Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[jefftk]

Ok, so the reports out.... now we're back to hurry up and wait for Naughton's bill to be submitted....

 

[LoginName]

So much for Hank Naughton being our buddy, huh?

Naughton had no input and nothing to do with the findings, recommendations from the "task force".

 

[Garden12]

What gun owner group/s did they talk to? In the appendix, it says on September 12, 2013 they spoke with a gun owner group.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Mandatory live fire.... great lets reduce the availability and increase the cost of the barrier to exercise a fundamental right.
Include a module on suicide? wtf

I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come up with for this one....

Statistically very few clubs allow use of their facilities for training/range use. This would reduce the number of licensed people tremendously. Likely an unstated goal.

If they make the lists consistent, the unpublished list (well it is published in disappearing ink on white paper) of the AG wins out and nothing is approved for purchase/transfer. Win-win for the bureaucrats and MCOPA!

 

[DrNVP]

What gun owner group/s did they talk to? In the appendix, it says on September 12, 2013 they spoke with a gun owner group.

probably John Rosenthal. He owns guns don't-cha-know

 

[drgrant]

Oh, this is rich..... so rich...

• All owners in Massachusetts be required to verify and sign an affidavit that they still own all the guns legally registered to them each time they renew their license. Penalties for failing to report a lost or stolen gun would be increased to help reduce illegal gun trafficking.

I'm almost laughing at this one... Legally registered? Do they even understand how the ****ing system works in this state? Clueless. Yeah that might work... if they make a compulsory registration system... (and are willing to spend the money to do so) but good luck with that.

The Committee recommends a simple change in the law that will keep the license valid until the application is re-approved or denied by the Commonwealth. A simple rewording of the law to read in the appropriate sections that “a firearm identification card or a license to carry a firearm shall be valid, unless revoked or suspended, for a period of not more than 6 years from the date of issue, except that if the cardholder or

license holder applied for renewal before the card or license expired, the card or license shall remain valid after the expiration date on the card or license, until the application for renewal is approved or denied.” By eliminating the 90 day period the onus is put back on the government to perform its bureaucratic duty.

So they think that making the grace period indefinite will be helpful? So that someone can be put on the skids (unable to buy guns, because all dealers consider licenses under grace period to be invalid for puchases) for 2 years while Everett or whoever it is pulls their thumb out of their ass? Yeah this is sound thinking..... Oh we'll make you immune, but cut you off at the knees, have a nice day.


-Mike

 

[AngelKing]

sounds like they didn't recommend any of the worst suggestions - ie anything Linsky/Creem wanted. I don't see anything that really changes as a result of these suggestions......

 

[drgrant]

Naughton had no input and nothing to do with the findings, recommendations from the "task force".

This is actually a good thing, which means that this report could be "much ado about nothing" when the dust settles, just another dog and pony show conducted to make it look like they're doing something "useful".

-Mike

 

[DrNVP]

sounds like they didn't recommend any of the worst suggestions - ie anything Linsky/Creem wanted. I don't see anything that really changes as a result of these suggestions......

I see a lot of really shitty things that could change...like giving MCOPA free reign in propagating the list of reasons for denial/restrictions on unrestricted LTCs. Nobody except cops and politicians will be able to carry legally in the state if they get their way.

 

[mattyw]

sounds like they didn't recommend any of the worst suggestions - ie anything Linsky/Creem wanted. I don't see anything that really changes as a result of these suggestions......

unless you have been arrested but never charged or convicted of anything

 

[AngelKing]

I think they saw the failure of the NYSafe act and then the massive non compliance situation in CT and decided to walk. I mean, its by no means over, but its not the worst that could have happened.

That said, are they going to take pepper spray off the list of things that needs a damned permit?

This is actually a good thing, which means that this report could be "much ado about nothing" when the dust settles, just another dog and pony show conducted to make it look like they're doing something "useful".

-Mike

 

[not new guy]

Naughton had no input and nothing to do with the findings, recommendations from the "task force".

