Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[drgrant]

You are trying to ignore my point, so let me spell it out for you: if the crazy legislators in NH are pushing for an end to FTF transactions (knowing it cannot pass, but still),

Still don't understand with what action in NH legislature has to do with anything down here. Nothing. Not relevant.

My point was, without seeing what the bill is, you can't really pass an analysis on it, all you can do is arm-flap and generate hysteria.

You should also know that what "universal background checks" is all about is to force all gun purchases to happen at the FFL, where the gov can regulate them to no end without violating YOUR rights (according to MA courts, at least). Eliminating legal FTF transactions would get MA closer to their CA-like dream of only allowing you a rusty pre-WWII pistol to defend yourself.

I'm well aware of what that is, but MA .gov has a way of half assing everything. Look at GCA 1998. That bill has "half assed" written all over it. The reason it was designed that way is because they had to make lots of concessions to get it passed, and some of those things are economic considerations, etc. They also have to make a tactical choice.... do they want people just transferring stuff offhand, or do they want them all going through the system? The more your brick out the legit system the less lawful transfers that will be conducted. It is inevitable.

Also, we still have several tricks up our sleeves (as gun owners) that I'm not about to divulge in public.

I'll circle back to this thread once the legislation passes... just so we can establish which of us is being realistic. The proof is in the pudding... no way to settle this particular argument until then.

Frankly I could care less. I'm done going around in circles with the chicken littles around here. "The sky is falling the sky is falling!" Wake me up when there are actual bill(s) filed. (ones with legs, not this linstain crap) Then at that point we can work on pounding the bastards, maybe sneaking an amendment in there, or something. Or just sitting back and watching it explode (it may come poison pilled). The progression of this bill has been so slow I think on its front it will be a lot less dramatic than anticipated.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Regrettably I think you are wrong Mike. This report sets the stage for Deleo's bill which WILL get to the floor, he'll see to that even if he has to threaten everyone (see my post above about how C. 180 went down in 1998).

Separately, Naughton will write his bill. Where that goes depends on if it floats Deleo's boat or not.

I guess it depends on who DeLeo has writing the bill and whether or not they know what they're doing, and how much it will "cost" etc. Maybe its me but this current crop of antis doesn't remind me of the days of Jacques, Angus, barrios + co.

I guess also if DeLeo is going to jail anyways he can probably get away with threatening people at this point.

-Mike

 

[WatchCityCPA]

...
My point was, without seeing what the bill is, you can't really pass an analysis on it, all you can do is arm-flap and generate hysteria.


...


Frankly I could care less. I'm done going around in circles with the chicken littles around here. "The sky is falling the sky is falling!" Wake me up when there's an actual bill filed. Then at that point we can work on pounding the bastards, maybe sneaking an amendment in there, or something. Or just sitting back and watching it explode (it may come poison pilled). The progression of this bill has been so slow I think on its front it will be a lot less dramatic than anticipated.
-Mike

I see. You need to see a NEW bill BEFORE realizing that the MA legislature is anti-freedom, so there is no need to fight to knock a few legislators out of their seats until a bill is proposed.


After all, until a bill is passed there is no need to actually DO something - political fights only happen between the time a bill is passed and the time it is voted upon, then everybody takes a rest until the next bill is passed. A rather illuminating perspective - thank you for clarifying that for me.

The only thing we stand to gain legislatively in MA are little things like the license non-expiration, or MAYBE the cleaning up of the EOPS/AG list, and potentially minorly beneficial "guidelines" on who may be restricted.


If you think anything else will come without litigation, you're high. They will never overturn the mag ban or "assault weapons" ban, they will never have shall issue, and they will never get rid of registration without a court order saying they must.


So yes, I'm happy that it is looking like I can probably still bring my 30 round mags to the range, and carry my 12 round mags, without going to jail if I get caught a la CT or NY. Hopefully the "may issue" FIDs force some litigation requiring "shall issue" in the future. Though I think more likely we will see a district or SCOTUS case before that affirming CC is a right and making them un**** their "discretion" based system to the point of "shall issue."


But yes, MA is lost as far as legislation in our favor goes. Holding the line until litigation comes down the pipe is the best we can hope for IMO.


Mike

Appreciate your admission that you gave up on the legislative process. In that light, your posts make perfect sense.


To both Mikes above, and everybody else: The ONLY way to get a politician to listen is to threaten their election chances. Unless you are willing to fight the hard, long and grinding grassroots political battles and throw a few bums out of power (or at least force them to fight hard to retain their seats), you have NO power over them. If you cannot do that yourself, find a PAC that will do that. If there is no PAC that will fight the right fight, get together and create one. The only choice that guarantees that bad things will keep happening is to do basically nothing... and it's an amazing popular choice.


You gentlemen are free to choose your own course of action for whatever reasons are good to you... but choices have consequences.

