House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that today is the last Friday of the regular legislative session, what are the chances some compromise gets reached between the chambers and gets passed late in the day today with the result being we get double-crossed/screwed?
 
hv55maxx said:
It seems to me we are only missing the perfect candidate for denial of an LTC to get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
16 years without a candidate, I am sure there have been some but they probably don't know about comm2a.
Click to expand...
In a recent NES poll, "may issue" (a.k.a. "suitability") was voted the single more serious 2A infringement headache for MA gun owners. So why in God's name don't we have a candidate? [thinking] I'll admit it. Sometimes I have a hard time resolving this apparent contradiction.
 
EJFudd said:
In a recent NES poll, "may issue" (a.k.a. "suitability") was voted the single more serious 2A infringement headache for MA gun owners. So why in God's name don't we have a candidate? [thinking] I'll admit it. Sometimes I have a hard time resolving this apparent contradiction.
Click to expand...

For many people, they consider suitability an infringement even if they personally have not been denied or had their LTC restricted. I have an unrestricted LTC-A, but I still believe that police chiefs should not have the power to arbitrarily restrict or deny LTCs. I'm sure that many of the people who voted on that poll are the same as me.
 
StevieP said:
I'll just leave this right here:

http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/41-projects/current-projects/102-davis
Click to expand...

And this: http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/40-hill

It takes a certain confluence of events to get a precedent setting court case out of situations like this. It's much easier to challenge bans explicitly in the law than arbitrary discretion. It'll take a squeaky clean plaintiff who's willing to fight all the way to the top getting denied by a chief who's willing to fight all the way up too. After Hill won in the superior court, the chief/town didn't appeal. I don't know why, but one of the possibilities is not wanting to risk a broader precedent setting loss.
 
jar said:
And this: http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/40-hill

It takes a certain confluence of events to get a precedent setting court case out of situations like this. It's much easier to challenge bans explicitly in the law than arbitrary discretion. It'll take a squeaky clean plaintiff who's willing to fight all the way to the top getting denied by a chief who's willing to fight all the way up too. After Hill won in the superior court, the chief/town didn't appeal. I don't know why, but one of the possibilities is not wanting to risk a broader precedent setting loss.
Click to expand...

This is how it's done...

Levy, who moved to Florida two years ago, explained in an interview why he initiated the case, with Cato's blessing; why he has rejected offers of financial help, insisting on footing the bills himself; how he and a co-counsel searched for and vetted potential plaintiffs, finally settling on a diverse group of six people; and why he thinks letting D.C. residents keep loaded guns in their homes would not make the city a more dangerous place.


By the way, I'm not a member of any of those pro-gun groups," he said. "I don't travel in those circles. My interest is in vindicating the Constitution."

Before they filed the lawsuit in February 2003, arguing that the city's gun statute violates the Second Amendment's language on the right to bear arms, Levy and Clark M. Neily III, a public-interest lawyer, spent months carefully assembling a cast of plaintiffs, Levy said.

"We wanted gender diversity," he said. "We wanted racial diversity, economic diversity, age diversity." The plaintiffs had to be D.C. residents who believed fervently in gun rights and wanted loaded weapons in their homes for self-defense. And they had to be respectable.

"No Looney Tunes," Levy said. "You know, you don't want the guy who just signed up for the militia. And no criminal records. You want law-abiding citizens."

He and Neily worked the phones. "We called all our contacts in the legal community," Levy said. "We looked at the newspapers: Who was writing on the subject? Who was sending letters to the editor about gun laws?" They scoured the city. "Friends lead you to other friends, and you just keep talking and talking to people, until finally you have your clients."

They found dozens of likely plaintiffs, Levy said. They went with three men and three women, from their mid-20s to early 60s, four of them white and two black. They found a mortgage broker from Georgetown and a neighborhood activist in a crime-scarred area of Northeast Washington. They also lined up a communications lawyer, a government office worker and a courthouse security guard. In their disparate walks of life, the six shared an eagerness to arm themselves.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701055.html

Also keep in mind... it took 5 years from the time the lawsuit was initially filed and the SCOTUS decided to
hear the case, and of the six original plaintiffs only one (Heller), was ruled to have any standing.
 
hv55maxx said:
mASS courts will twist the words somehow to just cover restrictions without giving up their precious suitability although i hope i am very wrong and am anxiously awaiting this case
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the case was filed in US District Court. They stand a better chance of actually acknowledging the 2nd amendment.
 
