EJFudd
NES Member
Who better than a big city cop to determine which of your Constitutional rights you should be able to exercise? [/sarc]
-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
- Status
A poor turnout , in many ways, in my opinion.
ggboy
ggboy
Jbarila
NES Member
Looks like the whole sticking point is the COP's issues, all 20 of them.
Do we know who they are?
Palladin
NES Member
QFTFT.
Anyone call today?
you'd be surprised how many people welcome the government in their lives in many ways, then only complain when they step on one small part they may care about
when you feed the beast, a bigger, hungrier beast is what you get
- - - Updated - - -
I saw Finegold mentioned, I thought I read in this forum that he was a good guy?
compromised suitability is still suitability and unconstiutional
yanici
NES Member
Barry Finegold voted to return the FID to shall issue when the roll call was made in the senate.
GlockJock
NES Member
So last week when I (and others! ) felt that we should hold off on the celebration party until this thing is official, signed, sealed etc...
("GOAL Celebrates Victory for 2nd Amendment ".... And us NESers (but NOT me) having a party cuz we" won "the battle etc etc..
And I and others said " WHOA! Hold off celebrating until these scumsuckers under the Golden Dome are FINISHED applying KY jelly to the 2nd Amendment..
Now this week it's back to being a political basketball, and both teams are comprised of MA legislators who, as we know , even the goods ones will shake your hand and steal your friggin watch while shaking.
Anyone for putting the cork back INTO the champagne bottle?
("GOAL Celebrates Victory for 2nd Amendment ".... And us NESers (but NOT me) having a party cuz we" won "the battle etc etc..
And I and others said " WHOA! Hold off celebrating until these scumsuckers under the Golden Dome are FINISHED applying KY jelly to the 2nd Amendment..
Now this week it's back to being a political basketball, and both teams are comprised of MA legislators who, as we know , even the goods ones will shake your hand and steal your friggin watch while shaking.
Anyone for putting the cork back INTO the champagne bottle?
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 602
- Likes
- 352
Saw the Globe article yesterday, but just got this one today -
SENATORSPROPOSE COMPROMISE ON RIFLE PERMIT DISCRETION FOR POLICE CHIEFS
By Matt Murphy
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JULY 22, 2014…..In an attempt to help broker a compromiseon anti-gun violence legislation, six senators who voted to strip acontroversial provision from the Senate's bill regarding discretion for policechiefs to grant rifle and shotgun licenses have proposed an alternative thatwould restore "limited flexibility" for law enforcement in the bill.
"We are trying to find middle ground. We're not wed to it, but we thinkit's a good starting point," said Sen. Michael Barrett, a LexingtonDemocrat. "We aren't opposed on the Senate side to giving chiefs thisflexibility but we want to see the legitimate rights of gun ownersrespected."
Barrett wrote a letter to the six House and Senate legislatorsappointed Tuesday to negotiate a compromise gun bill before theformal session ends in nine days, suggesting a new section to replace the"unacceptably vague" standards for denying a rifle license that wereincluded in the House bill.
More than a dozen law enforcement officers, including Boston Police CommissionWilliam Evans and former Boston Commissioner Ed Davis, rallied at the StateHouse on Tuesday to restore the House provision that they describedas critical to keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who pose a threatto society.
Gun owner activists have criticized the provision as an unnecessary obstacle tolawful gun ownership that has the potential to be abused by police chiefs.
The Barrett letter was signed by Sens. Kenneth Donnelly (D-Arlington), BenjaminDowning (D-Pittsfield), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Jason Lewis (D-Winchester)and Kathleen O'Connor Ives (D-Newburyport). All six voted in favor of the Sen.Michael Moore amendment last week that removed discretion from the Senate bill.
"We favor legislating reasonable grounds for denying a hunting rifle inappropriate cases, but we want these grounds to give narrower and clearerguidance to both law enforcement and citizens. We have a substantial number ofconstituents who object to formulations on hunting guns that seem too carelessor too rushed," the letter states.
The House gun bill proposed to give discretion to police chiefs to deny aFirearm Identification Card to someone who might not fall under the list of"prohibited persons," but has demonstrated or engaged in behaviorthat suggests they could be a threat to public safety. Chiefs already have suchdiscretion in issuing handgun licenses.
