Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone have the dumbed down version, or link to it, of what laws will change/be in acted if this bill is passed in to law as it currently stands?
 
OfficerObie59 said:
No one has even mentioned the fact that this bill would result two different statutes prohibiting carrying while intoxicated, see Section 40.

The new law adds an additional paragraph (p) to 269/10 with a comprehensive list and punishments for carrying while intoxicated and specifying a .08 BAC standard for alcohol intoxication.

And it totally leaves 269/10H in place as is, which is more vauge but has a longer potential jail term. It's as if whoever drafted the bill had no clue we already had a law on the books prohibiting this conduct. Oh wait...
Click to expand...

Something I also noted is that if Section 40 passes, it would be totally incompatible with Sections 19 and 26 since it allows for reinstatement of an LTC after 10 years, despite it carrying a potential jail sentence of two years. It also conflicts with both the current and proposed versions of 140/131(i)(d) barring those convicted of gun crimes from ever getting an LTC.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
I already ate crow. Go back 3 posts or so.

The federal prohibited person statute in 18 USC 922(g) simply mentions that PP's are those convicted of crimes punishable by crimes punishable by > 1 year. You have to go back to another section of the section, 18 USC 921(a)(20)(B) to find the state 2 year misdemeanor exclusion.

And I missed that.
Click to expand...

I wonder if in their effort to bar federally prohibited persons from an LTC the drafters of DeLeo's bill made the same oversight.
 
thorin said:
This is almost like something from the Onion. Dorchester rep Russell Holmes wants to attach an amendment to this bill which will remove penalties for repeat criminal offenders and removing the loss of drivers license as a punishment for certain drug crimes
http://www.dotnews.com/2014/rep-holmes-plans-amendments-speaker-s-gun-issue-proposal
Click to expand...


From the Dotnews story:

Ahead of debate and amendments on the House floor, DeLeo said he’s getting opposition (to H4121) in the western part of the state, as anticipated. However, representatives from western urban areas were okay with the bill.

“I felt actually pretty good about it, because I was getting a feeling over the weekend that I might be up for a bigger uphill battle than I thought,” said DeLeo.

Story published on May 30, so DeLeo must be talking about last weekend - otherwise he doesn't know what #@^% day it is..
 
cmcgraw2 said:
From the Dotnews story:

Ahead of debate and amendments on the House floor, DeLeo said he’s getting opposition (to H4121) in the western part of the state, as anticipated. However, representatives from western urban areas were okay with the bill.

“I felt actually pretty good about it, because I was getting a feeling over the weekend that I might be up for a bigger uphill battle than I thought,” said DeLeo.

Story published on May 30, so DeLeo must be talking about last weekend - otherwise he doesn't know what #@^% day it is..
Click to expand...

Once again confirming that those on bacon hill don't give a **** about rural voters in general, and western MA in particular.
 
exodious said:
Once again confirming that those on bacon hill don't give a **** about rural voters in general, and western MA in particular.
Click to expand...
And in other news, rain today will be wet. :)

OfficerObie59 said:
With the addition of crimes for which the punishments have since changed to make them currently more than 2 years (for example, OUI 1st Offense convictions prior to 1994), I used the MA Sentencing Commission's Master Crime List (found here: http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/admin/sentcomm/mastercrimelist.xls) to identify crimes punishable by between one and two years that would make state prohibited persons under Sections 19 and 26 of the new bill, with common crimes in bold. Likewise, I removed firearms and drug violations, as they are already disqualifiers.
...
Click to expand...
It seems to me one way to have any attempt at energizing the Fudds is to use Obie's list. Take it to your club meeting, distribute it at the range, send it to the officers. Maybe folks might become a bit more energized if they see they're going to lose their precious FID and/or LTC.
 
Maybe we should go on the offensive and demand the removal of the AWB? If this is supposed to be a "comprehensive" gun violence bill then in my opinion all MA firearms laws are on trial.

Even people who know nothing about guns can be convinced that a sliding stock or pistol grip have no effect on the lethality of a firearm.

I even have Linsky on video saying there's no difference between a pre-ban AR-15 and a MA compliant AR-15 (or something to that effect).
 
JJ4 said:
Maybe we should go on the offensive and demand the removal of the AWB? If this is supposed to be a "comprehensive" gun violence bill then in my opinion all MA firearms laws are on trial.

Even people who know nothing about guns can be convinced that a sliding stock or pistol grip have no effect on the lethality of a firearm.

I even have Linsky on video saying there's no difference between a pre-ban AR-15 and a MA compliant AR-15 (or something to that effect).
Click to expand...

I would like a copy of that
 
JJ4 said:
Maybe we should go on the offensive and demand the removal of the AWB? If this is supposed to be a "comprehensive" gun violence bill then in my opinion all MA firearms laws are on trial.

Even people who know nothing about guns can be convinced that a sliding stock or pistol grip have no effect on the lethality of a firearm.

I even have Linsky on video saying there's no difference between a pre-ban AR-15 and a MA compliant AR-15 (or something to that effect).
Click to expand...

I agree. All bets are off, and all options are open. If they want "give and take", let's not deny them.
 
We all have to go to make up for the asshats that think that this bill means nothing. I met two guys at the range today who are all for the Bill. I couldn't believe it. They were beside themselves that the buyer doesn't enter his PIN during the electronic FA-10, and how we have to compromise to save ourselves.

The worst part of this Bill is yet to come. It sets a precedent for the State getting involved in inventorying our guns at renewal. Don't think that the "lost or stolen" will remain as such. Christ - the official summary of the Bill already has "own...or acquired"

Requires applicants for the renewal of a license to carry to list guns they still own or have lost, sold or acquired since the date of the last renewal or issuance
Click to expand...
 
