House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
oldsoldier29 said:
And, honestly, that would be total BS. They wanted safety, they got it. Now, they're specifically targeting gun owners, and throwing all the safety stuff right out the window.
Click to expand...

they didn't want safety, they never want safety, it will never be about safety or even saving lives

this whole bill, this entire process was so that DeLeo could say he spearheaded the changing of FID to suitability standards, that's all it was meant to do
 
At least they didn't cave in to the NRA lobby. Show's who is in charge here in MA.

Maybe they can get some smart gun mandates added.
 
And so it goes. We await the appointment of the reps from the senate for the committee. Given how it is now such a "win" for our side, i suspect that they will let it die. DeLeo can't be happy that this bill has become so accomodating that the "gun nut" side is actively pressing for concurrence, so it is better to scrap saying it is "no good, due to the influence of the gun lobby" than to "pass something".

I, for one, sincerely hope this gets through with minimal damage, but I don't think it will at this point. At least Naughton the traitor is not on the committe. Peterson may try to torpedo it if it gets too mangled, and we live to fight another day next term, but that may only prolong the inevitable.

Shall issue FIDs is the sticking point, that's obvious. I'm not sure what could be traded that would make that palatable in any fashion. Obviously, nothing should be traded, so save the rants on my comment.
 
Does anyone know where the origin of this "may issue" FID is coming from? Having to obtain an FID card to buy a rifle or shotgun is a bizarre notion in itself; that the FID card is at the discretion of your local police chief seems even more bizarre. Is there some backdrop to this that I'm missing?
 
Once we know everybody on the conference committee, we should make sure to bombard them with a link to the FBI stats for weapons used in homicides in 2012.

In MA, murders with a rifle: 0, murders with a shotgun: 1

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf

- - - Updated - - -

Win said:
Does anyone know where the origin of this "may issue" FID is coming from? Having to obtain an FID card to buy a rifle or shotgun is a bizarre notion in itself; that the FID card is at the discretion of your local police chief seems even more bizarre. Is there some backdrop to this that I'm missing?
Click to expand...

It was in the original House bill. If you're asking why it was in there in the first place, I have no idea, but I'm guessing it was due to pressure from MCOPA. They seem to think any gap in their power is a threat to public safety.
 
Win said:
Does anyone know where the origin of this "may issue" FID is coming from? Having to obtain an FID card to buy a rifle or shotgun is a bizarre notion in itself; that the FID card is at the discretion of your local police chief seems even more bizarre. Is there some backdrop to this that I'm missing?
Click to expand...


FID card is currently "shall issue".........means they have to give it to you.......unless you are a federally prohibited person. The hosue bill wanted to make it may issue subject to approval of COP and had language supporting that a the COP had to provide docmented credible evidence to deny an LTC......wenate stripped the may issue part of the house bill.......that is why we supported the senate bill. The last page explained that all to someont else.
 
mlaboss said:
Once we know everybody on the conference committee, we should make sure to bombard them with a link to the FBI stats for weapons used in homicides in 2012.

In MA, murders with a rifle: 0, murders with a shotgun: 1

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...ime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf

- - - Updated - - -



It was in the original House bill. If you're asking why it was in there in the first place, I have no idea, but I'm guessing it was due to pressure from MCOPA. They seem to think any gap in their power is a threat to public safety.
Click to expand...


Was the shotgun murder committed by a licensed FID or LTC holder?
 
S.2284 Sent To Conference Committee - Now H.4285



The Massachusetts House of Representatives just voted to send S.2284 (now H.4285) to Conference Committee.



The House has named Rep. Ronald Mariano, Rep. Garrett Bradley and Rep. George Peterson to be on the Conference Committee, we are still waiting to see which Senators will be named.



Our information indicates that the vote was a gavel vote, so there is no record of who voted and how they voted. If there is any new information on that we will update our alert page on goal.org.



GOAL will update with information and action alerts as necessary.
Click to expand...

Via Goal.
 
Is the conference committee restricted to changes that are among the differences between the two versions?
Or can they introduce anything they want before returning it for the votes?
 
Thanks. Appreciate the replies. I understood that the "May Issue" was in the original bill. My question is, does anyone know why "may issue" was put in the original bill and is apparently important to the other side? Was there some statistic cited? Some anomalous story told?
 
Win said:
Thanks. Appreciate the replies. I understood that the "May Issue" was in the original bill. My question is, does anyone know why "may issue" was put in the original bill and is apparently important to the other side? Was there some statistic cited? Some anomalous story told?
Click to expand...

