House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[Bill Katt]

At this point what are the odds that FID suitability doesn't return? The chiefs and Rosenthal will go in there and say " here's the deal... Give us suitability back and we will endorse this bill as " good gun control".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point, with them getting on their high horse about the FID shit, I'm inclined to think that it will either be put back, passed & signed or die in committee. Then we'll get to see much worse next session.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Keep slapping lipstick on this piggy. Here is the new statute.



This statute has always made cops a higher class above the rest of us, just now more so than ever. They receive special privileges as a matter of employment, and not even restricted by a minimum time limit like LEOSA. Ownership and purchase are irrelevant to this discussion. They can build or buy out of state the rifles they want and not a word can be said. Possession rights trump any restriction on purchase and ownership that one wants to read into the statute. Saying otherwise is splitting hairs. If you can possess it, you can purchase, own or build it. Whether someone can sell it is a different question, but this gives cops purchase, ownership and build rights.



Suspect class is not the only way to carry an EP claim. If you identify a fundamental right as implicated, some form of elevated scrutiny applies. This is why the SJC has been narrowly scoping the 2A right, so they can avoid having to pull back layers of the onion and look foolish in the process when there is little justifying the distinction or worse, that justification is a pack of lies. In order to avoid exposing the fraud and lies, the best option is to scope out of the right that which they don't want to be touched by it. This allows them the fait accompli of being right all of the time.

Tom, at the end of the day, do you think there's an argument that can be made for getting rid of the AWB on the basis of the LE exemption? Because I think it's a loser all day and all night. Perhaps I'm guilty of not being legally creative enough, but I don't even see how you form an argument around that which has a snowball's chance.

We're going on nearly 20 years since the federal ban passed. AFAIK, no one has even attempted it yet in that time.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Chief's aren't cops, they're cops turned politicians. They are a breed apart from police officers and rarely reflect the sentiments of rank and file cops. It's a mistake to equate the police with police chiefs.

Contesting the FID suitability is nothing more than a power grab in my view. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Coyote33]

So, Senator Michael Moore came to our club tonight to speak on this. He said we need to keep the pressure on the house side right now, and especially point out that they need to support amendment #6 on suitability. He said the most important ones to contact are Deleo and Dempsey, then your own representatives, then all the others; in that order. He said when it goes to conference committee, that the Senate side is pretty solidly in line with the Senate bill as-is. He said the House side of the conference committee will probably consist of Naughton, Peterson, and maybe Dempsey; but the jury is still out on that. It sounds like a tough fight, but if we can get the word out, and get GOAL and NRA to put out the calls for making calls, we could still get this through as-is.

Godspeed, NES.

 

[OfficerObie59]

<sarcasm>Obviously the correct approach would have been to consult Ron Glidden for his opinion.</sarcasm>

If they wanted to accomplish the same result, I think they could say "This section shall not prohibit possession by a law enforcment officer using such weapon and/or large capacity feeding device, authorized for on duty use or issued by his law enforcement agency, for the purposes of law enforcment, which shall in include training and maintainence. This exemption shall not be construed to permit private ownership, purchase, or possession for assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices primarily intended for private non-duty use."

That's the type of language you'd need to properly draw the line to fix the issues the legislature is going for here. Instead, they're swinging the floodgates wide open.

For the record, just in case anyone doubted, I support repeal I the whole damned thing...

 

[Coyote33]

Here is a list of every member of the house. I emailed everyone. The only email not there is Rep. Peterson who I talked to personally. Hopefully it can help.

Let me try this with comma separated method:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Angelo.D'[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Shaunna.O'[email protected], James.O'[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

 

[LoginName]

I could live with that with an addition for clarification...

If they wanted to accomplish the same result, I think they could say "This section shall not prohibit possession by a law enforcment officer using such weapon and/or large capacity feeding device, authorized for on duty use or issued by his law enforcement agency, for the purposes of law enforcment, which shall in include training and maintainence. This exemption shall not be construed to permit private ownership, purchase, or possession for assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices primarily intended for private non-duty use by active duty, and retired law enforcement officers."

That's the type of language you'd need to properly draw the line to fix the issues the legislature is going for here. Instead, they're swinging the floodgates wide open.

For the record, just in case anyone doubted, I support repeal I the whole damned thing...

 

[Bfatz]

So let me guess this strait, with this bill in its current form:

Cops, retired or otherwise will be considered superior individuals over the rest of us ( The tax payer funded army of the 1% ) Basically a free meal ticket to do as they please and have as many black Killy things as they can amass.