My bad - I thought this was part of the group that he was with.

 

[AngelKing]

I have an arrest on my record, it shows everything was dropped without any further action. I disclose this every time, they never even so much as blink.

unless you have been arrested but never charged or convicted of anything

 

[PaulD]

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)!

*ding*

And we as citizens have no recourse since they're not elected.

MA should go to a system of elected sheriffs, but it'll never happen.

 

[rogues]

*ding*

And we as citizens have no recourse since they're not elected.

MA should go to a system of elected sheriffs, but it'll never happen.

I'm not sure, given MA resident's poor voting record on every other elected office in this state.

 

[LoginName]

Evidence based research points to the following groups of individuals are at heightened risk of future violence: individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor; individuals subject to a temporary domestic violence restraining order; individuals convicted of two or more DWI/DUIs in a period of five years; and individuals convicted of two or more misdemeanor crimes involving a controlled substance in a period of five years

As long as they're acknowledging that, it's unfortunate that a conviction for a first time DUI in this state automatically results in being a disqualifier for life at the federal level.

I've been here close to 7 years now and the DUI thing seems to be one of the leading reasons, obstacles, concerns for being denied a firearms license.

(Not that I genuinely or realistically expect them to change the law simply to accommodate firearms owners).

 

[NewGuyRay]

All owners in Massachusetts be required to verify and sign an affidavit that they still own all the guns legally registered to them each time they renew their license. Penalties for failing to report a lost or stolen gun would be increased to help reduce illegal gun trafficking.

Can't see anything possibly going bad with this idea. This would never turn into an affidavit declaring that the list of guns registered to you is inclusive of all guns owned by you -- thereby "encouraging" you to declare any guns owned by you that aren't on the list.

 

[mattyw]

I have an arrest on my record, it shows everything was dropped without any further action. I disclose this every time, they never even so much as blink.

but the report suggests setting a baseline for denials, this may be included in that, who knows really

 

[crazymjb]

This report means nothing... the proposed legislation on the other-hand, when it comes out...

Mike

 

[45collector]

but the report suggests setting a baseline for denials, this may be included in that, who knows really

Exactly and I'm betting they're not going to draw the line at only violent crimes.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

Are you deductively assuming this from the "suggested background check requirement? " Or actual legislation?

-Mike

I am rather confused by your unexpectedly lawyerish approach to this point... what do YOU think that the "all gun sales must include a background check" means, if not the end of FTF transactions?

 

[Garys]

Ok, so the reports out.... now we're back to hurry up and wait for Naughton's bill to be submitted....

There are no rules in the House or the Senate that require only one bill to be filed on any subject. There could be several and they may or may not be merged in committee. Naughton's bill, if filed, could be totally different from a bill filed by someone else. For every 100 bills filed in the General Court, only a small fraction get reported out of committee favorably. A smaller fraction get to the floor and have a third reading. If a House bill is passed, it then goes to the Senate. The Senate then goes through the same process and can either accept the House bill as written or amend it. If the Senate amends it, it goes to a conference committee to work out the differences. If that happens then the bill will be read in both houses again. If it passes, it goes to the Governor.

That's a very simplified and undetailed version of what happens. It's far easier to kill a bill than for it to become law UNLESS both the Speaker and the Senate President want the law to pass. If they don't agree, then the bill has a huge problem.

Just one last note. The Governor is a bit player in this. Any Governor, not just Patrick. He can veto any bill and if the Speaker and Senate President want it to pass, his veto will be over ridden. More so now that he's a lame duck. I get the feeling he was never very popular with either the Speaker or Senate President and now they don't much care what he thinks.

 

[45collector]

Massachusetts has very low rates of gun homicide compared to other urban states. The rest of the United States has 2.5 times the gun homicide rate as Massachusetts. However, since crime in the US is largely an urban issue, rural states, including Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, consistently have lower rates of homicide and gun homicide than Massachusetts. A major problem for Massachusetts is that unlike guns used in suicide or accidents, which are guns obtained and owned legally, crime guns move from states with weak gun laws (e.g., New Hampshire) to states like Massachusetts, with strong laws. For example, some 60% of crime guns used in Boston were originally purchased outside of Massachusetts. New Hampshire is a prime source of gun trafficking into Boston.