The six senators, who were among the 28 that voted to strip the provision fromthe bill, argued the language was too broad and open to interpretation. Theyproposed a new section that would allow a chief to deem an applicant unsuitableif they have demonstrated that they pose a "concrete and articulable riskof harm in the reasonably near term to himself or to others."
"In an ideal world if it hadn't been so rushed we would have suggestedcompromise language right then and there and I think it would have passed if ithad been crafted well," Barrett said of the vote to strip the discretionfrom the bill. "I don't think we're there yet, but we're closer."
The House and Senate on Tuesday named six members to a committee thatwill have a brief window to develop consensus gun legislation based on bills (H4285/S 2284) that recently cleared the two branches. Majority Leader RonaldMariano of Quincy and Sen. James Timilty, a Democrat from Walpole who co-chairsthe Public Safety Committee, will co-chair the conference committee.
They will be joined by House division leader Rep. Garrett Bradley (D-Hingham)and Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton) and Sens. Anthony Petruccelli (D-EastBoston) and Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester).
"It's clear that the Chiefs of Police would like more authority in issuingFirearms Identification Cards, but what isn't clear right now is how that canbe done without violating the rights guaranteed to our citizens under the 2ndAmendment," Timilty said in a statement after the police rally.
In appointing Petruccelli to the conference committee, Senate leaders chose oneof the 10 votes against the Moore amendment. The East Boston Democrat said lastweek that he supports retaining discretion for police chiefs after discussingthe issue with Evans.
Asked Tuesday whether he would insist on restoring discretion to thebill in conference, Petruccelli said, "I'm not going to comment on theconference committee at this time."
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer, a Barre Democrat, said duringthe Senate's debate on the bill that the Moore amendment was critical toconvincing him to support the overall legislation, which he said would helpprotect children from gun violence, but should do so without threatening therights of legal, recreational gun owners.
Asked if anything should be read into Petruccelli's appointment to theconference committee, Brewer said, "I suspect you probably could,"before adding, "I don't predict conference committees."
Senate Majority Leader Stanley Rosenberg, of Amherst, defended his vote infavor of the Moore amendment stripping discretion for police chiefs, but wouldnot speculate on the outcome of negotiations with the House.
"Let's see what the conference committee has to say. That's what theprocess is all about." Rosenberg said. "A lot of members felt thatsince the focus of that was on long guns, which is basically what people usefor recreation and sport, that there were sufficient controls through thefederal criteria and therefore it was not necessary but again the conferencecommittee will take it up and make their decision."
Earlier in the day, Rosenberg's Amherst colleague in the House - Rep. EllenStory - said she was stunned by the Senate vote.
-
"I don't understand quite what happened in the Senate process but I amhopeful and I am confident we will be able to come to some kind of compromiseso that the bill can pass in its stronger form and be effective in preventinggun violence," she said.
SENATORSPROPOSE COMPROMISE ON RIFLE PERMIT DISCRETION FOR POLICE CHIEFS
By Matt Murphy
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JULY 22, 2014…..In an attempt to help broker a compromiseon anti-gun violence legislation, six senators who voted to strip acontroversial provision from the Senate's bill regarding discretion for policechiefs to grant rifle and shotgun licenses have proposed an alternative thatwould restore "limited flexibility" for law enforcement in the bill.
"We are trying to find middle ground. We're not wed to it, but we thinkit's a good starting point," said Sen. Michael Barrett, a LexingtonDemocrat. "We aren't opposed on the Senate side to giving chiefs thisflexibility but we want to see the legitimate rights of gun ownersrespected."
Barrett wrote a letter to the six House and Senate legislatorsappointed Tuesday to negotiate a compromise gun bill before theformal session ends in nine days, suggesting a new section to replace the"unacceptably vague" standards for denying a rifle license that wereincluded in the House bill.
More than a dozen law enforcement officers, including Boston Police CommissionWilliam Evans and former Boston Commissioner Ed Davis, rallied at the StateHouse on Tuesday to restore the House provision that they describedas critical to keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who pose a threatto society.
Gun owner activists have criticized the provision as an unnecessary obstacle tolawful gun ownership that has the potential to be abused by police chiefs.
The Barrett letter was signed by Sens. Kenneth Donnelly (D-Arlington), BenjaminDowning (D-Pittsfield), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Jason Lewis (D-Winchester)and Kathleen O'Connor Ives (D-Newburyport). All six voted in favor of the Sen.Michael Moore amendment last week that removed discretion from the Senate bill.