Cops will also be considered Mental Health Specialists, Armed School Security, Judges, Juries and Executioners, within the walls of our children's School Systems.

Cops will also soon to be considered Physiological specialists who will have the power to find you unsuitable if said Chief has a bad day and his wife said she has a headache. Ya I know he has to put it in writing " Dear Cousin, Judge ( insert name ) "

So tell me folks how do these new found Police powers fix violence on our streets?

Oh And thank you Mass Legislators for verifying for us Realists that the Police State is very much alive and well in Massachusetts.

But hey why complain its a Victory...right?

 

[Rekonn]

Catching up here, did the concurrence vote already happen? If not, anyone know when it will?

 

[exo]

The intent of suitability isnt that the chief knows everybody in town, it lays within the fact that the cop IS likely to know most of the dirtbags, and the addresses that get the most calls... My chief knows im suitable because he doesnt know me, if that makes sense. Where suitability fails isnot the discretion, its in the abuse ... Now the COPs find themselves rallying with ... With.. Well... Nuts.

JFC. Either we're free men or we aren't. Either you're convicted of a crime and behind bars or you aren't. You can't have it both ways with this wishy washy "b-but edge cases where [dbag is gonna dbag]". It debases all of us.

 

[crazymjb]

So let me guess this strait, with this bill in its current form:

Cops, retired or otherwise will be considered superior individuals over the rest of us ( The tax payer funded army of the 1% ) Basically a free meal ticket to do as they please and have as many black Killy things as they can amass.

Cops will also be considered Mental Health Specialists, Armed School Security, Judges, Juries and Executioners, within the walls of our children's School Systems.

Cops will also soon to be considered Physiological specialists who will have the power to find you unsuitable if said Chief has a bad day and his wife said she has a headache. Ya I know he has to put it in writing " Dear Cousin, Judge ( insert name ) "

So tell me folks how do these new found Police powers fix violence on our streets?

Oh And thank you Mass Legislators for verifying for us Realists that the Police State is very much alive and well in Massachusetts.

But hey why complain its a Victory...right?

Again... how do you not get it? We went from Worse to Bad in this state without litigation, which is a huge victory as far as our power to effect these laws politically goes.

Its a victory because in many respects our position is IMPROVED... and all of this as a result of legislation meant to screw us over.

Politically, thats a huge victory for 2A in Massachusetts.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[JZ1018]

When it comes to the suitability issue, lets not forget Senator Creem's own words that in the past, suitability has been abused by some CoP.

 

[HuntMaine]

Again... how do you not get it? We went from Worse to Bad in this state without litigation, which is a huge victory as far as our power to effect these laws politically goes.

Its a victory because in many respects our position is IMPROVED... and all of this as a result of legislation meant to screw us over.

Politically, thats a huge victory for 2A in Massachusetts.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

Im not sure we should call this a victory, id say its more in that category that we only got kicked in the groin several times versus kicked punched and dragged in the street. This is still an incremental degradation of 2A in Mass and if it feels like a win, thats was the goal of the Rosenthals of the world.

Next time it will be the same, 10 terrible proposed laws and 2 or 3 will get by. While I am glad we look to be having an impact (in aint over yet) its awful this Bill was even introduced. LEOs getting more power is not the answer, although the chiefs will tell you it is. So a win? Id say its rather triage to a bleeding issue, the problem is still there. Suitability is just a cluster fck and has and will be continued to be abused, period.

So yes I will continue to call, never thought id have my reps number as a contact on my cell. Hopefully we have the effect we want and not get railroaded at the end.




Sent from the blind

 

[hv55maxx]

Called my rep yesterday. Will call again today and email as well. If anyone gets voicemail leave a message and try again. Projected vote is tomorrow so don't sit back just yet

 

[Squire]

Why do these legislators do this shot when everyone is on vacation? Really want to protest the Statists today, but will just keep calling the Rep.

 

[jeepchute]

Email sent to every Rep.

Feel free to use it, just switch it up a bit since they all got it. While I'm not happy about whats included as "positives" in paragraph three I hope it moves them to get this over with.

Dear State Representatives,


I implore you to support the current Senate Bill as written. Both the Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Gun Owners Action League agree that the FID card should not be subject to the suitability requirement.


