If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
So much for Hank Naughton being our buddy, huh?
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....
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.
- 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.
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.
Naughton had no input and nothing to do with the findings, recommendations from the "task force".
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......
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......
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
Naughton had no input and nothing to do with the findings, recommendations from the "task force".
unless you have been arrested but never charged or convicted of anything
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.
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
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 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
Are you deductively assuming this from the "suggested background check requirement? " Or actual legislation?
-Mike
Ok, so the reports out.... now we're back to hurry up and wait for Naughton's bill to be submitted....
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.
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!!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....
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.
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?