"We favor legislating reasonable grounds for denying a hunting rifle inappropriate cases, but we want these grounds to give narrower and clearerguidance to both law enforcement and citizens. We have a substantial number ofconstituents who object to formulations on hunting guns that seem too carelessor too rushed," the letter states.
The House gun bill proposed to give discretion to police chiefs to deny aFirearm Identification Card to someone who might not fall under the list of"prohibited persons," but has demonstrated or engaged in behaviorthat suggests they could be a threat to public safety. Chiefs already have suchdiscretion in issuing handgun licenses.
The six senators, who were among the 28 that voted to strip the provision fromthe bill, argued the language was too broad and open to interpretation. Theyproposed a new section that would allow a chief to deem an applicant unsuitableif they have demonstrated that they pose a "concrete and articulable riskof harm in the reasonably near term to himself or to others."
"In an ideal world if it hadn't been so rushed we would have suggestedcompromise language right then and there and I think it would have passed if ithad been crafted well," Barrett said of the vote to strip the discretionfrom the bill. "I don't think we're there yet, but we're closer."
The House and Senate on Tuesday named six members to a committee thatwill have a brief window to develop consensus gun legislation based on bills (H4285/S 2284) that recently cleared the two branches. Majority Leader RonaldMariano of Quincy and Sen. James Timilty, a Democrat from Walpole who co-chairsthe Public Safety Committee, will co-chair the conference committee.
They will be joined by House division leader Rep. Garrett Bradley (D-Hingham)and Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton) and Sens. Anthony Petruccelli (D-EastBoston) and Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester).
"It's clear that the Chiefs of Police would like more authority in issuingFirearms Identification Cards, but what isn't clear right now is how that canbe done without violating the rights guaranteed to our citizens under the 2ndAmendment," Timilty said in a statement after the police rally.
In appointing Petruccelli to the conference committee, Senate leaders chose oneof the 10 votes against the Moore amendment. The East Boston Democrat said lastweek that he supports retaining discretion for police chiefs after discussingthe issue with Evans.
Asked Tuesday whether he would insist on restoring discretion to thebill in conference, Petruccelli said, "I'm not going to comment on theconference committee at this time."
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Stephen Brewer, a Barre Democrat, said duringthe Senate's debate on the bill that the Moore amendment was critical toconvincing him to support the overall legislation, which he said would helpprotect children from gun violence, but should do so without threatening therights of legal, recreational gun owners.
Asked if anything should be read into Petruccelli's appointment to theconference committee, Brewer said, "I suspect you probably could,"before adding, "I don't predict conference committees."
Senate Majority Leader Stanley Rosenberg, of Amherst, defended his vote infavor of the Moore amendment stripping discretion for police chiefs, but wouldnot speculate on the outcome of negotiations with the House.
"Let's see what the conference committee has to say. That's what theprocess is all about." Rosenberg said. "A lot of members felt thatsince the focus of that was on long guns, which is basically what people usefor recreation and sport, that there were sufficient controls through thefederal criteria and therefore it was not necessary but again the conferencecommittee will take it up and make their decision."
Earlier in the day, Rosenberg's Amherst colleague in the House - Rep. EllenStory - said she was stunned by the Senate vote.
-
"I don't understand quite what happened in the Senate process but I amhopeful and I am confident we will be able to come to some kind of compromiseso that the bill can pass in its stronger form and be effective in preventinggun violence," she said.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we did win a couple of battles and therefore should be allowed to celebrate a little bit. However, The war is not over. The war against our freedoms in this state will never be over. We have to continue to remain vigilant and keep up the fight. But in the mean time small victories help morale and can keep the fight going. What do you think we would all be like if H4121 had passed and the Senate adopted all of its amendments into its bill? I think we would be despondent and ready to give up. Victories, no matter how small are important and cause for celebration. Maybe not champagne worthy, but certainly pop open a beer worthy. No matter what, lets all remain hopeful and keep it up.
pastera
NES Member
Concrete and articulable reasoning for ANY denial or restriction of any license might be palatable (ie: shall issue with judicial review)
Not an endorsement of giving chiefs any discretion for FID, just an observation that if the language covered all licenses it would be a marginal step forward
Not an endorsement of giving chiefs any discretion for FID, just an observation that if the language covered all licenses it would be a marginal step forward
Good article, now we know who to focus on.