Any one hear how things are going with the committee I have to believe what ever it is they will do should happen today based on the calendar.
 
Woodsy said:
Any one hear how things are going with the committee I have to believe what ever it is they will do should happen today based on the calendar.
Click to expand...

nah, they'll wait until the 11th hour of the last day before they do anything. They've been to busy passing laws to protect the rights of people on sidewalks and standing with Supermarket owners to work on Second Amendment protection.
 
Mike S said:
nah, they'll wait until the 11th hour of the last day before they do anything. They've been to busy passing laws to protect the rights of people on sidewalks and standing with Supermarket owners to work on Second Amendment destruction [STRIKE]protection[/STRIKE].
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Here's another tool...

Gloucester police chief joins support of House gun bill

Police Chief Leonard Campanello, with the steadfast support of Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk, joined the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association in support of the House of Representatives version of the pending gun legislation.

As an active member of the Chiefs Association, Chief Campanello is following this important bill closely. He is disappointed to learn that the Senate Bill, S#2284 lacks a critical public safety provision found in the House Bill, H#4278. That provision gives police chiefs discretion in issuing rifle and shotgun licenses. Currently, Massachusetts law allows police chiefs absolute discretion in issuing handgun licenses, but no discretion in issuing rifle and shotgun licenses. The House bill would close that dangerous loop hole.

When polled in June by the Princeton Research Associates, the majority of Massachusetts voters were also in favor of police chiefs having discretion in licensing for rifles and shotguns.

“The House bill is far superior to the senate version of the bill because it recognizes the importance of police chief discretion in issuing rifle and shotgun licenses. Police chiefs are generally in the best position to know who in their community is a threat to themselves, their partners, families and public safety," said Campanello in a statement.
Click to expand...

More... http://gloucester.wickedlocal.com/article/20140724/NEWS/140727907
 
Friday said:
I'm sure they are all talking and negotiating with each other the past few days. The actual everybody-in-a-room meeting is just a formality, window dressing, to make it all official-like.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that real decisions are made in meetings is naive.

Business or government it's all the same.
 
goodzilla said:
I thought the session closed on July 31st, why today?
Click to expand...

Closing on the 31st means the legislature is closed on the 31st......whatever comes out of committee needs to get voted on my both houses and then signed....or not.....by the govnah by the 31st.
 
whacko said:
Closing on the 31st means the legislature is closed on the 31st......whatever comes out of committee needs to get voted on my both houses and then signed....or not.....by the govnah by the 31st.
Click to expand...

Right, 31st, not 25th (today). But the last part isn't exactly right, as I read this:
Our beloved governor has 10 days to sign the bill (or not, not including Sundays).

"Following enactment, the bill goes to the governor, who may sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without signing it (if the governor holds the bill for ten days without taking any action while the legislature is in session, it be comes law without his or her signature), veto it, or return it to the legislature with recommended changes. If the legislature has prorogued (concluded its yearly session) and the governor does not sign the bill within ten days, it dies. This is referred to as a "pocket veto." The ten-day period includes every day except Sundays and holidays, and it begins the day after the legislation is laid on the governor's desk. "
 
At least the process isn't cumbersome or confusing....

goodzilla said:
Right, 31st, not 25th (today). But the last part isn't exactly right, as I read this:
Our beloved governor has 10 days to sign the bill (or not, not including Sundays).

"Following enactment, the bill goes to the governor, who may sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without signing it (if the governor holds the bill for ten days without taking any action while the legislature is in session, it be comes law without his or her signature), veto it, or return it to the legislature with recommended changes. If the legislature has prorogued (concluded its yearly session) and the governor does not sign the bill within ten days, it dies. This is referred to as a "pocket veto." The ten-day period includes every day except Sundays and holidays, and it begins the day after the legislation is laid on the governor's desk. "
Click to expand...
 