If the suitability requirement is added back into the Bill it opens the state to legal action similar to Moore v. Madigan. I would hate to see taxpayer money wasted on a court case that could easily be avoided by passing the Bill as written before the House today.


Additionally, this bill introduces Universal Background Check for Face-to-Face purchases and also incorporates wider NICS compliance as well as other gun control measures. With time running out it would be a shame to lose this opportunity only to include a provision that will cost the state a significant amount of money in legal fees and possibly be struck down anyway.


Thank you all for your continued hard work on this bill.


Sincerely,

 

[oldsoldier29]

The LEO clause, now that I've clarified it, I believe Judy clarifies existing law. I'd the existing law good? No. But it doesn't really give them any new leeway, from what I understand.

 

[Coyote33]

When it comes to the suitability issue, lets not forget Senator Creem's own words that in the past, suitability has been abused by some CoP.

It would be great to get a sound clip of that and submit to all the news stations to play over and over again.

 

[whacko]

It would be great to get a sound clip of that and submit to all the news stations to play over and over again.

Yeah I'd love to see that........but the news sations would just sit on it.

 

[rickinma]

I was able to get through to dempsey's office, but no luck with Deleo. Anyone else having luck getting through?
I used 617-722-2500 for Deleo
And 617-722-2990 for Dempsey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rickinma]

Deleo's office is tracking # of calls supporting the senate bill. Have you called yet?
Can you get someone else to call?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kingfisher]

I was able to get through to dempsey's office, but no luck with Deleo. Anyone else having luck getting through?
I used 617-722-2500 for Deleo
And 617-722-2990 for Dempsey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just got through to DeLeo's office at the number above, and she said they've been getting some calls. Let's keep it up!

 

[pastera]

I was able to get through to dempsey's office, but no luck with Deleo. Anyone else having luck getting through?
I used 617-722-2500 for Deleo
And 617-722-2990 for Dempsey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dempsey's correct number:
Tel617) 722-2380

Just got through to his office at that number

 

[yanici]

Called the Speaker's office. Very nice young lady. Give him a call.

Called my Rep. again too.

Keep at it guys. This can work.

 

[crazymjb]

Im not sure we should call this a victory, id say its more in that category that we only got kicked in the groin several times versus kicked punched and dragged in the street. This is still an incremental degradation of 2A in Mass and if it feels like a win, thats was the goal of the Rosenthals of the world.

Next time it will be the same, 10 terrible proposed laws and 2 or 3 will get by. While I am glad we look to be having an impact (in aint over yet) its awful this Bill was even introduced. LEOs getting more power is not the answer, although the chiefs will tell you it is. So a win? Id say its rather triage to a bleeding issue, the problem is still there. Suitability is just a cluster fck and has and will be continued to be abused, period.

So yes I will continue to call, never thought id have my reps number as a contact on my cell. Hopefully we have the effect we want and not get railroaded at the end.




Sent from the blind

Really? Because Im pretty sure that we gained some ground here, not lost it. No it wasnt sweeping pro gun legislation, but it is overall putting us in a better place than we were before. Have you guys been following the thread?

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[whacko]

Dempsey's correct number:
Tel617) 722-2380

Just got through to his office at that number

Just called Dempsey myself.......Brian voted FOR the initial bill out of the house with the FID suitability part......I have emailed him a few times telling him I was not happy with his decision to do so. Hopefully a few calls from his "peeps" can get him to support this bill withoug the FID suitibility BS. I called DeLeo as well.

 

[mbullism]

JFC. Either we're free men or we aren't. Either you're convicted of a crime and behind bars or you aren't. You can't have it both ways with this wishy washy "b-but edge cases where [dbag is gonna dbag]". It debases all of us.

lol... dude, you were born into servitude, and you'll die in servitude.

 

[PaulD]

I was listening to WBUR on the way in this morning. They had a quick blurb saying the current and former Boston CLEOs are calling for putting the discretionary FID provision back in the bill. They also said there's going to be a rally in front of the state house today (presumably astroturfing).

Did anyone here this as well?

 

[exo]

lol... dude, you were born into servitude, and you'll die in servitude.

For your sake, I hope you enjoy licking the master's hands by supporting the idea that they need suitability.

 

[Billsail]

I was listening to WBUR on the way in this morning. They had a quick blurb saying the current and former Boston CLEOs are calling for putting the discretionary FID provision back in the bill. They also said there's going to be a rally in front of the state house today (presumably astroturfing).

Did anyone here this as well?

Yes, It's been on the news, and discussed here several times.