House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[terraformer]

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.

No, but it's a plank in a larger argument that supposed AWs are proper tools for self-defense. If cops have a right to defend themselves with it, even outside of work, then they are not spraying bullet hoses but proper self-defense tools. We are just fighting over whom we trust with them. If you can trust retired cops, then why not people who pass background checks?

ETA: You know that joke about the man who offers a $1million to a woman to sleep with her and she says yes, then offers a $1 and she says, "who do you take me for, a prostitute?" Then the man says "we have established that already, now we are just haggling over price." Apply that to this circumstance of AWs.

 

[LoginName]

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?

Did they happen to mention a time?

POLICE CHIEFS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACTIVISTS TO RALLY OVER GUN BILL
To show support for a measure stricken from gun legislation that cleared the Senate last week, police chiefs plan to rally outside the State House Tuesday with members of the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Jane Doe Inc. and Stop Handgun Violence. Former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis plans to join police at the rally, according to organizers, who say police chiefs will express their support for a measure that cleared the House and gives chiefs more discretion to deny rifle permits. Sen. James Timilty, a Walpole Democrat who carried the bill in the Senate and chairs the Legislature’s Public Safety Committee, said last week he supported removing the provision from the Senate bill. "This was something that I felt very strongly about," Timilty told reporters, stating that the amended bill would "reflect the constitution." Under current law, local licensing authorities must give people who pass a background check a firearms identification card. Police chiefs, however, have the discretion to issue a license to carry a handgun. The House bill proposed to extend the same discretion for handguns to firearm identification cards for rifles and shotguns. The Senate voted 28-10 on Thursday for a Sen. Michael Moore amendment to remove that section of the bill, while retaining the ability of police chiefs to deny FID cards if the applicant fits into a category on the prohibited persons list, such as someone convicted of a felony. The overall bill cleared the Senate on a voice vote, and is now likely destined for a conference committee. With ten days remaining for formal sessions, the House met for 12 minutes Monday and adjourned until Tuesday without naming gun bill negotiators. - M. Norton/SHNS

Interesting that the local Demanding Mom's chapter isn't mentioned.

That just might mean that there is something to Timiltys statement that MAIG is in favor of shall issue FID's.

 

[Permanent Waves]

If the House votes for Concurrence, did anyone ever really believe that the Gov was going to sign the current version into law?

He will make far more political headlines for himself by saying he is personally standing up to the NRA and not signing it.
He knows full well that will leave Firearm owners still stuck under the foot of the current crap laws, not to mention the AG's office.

If there is not a vote for Concurrence, and the committee adds back one of his BS anti-gun wishes (One A Month or COP Unsuitability), maybe he will use the opportunity to make a small gain for Anti movement. Maybe.

I'll believe it when I see it. Now going back to calling reps.

 

[sieveboy]

It's a hot day, I'd love to see a bunch of CLEOs sweating under the hot sun in costume protesting OUR rights.

 

[LoginName]

Gun bill change worries police Concern regards rifles, shotguns

Massachusetts police chiefs, Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans, and members of gun violence prevention groups plan to speak out Tuesday against action by the state Senate that takes away police discretion when issuing certain firearm ID cards.

The law enforcement leaders will hold a press conference at the State House to call attention to a provision that was dropped from a gun control bill last week by the Senate.

That provision would have given police chiefs discretion when issuing firearm identification cards for rifles and shotguns. The bill with that language initially passed the Massachusetts House, but was amended by a 28-10 vote in the Senate.

A House-Senate conference committee will review the bill and seek a compromise.

“The last challenge we need is to make it easier for people to get their hands on these high-powered guns,” Evans said Monday.

“There are way too many guns in the hands of people who probably shouldn’t possess them,” he said, calling the amendment a loophole for those who want to obtain long guns such as rifles or shotguns.

The conference was organized by anti-gun violence groups Stop Handgun Violence and the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence.