Can they extend the session if needed? I could imagine there's some type of language available for an 'emergency session' if the majority votes to proceed.
 
goodzilla said:
Right, 31st, not 25th (today). But the last part isn't exactly right, as I read this:
Our beloved governor has 10 days to sign the bill (or not, not including Sundays).

"Following enactment, the bill goes to the governor, who may sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without signing it (if the governor holds the bill for ten days without taking any action while the legislature is in session, it be comes law without his or her signature), veto it, or return it to the legislature with recommended changes. If the legislature has prorogued (concluded its yearly session) and the governor does not sign the bill within ten days, it dies. This is referred to as a "pocket veto." The ten-day period includes every day except Sundays and holidays, and it begins the day after the legislation is laid on the governor's desk. "
Click to expand...

Sounds like he'd need to sign it before the 31st for it to become law.
 
StevieP said:
Sounds like he'd need to sign it before the 31st for it to become law.
Click to expand...

Two sentences later: "If the legislature has prorogued (concluded its yearly session) and the governor does not sign the bill within ten days, it dies. " Therefore the way I read it, they pass it at 11:59 on July 31st, and he can sign it into law up to 10 days after that.
 
So if the Governor's office is locked and no Bill can get laid on his desk,

220px-Bill_Delahunt%2C_official_portrait%2C_111th_Congress.jpg
220px-William_Keating_112th_Congress_Portrait.jpg


does that mean we are or aren't screwed?
 
I will laugh my ass off if after all this, whatever bill ends up passing (if it does) that he just doesn't sign it

dogs and ponies everywhere
 
Latest email.

Dear Ms.Campbell and Ms. O'Connor Ives.

I would like to pass along these finding from The National Center for Women and Policing. I came across it yesterday, and thought the information was relevant to the bill in question, now in conference committee.

I find it ironic that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association is fighting so hard to reinstate in the bill the completely unnecessary provision of determining FID suitability.

As can be shown by FBI data [which I have previously sent to both of you], FID cardholders are not committing crimes with guns in this state. It's as simple as that.

But this report from the above mentioned NCWP shows that police officers are many times more likely to be involved in domestic violence incidents than the general population. It even refers to incidents caused by officers of the Boston Police Department as an example.

http://womenandpolicing.com/violencefs.asp

And yet the proposed legislation exempts police officers from being bound by the same Assault Weapons Ban that restricts what I can and cannot own. Does this make any sense to allow police, who are significantly more likely to commit a crime against a family member, the ability to own weapons the general population can't access? And I'm not anti-cop. My late father served on the Lynn Police Department for 31 years. But the numbers speak for themselves.

The anti-gun activists in this state are constantly whining about things like the number of rounds we can have as law-abiding gun owners. We are limited to ten rounds in a magazine. And yet, this bill clears the path for both active and retired police officers to own guns and the high-capacity magazines that go with them that the rest of us can't own. All because it is assumed the average police officer is trained and is somehow more moral than the rest of us. All you have to do is review news stories from the past few years to realize this is not the case. But the anti-gun forces and police chiefs now want to have the ability to take away someone's right to keep and bear any arms.

Does this make sense to you? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Do you see the problem here?


I hope so, and I hope that you both realize that giving police chiefs the new authority to determine suitability is unnecessary. And despite what they like to repeatedly claim, they do not know the citizens in their communities. I am glad that I live in Methuen, where Chief Solomon respects people's right to keep and bear arms. But I am very concerned about other towns where this isn't the case. I would kindly ask that you both recommend to the conference committee that the public has spoken, and that we do not want to see this right eroded any more than it has been.

Back S.2284 as-is.


Once again, thank you for your time.


Yours in Liberty


The5thDentist
a street
Methuen, MA 01844
ph # [no, that's not phone hashtag] [smile]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

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
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
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
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: Democrat House Member Pushes ‘Zombie Gun’ Ban
Replies
10
Views
438
quinnjalan
quinnjalan
Back
Top Bottom