Senator Anthony W. Petruccelli
617-722-1634
[email protected]
First Suffolk and Middlesex -- Consisting of the cities of Boston, ward 1, precincts 1 to 14, inclusive, ward 3, precincts 1 to 4, inclusive, 6 and 8, and ward 5, precinct 1, 3 to 5, inclusive, and 11, Revere and the town of Winthrop, all in the county of Suffolk; and the city of Cambridge, ward 2, precincts 2 and 3, ward 4, precincts 1 and 3, and ward 5, all in the county of Middlesex.
The amount of stupidity and the supporting lack of facts and data are astounding.
The law abiding citizens are not the problem, and never have been.
Until the appropriate social engineering is done, all these laws do is undermine freedoms and do nothing for crime prevention.
The law abiding citizens are not the problem, and never have been.
Until the appropriate social engineering is done, all these laws do is undermine freedoms and do nothing for crime prevention.
hv55maxx
NES Member
if the new wording of compromise wasnt in either bill originally, i thought they couldnt add anything at this point WTF!!!
New things can be added in committee. Once the committee approves it and the compromise bill goes to the House and Senate, then nothing can be added in the full House and Senate.
it's new wording on an existing section, that is what I would expect to happen in a joint committee. What they can't do is take something non existent, like one gun a month, and throw that in there
I read the bill as it stood this morning and the parts I did not like were section 19 and 20, eliminating the paper FA-10s and allowing the justice department to determine the information required to submit.
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
MA has a ten-day pocket veto just as the President does.
Gotta love Thomas Jefferson: "Oh shit, I just left the ****ing thing in my pocket and forgot to sign it. My bad."
yanici
NES Member
Did this here committee start talking yet? Man, this is dragging!
Palladin
NES Member
Yanici, our boy Barry doesn't realize an FID has been Shall Issue since 1968. I don't see 1 case a year where an individual shoots up some place with a gun purchased under his FID.
Just sent Barry a NastyGram
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
Last edited:
Not yet, but the Parting gifts have arrived.
Thats what the call the Linsky weekend party kit
Sent from the blind
Editor
NES Member
Might as well consider that ship as having sailed insofar as paper forms. This is 2014, not 1914. I haven't kept paper files of any kind, neither business nor personal, for the past 10+ years, and that started in many environments well before then.
Last edited:
I see Coupe Deval is supporting the COP's. I'm shocked.
Can't be, it's missing the inflatable sheep.
Got NRA alert, looks like they recommend people contact their own senator and rep - and ask them to influence members of committee. (instead of directly contacting committee members)
Conferees have now been appointed by the state Senate and House of Representatives to work out the differences between Senate Bill 2265 and House Bill 4285 in a conference committee. The following state legislators will serve on this conference committee and will be the policy makers who decide whether anti-gun provisions are added back into S.2265:
Senator Anthony Petruccelli (D - First Suffolk and Middlesex)
Senator Bruce Tarr (R - First Essex and Middlesex)
Senator James Timilty (D – Bristol and Norfolk)
Representative George Peterson (R - Ninth Worcester)
Representative Ronald Mariano (D -Third Norfolk)
Representative Garrett Bradley (D Third Plymouth)
It is critical that you contact both your state Senator and state Representative immediately and ask them to urge the leadership of both legislative chambers to retain the changes made in the Senate and report a clean bill out of the conference committee that does not infringe on your Second Amendment rights.
Conferees have now been appointed by the state Senate and House of Representatives to work out the differences between Senate Bill 2265 and House Bill 4285 in a conference committee. The following state legislators will serve on this conference committee and will be the policy makers who decide whether anti-gun provisions are added back into S.2265:
Senator Anthony Petruccelli (D - First Suffolk and Middlesex)
Senator Bruce Tarr (R - First Essex and Middlesex)
Senator James Timilty (D – Bristol and Norfolk)
Representative George Peterson (R - Ninth Worcester)
Representative Ronald Mariano (D -Third Norfolk)
Representative Garrett Bradley (D Third Plymouth)
It is critical that you contact both your state Senator and state Representative immediately and ask them to urge the leadership of both legislative chambers to retain the changes made in the Senate and report a clean bill out of the conference committee that does not infringe on your Second Amendment rights.
- Status
Similar threads
