
consistent with existing licensing standards, and new suitability guidelines developed
by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the Massachusetts Gun Control
Advisory Board. This training should require applicants to complete a firearm safety
course that contains an extensive live fire component. Current safety classes are not
required to include live fire.
• The Committee also recommends that this firearm safety course be standardized and
accredited, while requiring a number of components. These components should include
safe handling of firearms, live fire, safe storage of firearms, and a clear understanding of
Massachusetts firearms law. We also recommend that the firearm safety course include
a module on suicide. The Committee recommends that this course should be designed,
based upon the recommendations of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and
the Massachusetts Gun Control Advisory Board. The Committee recommends that the
Massachusetts Gun Control Advisory Board recommend the appropriate regulations
establishing this procedure to the Executive Office of Public Safety.
Click to expand...
Mandatory live fire.... great lets reduce the availability and increase the cost of the barrier to exercise a fundamental right. [rolleyes]
Include a module on suicide? wtf

There are currently two separate lists of approved firearms in Massachusetts. The
Executive Office of Public Safety’s approved weapons roster established by law and the
Attorney General’s consumer protection regulations established under administrative
rules and regulations. This is confusing to police chiefs, officers, gun dealers, and the
gun owner. The Committee recommends that the Attorney General’s list and the
Executive Office of Public Safety list be made consistent.
Click to expand...
I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come up with for this one....
 
45collector said:
It might sound great, but it sounds like to me is that if what they're proposing passes, a lot of people who might have been arrested and CWOF'd for very minor (or say "victimless") crimes long ago, can now be not only denied an LTC, but an FID.
Click to expand...


that's what I want to happen (no offense to anyone that falls into this category)

the more far reaching and intrusive, the better chance of it being defeated
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gang-related music videos driving gun violence in DC: report
Replies
4
Views
212
StevieP
StevieP
Video: Threat of gun violence stressing out Americans
Replies
12
Views
396
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
306
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
570
Zappa
Zappa
Samuel Whittemore - The inventor of FAFO
Replies
7
Views
387
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Back
Top Bottom