 

[jasons]

I see. You need to see a NEW bill BEFORE realizing that the MA legislature is anti-freedom, so there is no need to fight to knock a few legislators out of their seats until a bill is proposed.

Anyone who has been paying even a little attention is already well aware of that fact. If you really needed to read some shill "study" to get to that conclusion you've probably been in a medical coma for the last 50+ years.

Getting worked up over a toothless study is not productive. It's the actual bill, which we haven't seen yet but will make it to the floor, that we need to focus on. It will be written in secret and only made public at the last possible moment, most likely without much if any opportunity for debate. That's how things work here.

This study is just a smokescreen, and apparently it's already working.

 

[crazymjb]

IMO the money would be better spent going to groups like Comm2A.

I really don't think there is hope in getting a real libertarian/conservative movement going in this state. Believe me, I'll tell people why they should vote for X, and I will vote, but I honestly feel like we are beyond saving.

Voters in this state don't care to be educated... and those who are still can't help themselves but vote the way they always have.

In the country their MAY be hope, but not in this state. Litigation and civil disobedience is the way to go IMO. We should definitely speak up, but I believe the most we can do is hold the line if we are lucky.

Mike

 

[SBR]

It sounds like most of the changes they want are to make more prohib people. (Fxxking shocker) A temp restraining order, so ex girl friend is pissed gets restraining order screwed for ever. With out ever being charged with a crime. A 1988 bar fight, or trespassing charge. Screwed for life OUI is already a disqual, unless before 1994. Now under this it appears that 2 or more within 5 years is now a disqual. So 20 years ago someone had two OUI now they are a DQ. Screwed for life Or any one kind of violent crimeAnd the screwed up part is none of these to my knowledge are a fed disqualified now. Why don't they give us a list of who can own guns it will be shorter than who can't.
here is the list NO ONE.
Sorry unless you work for them, or are in a Mexican Drug Cartel
Oh but the best part is they exempt themselves and they still want to be law makers after they have been convicted of a felony. WTF. This state sucks. Ah fxck let's just give illegals drivers lic well were at it. Find some way to sneak that into the new laws.
Ok I am done for now

 

[Dean508]

Those are common sense proposals that will curb illegal gun violence and criminal activity fo' sho!

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Signing an affidavit that what FRB has you still have. I requested a listing of all my guns they list, there were two I don't remember, were they even mine and 6 that I sold to a dealer, some in Maine and some in Mass.
This past year a Mass Dealer told me I don't have to do an FA10 because I was selling to him and a friend said just keep your receipt but you are signing that what the FRB says you have is correct, not that you have further proof...
How many of you have requested a list so you know what they have for you?

 

[roccoracer]

How did you request your list? I will request mine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[30Mauser]

So much for Hank Naughton being our buddy, huh?

I'm not promising he's our buddy, but Hank Naughton is unrelated to this committee.

 

[jasons]

How did you request your list? I will request mine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Get pulled over for a minor traffic violation and ask the friendly public servant to print out the "it's not a gun registration list, we promise" list that comes up on his computer?

 

[Chris]

You know the one statistic that was not mentioned and will probably never be reported is this:

Since 1998 when the last major legislation was enacted, how many people who had active and valid licenses were convicted of firearm related crimes?

But of course, if the truth that none of these laws would have any impact were well known, there would be no support.

Telepathically uploaded via Google implants.

 

[LoginName]

That's exactly what I was getting at. Certain types of people will read the report and say "it's not that bad, I don't have to worry" and when they have their eye off the ball we'll get slammed with actual legislation that's much worse. Or alternatively people will get all spun up about the report (I bet the post count even here will go north of 500 posts) and miss the actual legislation, with the same effect.

My point in either case: Don't get caught up in this smoke screen. It's just a feint to set us (all of us, fudds included) for the haymaker.

400 and a lock.

Regrettably I think you are wrong Mike. This report sets the stage for Deleo's bill which WILL get to the floor, he'll see to that even if he has to threaten everyone (see my post above about how C. 180 went down in 1998).

Separately, Naughton will write his bill. Where that goes depends on if it floats Deleo's boat or not.

This....

Absolutely. What the Senate President or Speaker of the House want to get to the floor gets to the floor for debate and a vote. Conversely, what they do NOT want to get to the floor never gets to the floor! [This works the same in other states and in DC too.]

And this.

Those involved have put too much time and effort into this to just sit back and simply forget it never took place.

Factor in that DeLeo is Speaker of the House practically ensures that at least some measures of the task forces findings will be implemented.

DeLeos "task force" and Naughtons public hearings were (are), a bit of a smoke screen.

They wanted to give the impression of being fair, balanced and unbiased by hearing opinions from both sides, and they were dragging their feet waiting to see how other

states faired ... they didn't want to end up with egg on their faces the way NY did.