The statistic is that it would lead to fewer gun owners.

End of story.
 
Win said:
Thanks. Appreciate the replies. I understood that the "May Issue" was in the original bill. My question is, does anyone know why "may issue" was put in the original bill and is apparently important to the other side? Was there some statistic cited? Some anomalous story told?
Click to expand...
The may issue BS came from the special committee that Speaker DeLeo put together. At the last hearing at the State House, I think it was Rep. Viera asked them for stats to back up the assertion that may issue was necessary and they had none.

Feeeeeeelinnnggssss... sing it.
 
whacko said:
FID card is currently "shall issue".........means they have to give it to you.......unless you are a federally prohibited person. The hosue bill wanted to make it may issue subject to approval of COP and had language supporting that a the COP had to provide docmented credible evidence to deny an LTC......wenate stripped the may issue part of the house bill.......that is why we supported the senate bill. The last page explained that all to someont else.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but who asked for FID's to be 'may issue' in the first place? What (who) was the impetus for this provision being in *any* bill?
 
StevieP said:
Yeah, but who asked for FID's to be 'may issue' in the first place? What (who) was the impetus for this provision being in *any* bill?
Click to expand...

May issue FID leads to fewer gun owners.

That is the end game.

This bill has nothing to do with "public safety".
 
One thing that seems questionable to me, is how did this thing end up getting voted on today with no advanced notice?

GOAL was expecting a vote on Wed (but not confirmed), and coincidentally, MCOPA and SHV just happened to have their
rally/press conference today.

The outcome would have been the same regardless if the vote took place or the next day.

Or, maybe it would have made a difference?

We still don't know what the vote tally was, and whom voted which way (and never will).

We don't even know how many legislators were present.

I would not put it past DeLeo to put the word out to those on his side to be present on the floor today, yet leave
any potential opposition in the dark.

It's just worth noting the underhanded and sneaky stunts DeLeo will pull to get things his way.
 
LoginName said:
One thing that seems questionable to me, is how did this thing end up getting voted on today with no advanced notice?
Click to expand...

I suspect that while the official parliamentary rules are that a bill goes up for a concurrence vote, the actual practice is that someone stands at the podium and says something along the lines "without objection, the concurrence vote fails and the bill is assigned to conference committee". We heard from people all week that the bill would be going to conference committee, and there was some communication a few posts back that a rep said bills are almost never voted for concurrence, rather they almost always go to conference committee.
 
Ya, funny how so many thought this time was different, This IS MASSACHUSETTS! the Liberal bastion of the world comparable to California as well as New York, to think or assume the outcome of this abortion of a bill was gonna be any different is ignorant to how this decrepit state operates!

Hows the party going..

balloon_pop___animation__by_juicyculture-d59ifw1.gif


They will add Suitability, I will be dam surprised if its not added in the final language to include. And that means folks THE ENTIRE BILL THEY PROPOSED HAS PASSED! The Police have new powers and we now have a Resource officer in our Schools Armed, who cannot be sued for his errors, ya its in the bill as well.

Yes what a great day in Massachusetts, victory at last....Oh wait I still don't get it do I lol.
 
JJ4 said:
I suspect that while the official parliamentary rules are that a bill goes up for a concurrence vote, the actual practice is that someone stands at the podium and says something along the lines "without objection, the concurrence vote fails and the bill is assigned to conference committee". We heard from people all week that the bill would be going to conference committee, and there was some communication a few posts back that a rep said bills are almost never voted for concurrence, rather they almost always go to conference committee.
Click to expand...

Ok, other then Peterson, how did the other 2 members who are now part of the conference committee vote?

Are they moon bats?
 
Reptile said:
Ok, other then Peterson, how did the other 2 members who are now part of the conference committee vote?

Are they moon bats?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Peterson's yes vote may very well have been traded for a slot in this committee. We're much better off with him on it even with his support of the House bill.
 
can't trade anything, you need two willing sides for that to happen, plus many have stated that nothing can be added to the bill now that wasn't already in either of the versions that were voted on
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shooting At Northborough House Party Leaves One 16 Y/O Dead
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
pupchow
pupchow
House Republicans sell us out
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
EJFudd
EJFudd
ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL
3 4 5
Replies
144
Views
4K
PappyM3
PappyM3
ATF at the behest of the White House attempt to ban all private firearm transactions
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
spt_1955
spt_1955
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
Back
Top Bottom