Complete article... http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-law-change/ocoGa5vnXfSC4KqdrHnZmJ/story.html

 

[whacko]

If the House votes for Concurrence, did anyone ever really believe that the Gov was going to sign the current version into law?

He will make far more political headlines for himself by saying he is personally standing up to the NRA and not signing it.
He knows full well that will leave Firearm owners still stuck under the foot of the current crap laws, not to mention the AG's office.

If there is not a vote for Concurrence, and the committee adds back one of his BS anti-gun wishes (One A Month or COP Unsuitability), maybe he will use the opportunity to make a small gain for Anti movement. Maybe.

I'll believe it when I see it. Now going back to calling reps.

THe gun control proponents are getting 90% of what they wanted........if this current bill passes the senate and the devil patrick vetoes it then we will all know for sure where he stands.........because the elected reps and senators compromised and gave him a bill to sign that has most of what the gun control freeks wanted and if he nixes it.........he is full on telling the citizens of mass that he knows whats best for us!!!!!

 

[PaulD]

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

Sorry, I should have gone back further.

 

[oldsoldier29]

THe gun control proponents are getting 90% of what they wanted........if this current bill passes the senate and the devil patrick vetoes it then we will all know for sure where he stands.........because the elected reps and senators compromised and gave him a bill to sign that has most of what the gun control freeks wanted and if he nixes it.........he is full on telling the citizens of mass that he knows whats best for us!!!!!

90%? They got everything except what directly affects law abiding gun owners. And, based on court cases, police testimony, and police chiefs, we aren't the problem. The antis are angry because WE aren't touched. Not because safety was actually addressed

 

[whacko]

90%? They got everything except what directly affects law abiding gun owners. And, based on court cases, police testimony, and police chiefs, we aren't the problem. The antis are angry because WE aren't touched. Not because safety was actually addressed

TRUE! That would be even more of a testiment to what Devil Patrick is after if he were to veto this if it passes........it would prove what he really wants is fewer legal means to own fire arms.

 

[mbullism]

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

I never said this.. my comment was in reference to our current situation, not that i agreed with it. The FACT is, had not so many COPs gone off the reservation and used suitability and restrictions to meter out their own version of 2A as they see fit, this FID thing would be almost a non starter... if they were only denying or restricting LTC's to known gangbangers and wife beaters, would you really even care?

Thought not.

...and what, exactly, does "for my sake' mean?

 

[PreliatorX]

Left voicemail for Rep. Cole to support the bill. Will try calling again later to try and get a person on the other end.

 

[joshh]

why are we "supporting" this bill exactly?
Did the language of "may issue" get changed? i am at work so i dont have the time to read through it again, i just got the email from GOAL saying they support it & it "Will keep the status quo on issuing FID cards" which to me is a major "NO" when it comes to supporting this bill. I live in a town that has a good chief but feel horrible & disgusted that some are denied any 2A rights because some public servant (no disrespect to the great leo's out here) feels he is above the constitution.

 

[Rekonn]

Called my house rep, Sean Garballey, according to what he told me, sounds like he's on our side. If S2284 comes up for concurrence vote, he will support that. If the bill goes to conference committee to hash out differences, he said he will work to keep the bill close to the senate version, especially in the case of FID suitability.

That said, he said he would be very surprised if a concurrence vote would occur, and is convinced it will go to committee. It sounds like the concurrence vote is not already part of the process, that someone needs to make a decision whether to hold a concurrence vote.

Also, called Deleo's office at 617-722-2500, told them it was about S2284. They said they had a line just for that, and transferred me over. I left a voicemail urging support for concurrence vote for S2284.

Finally, called Dempsey's office too at 617-722-2380, left same message with person that answered phone.

 

[jar]

why are we "supporting" this bill exactly?
Did the language of "may issue" get changed? i am at work so i dont have the time to read through it again, i just got the email from GOAL saying they support it & it "Will keep the status quo on issuing FID cards" which to me is a major "NO" when it comes to supporting this bill. I live in a town that has a good chief but feel horrible & disgusted that some are denied any 2A rights because some public servant (no disrespect to the great leo's out here) feels he is above the constitution.