Someone should call Cabela's and tell them Mass is about to make 1/4 of the gun owners of the state PP.
They may have seconds thoughts on their store. Only thing the politicians hate more that gun owners is lost tax revenue :)
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I wonder if in their effort to bar federally prohibited persons from an LTC the drafters of DeLeo's bill made the same oversight.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was an oversight.

The Committee did make a recommendation to align FID issuance with the federal prohibited person statute, but it did so by recommending it be done by eliminating the five year conviction look back on FID cards. It mentioned nothing with regards to the 2 year misdemeanor issuance standard. And the five year look back remains intact in the drafted bill.

So they claim to be following the committee's recommendations by proposing a change of law the committee never recommended.
 
Last edited:
I went to the hearing last year on the Cape. I stood up and made my objections and recommendations know. It's like I was at another forum. What left field did this crap come from. "Suicide Hot Line numbers on ID cards". Who the hell asked for that?
 
WBspectrum said:
Someone should call Cabela's and tell them Mass is about to make 1/4 of the gun owners of the state PP.
They may have seconds thoughts on their store. Only thing the politicians hate more that gun owners is lost tax revenue :)
Click to expand...

That is not a bad idea.


I see that GOAL has made a statement. What has Comm2A said?
 
djsmiles said:
That is not a bad idea.


I see that GOAL has made a statement. What has Comm2A said?
Click to expand...

Comm2A doesn't deal with legislation/lobbying. It is not part of their charter. If they made a statement, they would risk losing their 501(c)(3) status.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Something I also noted is that if Section 40 passes, it would be totally incompatible with Sections 19 and 26 since it allows for reinstatement of an LTC after 10 years, despite it carrying a potential jail sentence of two years. It also conflicts with both the current and proposed versions of 140/131(i)(d) barring those convicted of gun crimes from ever getting an LTC.
Click to expand...
So obviously, they knew what they were writing.
 
oh ,yes gun crime is up in da hood,

so lets screw the licensed peeps, and remove the 2A ,

because of the disproportionate ratio of the color of the perps is not right for our agenda.

end of story.
 
Knob Creek said:
I went to the hearing last year on the Cape. I stood up and made my objections and recommendations know. It's like I was at another forum. What left field did this crap come from. "Suicide Hot Line numbers on ID cards". Who the hell asked for that?
Click to expand...

I took a day off from work to go to the AIC hearing in Springfield. What a dog and pony show the hearings were. At the AIC hearing the Committee members present admitted that legal gun owners were NOT the problem. I made it a point when I spoke to articulate how the number of legal gun owners in the Commonwealth have decreased SIGNIFICANTLY since the '98 laws were passed. And here we are today. The legislation they propose into a bill will do NOTHING BUT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LEGAL GUN OWNERS FURTHER!!

I guess that I shouldn't be surprised. Naughton also said that bill that removes the FID requirement for Pepper Spray would be passed or already has been passed!! This hearing was 10 *&(kin months ago!! No pepper spray bill passed yet! But we do have a bill that will take LTCs away from people that wrote in a library book $&(kin 40 years ago!

I feel safer already. Nice job by the Committee.
 
Last edited:
The Left has this really strange, perverted notion of 'compromise' and 'common sense reform'. They throw out these bills with a long list of items that are clearly designed to abrogate our rights. After some 'negotiations' a version of the bill is passed that only contains, say 2/3 of the original BS, and everyone claims bipartisan victory and there's a big celebration. Meanwhile, we again inch closer towards the elimination of lawful gun ownership in this state and crime remains unabated. Maybe both parties pull this crap but the MA pols have clearly perfected the process.
 
MA_Shooter said:
The Left has this really strange, perverted notion of 'compromise' and 'common sense reform'. They throw out these bills with a long list of items that are clearly designed to abrogate our rights. After some 'negotiations' a version of the bill is passed that only contains, say 2/3 of the original BS, and everyone claims bipartisan victory and there's a big celebration. Meanwhile, we again inch closer towards the elimination of lawful gun ownership in this state and crime remains unabated. Maybe both parties pull this crap but the MA pols have clearly perfected the process.
Click to expand...



I see another CT style FU to the state by everyone not complying. Unfortunately, many FUDDs will just go along and hand in their guns.
The enemy we face is the same kind of enemy the Jews face. They seek our ultimate destruction and nothing else no matter how much we compromise. There is only one way to stop them for good.
 
Last edited:
I'm all fired up for Tuesday. Regardless of whether they've made up there minds, if enough people show and complain about it they have to acknowledge it.

- - - Updated - - -

Too bad I can't Jedi-mind-trick DeLeo.
 
Unfortunately I cannot go, I have gone to others, Tuesday is lawyer day.

I will be calling my reps, as well as my friends and relatives to get them to call.


In regards to a GIANT - F U to the state - agreed. As I said in other threads, they pass this (after swearing Ch 180 was the end all be all); I consider EVERYTHING ELSE already on the books OPTIONAL.

Simple reasoning - no matter what gets passed as legal - it becomes illegal at some point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The 10 Commandments of Gun Safety
Replies
2
Views
319
deerdad
deerdad
CT: Armed Patrol wants New Haven residents to take safety into their own hands despite opposition
Replies
25
Views
641
42!
42!
Gang-related music videos driving gun violence in DC: report
Replies
4
Views
233
StevieP
StevieP
Southington, Ct., gun store break in
Replies
3
Views
179
Sf Becket
Sf Becket
Video: Threat of gun violence stressing out Americans
Replies
12
Views
438
thesyguy
thesyguy
Back
Top Bottom