In Naughtons situation, he/the Senate, doesn't have the time or patience to deal with some 60+ firearms related bills when it would simplify matters by at least

condensing the more workable ones and those that could be upheld in the courts.


WRT what happened back in 98... times have changed somewhat because back then very few people were online to enable gun owners to at least have a fighting

chance and mobilizing before they can pull the rug out from under us. At the federal level at least, I believe the Internet was a big factor in 2004 (AWB renewal), and

2013 (Newtown fallout), in sinking some of the worst anti 2A legislation in recent memory.

Unfortunately... the anti's also have the same resources at their disposal and are just as motivated to utilize and take advantage of them as we are.

When the smoke has cleared, neither side is going to be very happy, yet both sides will proclaim victory.

 

[crazymjb]

I wouldn't say the hearings were a complete smoke screen, though that remains to be seen. The pro-gun side was definitely heard at least a little bit. In neither CT or NY did they give a single shit about anything gun owners thought when proposing legislation. It looks like we may make a little headway (and quite possibly lose some ground in other areas at the same time).

Mike

 

[Chevy 2 65]

MCoPA
will most likely recommend no issuance to anyone who has ever had or been:
Arrested, CWaF, 209a, trespass order etc..

Then most LEO's will be without a job. Not all of them are pure and some have arrest records without convictions

 

[LoginName]

I wouldn't say the hearings were a complete smoke screen, though that remains to be seen. The pro-gun side was definitely heard at least a little bit. In neither CT or NY did they give a single shit about anything gun owners thought when proposing legislation. It looks like we may make a little headway (and quite possibly lose some ground in other areas at the same time).

Mike

If your referring to my post, I don't think the hearings were a complete smoke screen (that's why I posted a bit of a smoke screen).

I don't want to condemn or accuse all those that put these hearings together (as you post... at least we got heard this time around).

As per my previous post... I can only owe that to what we have here now.

The ability to communicate faster, more efficiently and effectively before things happen.

It's possible that there are some that wanted to honestly get informed and hear from both sides, which is more than we got the last time.

My belief it was more of a delaying tactic to avoid rushing into things the way NY and CT did and wait it out until cooler heads prevailed.

Linsky might have actually helped us in that regard.

I can see some of the more level headed legislators leaning back and saying "dude... are you ****ing serious"?

 

[DMWB]

Then most LEO's will be without a job. Not all of them are pure and some have arrest records without convictions

QFT.

I think many people in this state would be surprised to know that LTC holders are held to a higher degree of scrutiny than many LEOs with respect to criminal history. Not that all prior criminal activity necessarily has any bearing on future criminal activity, but if it did, you would see a surprising amount of officers and troopers with empty holsters.

 

[FSTC]

Here are the parts I find troubling.

The Speaker told the committee that nothing was “off the table” and the committee could look into any proposals that might decrease gun violence, including proposals that might call for additional revenue.

Speculation: Ammo/gun tax increase

The Committee also recommends that this firearm safety course be standardized and accredited

Speculation: accredited by whom? and Moon island testing for all.

verify and sign an affidavit that he or she still owns all the guns legally registered to them

The Committee recommends that the state consider a public service campaign that encourages family members to get help obtain serves for and remove firearms from the homes of individuals who may hurt themselves or others due to a personal crises such as a divorce, loss of employment or other personal crises

Speculation: No one will be posting "feeling sad" on Facebook anymore.

We did get one "win"

Committee believes the current restriction strikes a reasonable balance between public safety and personal liberty.

At least they acknowledge that Mag limits are a restriction to Liberty!

 

[FSTC]

Then most LEO's will be without a job. Not all of them are pure and some have arrest records without convictions

You are breathin' Rockrvrs paint fumes if you think any of these changes will apply to an Leo

 

[PaulD]

Irony. One of these recommendations is that the safety course include a section on MA firearm law. Of course, we all know that even state lawyers don't fully understand MA firearm law, but it appears the people in this committee don't either. To wit:

- "The Committee recommends the requirement that records of firearm sales from defunct firearm dealers be transmitted to the Executive Office of Public Safety as well as to ATF." Um, given the FA10 system, aren't they already in the Firearms Records Bureau?
- "The Committee recommends that upon license renewal each gun owner in the Commonwealth verify and sign an affidavit that he or she still owns all the guns legally registered to them." Yeah, that's great except that if I transfer a gun through a dealer, I don't have an FA10 form to state that I no longer own the gun as the state doesn't record that directly (only secondarily by recording the transfer to the new owner).
- Since many crime guns are trafficked into Massachusetts and within Massachusetts, the Committee recommends that all crime guns be routinely traced, and that the data from these traces be shared with criminology, public policy and public health researchers and with other law enforcement agencies. As I've ranted before, WTF aren't these being traced through the FA10 system now? It should be incredibly easy to prove who a gun in MA was last legally owned by. Obviously these half wits can't figure that out though.