The status quo on FID cards is that they are shall issue. The may issue FID language was removed from the senate bill.

 

[soam]

why are we "supporting" this bill exactly?
Did the language of "may issue" get changed? i am at work so i dont have the time to read through it again, i just got the email from GOAL saying they support it & it "Will keep the status quo on issuing FID cards" which to me is a major "NO" when it comes to supporting this bill. I live in a town that has a good chief but feel horrible & disgusted that some are denied any 2A rights because some public servant (no disrespect to the great leo's out here) feels he is above the constitution.

The status quo is that FIDs are shall-issue, and the current bill keeps it that way. It also adds a requirement that chiefs have to give a reason in writing for denying or restricting LTCs, which is a major win.

 

[exo]

I never said this.. my comment was in reference to our current situation, not that i agreed with it.

Oh really?

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.

That sure sounds like an endorsement of suitability to me.

The FACT is, had not so many COPs gone off the reservation and used suitability and restrictions to meter out their own version of 2A as they see fit, this FID thing would be almost a non starter... if they were only denying or restricting LTC's to known gangbangers and wife beaters, would you really even care?

Thought not.

Please don't answer for me. Yes, I would care. Do you seriously believe that requiring a license prevents anyone who wants a gun badly enough from getting one? Why do you think Massachusetts is special? In the vast majority of this country, you do not need permission from the police or anyone else to buy or possess a gun, legally. What world do you live in where the chiefs would never abuse such discretionary powers?

...and what, exactly, does "for my sake' mean?

It's sad that you and anyone like you endorse suitability, is all. If you're enjoying it, at least it's not some self-loathing kind of thing. That would be worse.

 

[whacko]

why are we "supporting" this bill exactly?
Did the language of "may issue" get changed? i am at work so i dont have the time to read through it again, i just got the email from GOAL saying they support it & it "Will keep the status quo on issuing FID cards" which to me is a major "NO" when it comes to supporting this bill. I live in a town that has a good chief but feel horrible & disgusted that some are denied any 2A rights because some public servant (no disrespect to the great leo's out here) feels he is above the constitution.

You are a little confused on what the current law is aparently. FID......is "shall issue" right now which means the chief has to give it to you if you are not a federally prohibited person. LTC is "may issue" which is subject to Chief of Police approval.

The current bill leaves it the same on FID, removes LTCB,and forces the Chief to privide "credable and documented" evidence as to the denial of an LTC.....so no more arbitrary denials.........so we are in favor. Got it now?

 

[joshh]

The status quo on FID cards is that they are shall issue. The may issue FID language was removed from the senate bill.

so its not "status quo" (which has given chief's the may issue out for years) but its now "SHALL ISSUE" which would be great to hear. My reps support but i'll call the Douches on the list during my break if this is the case!

 

[soam]

so its not "status quo" (which has given chief's the may issue out for years) but its now "SHALL ISSUE" which would be great to hear. My reps support but i'll call the Douches on the list during my break if this is the case!

FIDs have always been "shall issue", so "shall issue" FIDs are, by definition, the status quo.

From Wikipedia: Status quo is a Latin phrase meaning the existing state of affairs.

 

[exo]

so its not "status quo" (which has given chief's the may issue out for years) but its now "SHALL ISSUE" which would be great to hear. My reps support but i'll call the Douches on the list during my break if this is the case!

Try it one more time. Today, right now, the law is shall issue for FIDs only. What was removed from the bill was changing that to may issue.

 

[whacko]

so its not "status quo" (which has given chief's the may issue out for years) but its now "SHALL ISSUE" which would be great to hear. My reps support but i'll call the Douches on the list during my break if this is the case!