I'd like to see their source for this information.

 

[NickyBangBang]

"Massachusetts has very low rates of gun homicide compared to other urban states. The rest of the United States has 2.5 times the gun homicide rate as Massachusetts. However, since crime in the US is largely an urban issue, rural states, including Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, consistently have lower rates of homicide and gun homicide than Massachusetts. A major problem for Massachusetts is that unlike guns used in suicide or accidents, which are guns obtained and owned legally, crime guns move from states with weak gun laws (e.g., New Hampshire) to states like Massachusetts, with strong laws. For example, some 60% of crime guns used in Boston were originally purchased outside of Massachusetts. New Hampshire is a prime source of gun trafficking into Boston."



Sound to me like years of Uber-Liberal policy has caused havoc in many inner cities; they can't control crime sooooo….let's blame NH!

 

[GM-GUY]

And since it's NH's fault, lets screw with Mass Legal Gun Owners - yeah that makes sense.

I WILL NOT COMPLY, I WILL NOT CONSENT, I WILL NOT GO QUIETLY.

BE READY.

 

[NEVER SURRENDER]

Mandatory live fire.... great lets reduce the availability and increase the cost of the barrier to exercise a fundamental right.
Include a module on suicide? wtf


I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come up with for this one....

But it's too much of a burden for people to show an i.d. to vote. WTF!! But we will make people jump thru hoops to exercise a natural right!!

 

[jefftk]

There are no rules in the House or the Senate that require only one bill to be filed on any subject. There could be several and they may or may not be merged in committee. Naughton's bill, if filed, could be totally different from a bill filed by someone else. For every 100 bills filed in the General Court, only a small fraction get reported out of committee favorably. A smaller fraction get to the floor and have a third reading. If a House bill is passed, it then goes to the Senate. The Senate then goes through the same process and can either accept the House bill as written or amend it. If the Senate amends it, it goes to a conference committee to work out the differences. If that happens then the bill will be read in both houses again. If it passes, it goes to the Governor.

That's a very simplified and undetailed version of what happens. It's far easier to kill a bill than for it to become law UNLESS both the Speaker and the Senate President want the law to pass. If they don't agree, then the bill has a huge problem.

Just one last note. The Governor is a bit player in this. Any Governor, not just Patrick. He can veto any bill and if the Speaker and Senate President want it to pass, his veto will be over ridden. More so now that he's a lame duck. I get the feeling he was never very popular with either the Speaker or Senate President and now they don't much care what he thinks.

There are currently several, and they are all in the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security which Naughton is on of the chairs of. The assumption that many people have been subscribing to is that most/all of those bills that went in to the committee will die there, and a new bill, written by Naughton (he has previously claimed he will be releasing a "comprehensive" new bill), will be released that merges various aspects of each of the bills.

 

[drgrant]

I am rather confused by your unexpectedly lawyerish approach to this point... what do YOU think that the "all gun sales must include a background check" means, if not the end of FTF transactions?

It could mean something as simple as a death of the paper FA-10 form for FTF transactions if MIRCS is deemed to constitute a background check. (paper form does not have a "hot" check in it, the MIRCS system does, because if an LE agency flags the license it won't allow the transfer. ) It depends on how "deep" of a background check "they" want.

It could also mean nothing- we don't even know if this will actually end up in a bill or not. There's a lot of crap in this report that shows that the people who wrote it, by and large, really don't understand what they're talking about.

-Mike

 

[GM-GUY]

Because, more than likely, none have even held a gun, never mind having a license to have a gun.

 

[jasons]

This whole report is a distraction. The real bill will be much worse, it will pass quickly, and the pols who pass it will use this report to indemnify themselves against any potential backlash.