 

[crazymjb]

Hey, they only had a bunch of legislators and a year to put the recommendations together... cut them some slack.

Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Irony. One of these recommendations is that the safety course include a section on MA firearm law. Of course, we all know that even state lawyers don't fully understand MA firearm law, but it appears the people in this committee don't either. To wit:

- "The Committee recommends the requirement that records of firearm sales from defunct firearm dealers be transmitted to the Executive Office of Public Safety as well as to ATF." Um, given the FA10 system, aren't they already in the Firearms Records Bureau?
- "The Committee recommends that upon license renewal each gun owner in the Commonwealth verify and sign an affidavit that he or she still owns all the guns legally registered to them." Yeah, that's great except that if I transfer a gun through a dealer, I don't have an FA10 form to state that I no longer own the gun as the state doesn't record that directly (only secondarily by recording the transfer to the new owner).
- Since many crime guns are trafficked into Massachusetts and within Massachusetts, the Committee recommends that all crime guns be routinely traced, and that the data from these traces be shared with criminology, public policy and public health researchers and with other law enforcement agencies. As I've ranted before, WTF aren't these being traced through the FA10 system now? It should be incredibly easy to prove who a gun in MA was last legally owned by. Obviously these half wits can't figure that out though.

Bolded part: NO problem even if it is a violation of MGL C. 66 S. 10(d) - privacy of gun owner info. [Since there is never a penalty for gov't doing the wrong thing, this shouldn't be a big issue for them I'm sure!]

A Dealer FFL will have to pipe up here but my understanding is that the records of firearms sales (Bound Book) is FEDERAL property and not to be given to anyone but the Feds? Am I right here or not?

 

[SBR]

This is gonna cut deeper than 1998 ever did. Disq should be based on the Fed standards, If you are not Fed disq then you are good to go. System already in place NICS
Or is that to simple for this state. I am hoping not much of this sticks.
It is wrong that they can make a new list of Prohib People for crimes that were committed so long ago. (basing this example on the OUI, because any OUI after 94 make you a PP anyway) now they wany any OUI conviction to make you a PP

TO BAD OUI WONT MAKE THEM A PROH PERSON FOR OFFICE.

 

[David Balkus]

It's even worse than that..This will give complete disgresion to the cheifs as to who is Suitable...And we think it's bad now!! This must be stopped.

This is gonna cut deeper than 1998 ever did. Disq should be based on the Fed standards, If you are not Fed disq then you are good to go. System already in place NICS
Or is that to simple for this state. I am hoping not much of this sticks.
It is wrong that they can make a new list of Prohib People for crimes that were committed so long ago. (basing this example on the OUI, because any OUI after 94 make you a PP anyway) now they wany any OUI conviction to make you a PP

TO BAD OUI WONT MAKE THEM A PROH PERSON FOR OFFICE.

 

[crazymjb]

They virtually already have that. If FIDs are made discretionary... prepare for lawsuits.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[not new guy]

Is it safe to assume that the various gun rights organization are actively making them aware that any (more) overstepping will result in litigation?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

You are breathin' Rockrvrs paint fumes if you think any of these changes will apply to an Leo

So its OK then, just sit back an take it. Think not, WE/I would take action and would question "WHY NOT" lawsuits, lawsuits, etc...

 

[Len-2A Training]

Is it safe to assume that the various gun rights organization are actively making them aware that any (more) overstepping will result in litigation?

Why show your poker hand to your enemy?

If they can't figure out that doing what they want could result in losing everything, as a good case could probably be made that it violates Heller and MacDonald due to the requirement for a permit to merely possess anything, tough shit for them and Comm2A and SAF have an avenue to get some good case law in USDC or USSC!

 

[not new guy]

Why show your poker hand to your enemy?

If they can't figure out that doing what they want could result in losing everything, as a good case could probably be made that it violates Heller and MacDonald due to the requirement for a permit to merely possess anything, tough shit for them and Comm2A and SAF have an avenue to get some good case law in USDC or USSC!

Good point, though the usual rule is that it's better to have to go to litigation at all if you can help it. Here you're weighing the potential deterrent effect against whatever gains you think you'll achieve in the courtroom. In the meantime though they'll pass something that sucks. Seems like a risky bet, though I guess the spoken threat of a lawsuit may not go very far to begin with.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

How did you request your list? I will request mine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

You fill out a form that you can download from the FRB website and send them $20 takes about 3 weeks. Mine was 5 pages long. As I said the biggest thing on signing an affidavit is the 6 I sold in 1999 to Kittery trading post, traded them on a new gun, back then I didn't know to do an FA10 even though I was told I didn't have to.