You are making this more difficult than it has to be. FID and LTC are two different licenses. FID alway was SHALL issue (they had to give it to you) and LTC was may issue subject to suitability........

they tried to make FID may issue subject to suitability but the senate removed that language and now we support the bill. If this is too hard for you just trust us......we supprot the current bill......its "more betterer"

 

[jhagberg88]

can someone give me the part where the LEO exemption for AWB is?

 

[mbullism]

Oh really?



That sure sounds like an endorsement of suitability to me.



Please don't answer for me. Yes, I would care. Do you seriously believe that requiring a license prevents anyone who wants a gun badly enough from getting one? Why do you think Massachusetts is special? In the vast majority of this country, you do not need permission from the police or anyone else to buy or possess a gun, legally. What world do you live in where the chiefs would never abuse such discretionary powers?



It's sad that you and anyone like you endorse suitability, is all. If you're enjoying it, at least it's not some self-loathing kind of thing. That would be worse.

I'll not banter with you any more... it's obviously counterproductive.

 

[Billsail]

so its not "status quo" (which has given chief's the may issue out for years) but its now "SHALL ISSUE" which would be great to hear. My reps support but i'll call the Douches on the list during my break if this is the case!

No, FIDs have always been shall issue. There was a part of the bill that was going to make it may issue, but that was defeated, and the present bill remains at shall issue, but with an added bonus must state, in writing, the reason anyone is denied.

LTCs remain may issue, as they had been before.

Do you get it now??

 

[oldsoldier29]

can someone give me the part where the LEO exemption for AWB is?

LEO AWB exemption isn't new-the proposal merely clarifies the current laws.

 

[whacko]

Oh really?



That sure sounds like an endorsement of suitability to me.



Please don't answer for me. Yes, I would care. Do you seriously believe that requiring a license prevents anyone who wants a gun badly enough from getting one? Why do you think Massachusetts is special? In the vast majority of this country, you do not need permission from the police or anyone else to buy or possess a gun, legally. What world do you live in where the chiefs would never abuse such discretionary powers?



It's sad that you and anyone like you endorse suitability, is all. If you're enjoying it, at least it's not some self-loathing kind of thing. That would be worse.

Unfortunately there are some LTC holders (and dare I say some massachusetts NESers) in mass that tout thier "permission slip" like it is some sort of badge of honor or some damn thing.......you know......the guys who keep it in the front of their wallet hoping some hot girl sees it......... and try to pass it off at the package store for proof of age. Hell some idiot on here a couple of weeks ago said he would flash his to a cop when pulled over to let him know "we are on the same team"! You and I sound like we are on the same page in that we are embarrased to have to get a permission slip from the government official to carry a fire arm.

 

[joshh]

You are making this more difficult than it has to be. FID and LTC are two different licenses. FID alway was SHALL issue (they had to give it to you) and LTC was may issue subject to suitability........
they tried to make FID may issue subject to suitability but the senate removed that language and now we support the bill. If this is too hard for you just trust us......we supprot the current bill......its "more betterer"

oh ok. i got mixed up with that. i know there were some changes with this and thats where i got mixed up. i thought goal was pushing for shall issue across the board with reasons for denial tho.
thanks for the clarification (and the avatar)

 

[joshh]

No, FIDs have always been shall issue. There was a part of the bill that was going to make it may issue, but that was defeated, and the present bill remains at shall issue, but with an added bonus must state, in writing, the reason anyone is denied.
LTCs remain may issue, as they had been before.
Do you get it now??

got it, thanks for the clarification. i thought goal was shooting for shall issue on both with written reasons for denial.

 

[whacko]

oh ok. i got mixed up with that. i know there were some changes with this and thats where i got mixed up. i thought goal was pushing for shall issue across the board with reasons for denial tho.
thanks for the clarification (and the avatar)

THat's what NES is all about!

 

[Jbarila]

Just talked to Deleos aide. She logged the call, said they were getting a huge amount and to make sure I call my Rep. Interesting conversation and not what I expected.
SO CALL!!!