Garys
NES Member
Not signing it before the end of the term is a pocket veto. Not signing it within 10 days means it's passed automatically. At least that's how I remember it from Civics class all those years ago.
-
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
If he holds it for 10 days while the legislature is in session, it's an automatic pass.
If he holds it for 10 days and they are not in session, it's a pocket veto.
Bottom line: he either signs it within 10 days of getting it, or it dies.
If he holds it for 10 days and they are not in session, it's a pocket veto.
Bottom line: he either signs it within 10 days of getting it, or it dies.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 443
- Likes
- 49
He will sign whatever gets put in front of him. And something will get put in front of him by the 31st.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
While the first two statements are correct, I am not so sure of that conclusion. The reason is the MA legislature never leaves session. They only suspend it. I don't think as a practical matter, a pocket veto is possible in the modern MA legislature. But that is an educated guess based on what I know, what I don't know could be vast and dispositive to the underlying question.
I didn't even consider that the legislators would stay past the end of the session. Doesn't staying in session call for a quorum?
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
The MA legislature never ends the session. They hold it open for emergency use, but they allow a single legislature to block voting so as to not allow hinky games to happen. But this hold over session may not be a real bonafide session, so this may still be enough to say "end of the session" as far as vetoes go.
Garys
NES Member
After the end of July they go into "informal session". Only limited business can be conducted, but they are technically in session. http://tinyurl.com/lj9sqt6
Terraformer may be right since while they are technically in session the pocket veto rules don't apply.
I also think that the "Guv" will sign any bill put on his desk if he can tout it as a gun control measure.
But because the legislature is not in formal session, the third option - amending and sending it back to committee - is not available.
I think I have it.
It's called the goebbel's tactic
Yes, keep the pressure on. Want to multiply the pressure? Get on the radio, and ask people to call their reps/senators. Tell them to check goal.org and northeastshooters.com websites.
Here is a good place to call in to, and get some air play to this crisis:
Both of these shows are pretty open to calls, and to discuss gun topics. Bring up the whole irony thing about giving more powers of discretion/suitability (aka favoritism/bigotry/bullying), and the hypocrisy of giving them AWB access, while taking away our rights:
Instead of wondering, you should call and write them, and ask them! First you have to give them the info. Just because YOU are connected to this does not mean THEY are on top of it. If you control the information flow, you have a better chance.
So, GIVE THEM A STORY!!!!!! Write up some quotes and send to them. Ask for an interview. Arrange an interview with someone else. MAKE IT HAPPEN. If you bring stories to them, they will run them. It saves them from having to work, so they take the easy path. Do their job, and they will HELP YOU.
I don't know if I read it here or in another post, but someone said the "other side" was seen all around the statehouse. Is OUR SIDE all around, spreading info, getting consensus, GETTING VOTES???? I sure hope so! Why don't we have a John Rosenthal or a Soros or Bloomburg to help our side? We need to convince GOAL to hire some professional fundraisers. If I were to join the GOAL BOD, that might be one of my first tasks.
Has anyone heard anything at all on what they are up to?
This seems to be getting played very close to the vest.
Uncomfortably so.
This seems to be getting played very close to the vest.
Uncomfortably so.
Three more days. ANd one person can vote no ( on the "commmitee) and the bills dies for this session.
So far as I know.
Just one legislator with "mas grande cayonnes".
ggboy
So far as I know.
Just one legislator with "mas grande cayonnes".
ggboy
Billsail
NES Member
The death of this bill, depending on what it contains, may not necessarily be a good thing. It may come back to haunt us.
If FID suitability is in play, gun owners would gain NOTHING and lose a lot.
If gun owners gain NOTHING then this bill will only hurt us.
Therefor Rep. George Peterson should vote NO to KILL the BILL.
Rep. George Peterson could KILL this bill.
Does he have "max grande cayonnes"?
Hell yeah!!!- he has nothing to lose - HE IS RETIRING!!!
- - - Updated - - -
If they add FID suitability - what could be worse?
You just know that if this bill happens die, the media, gun grabbers, etc will place the blame squarely on the NRA (and GOAL),
when it's the MCOPA and Rosenthal that ****ed things up.
Hopefully... by that time DeLeo will be indicted, censured /impeached and become just another bad memory.
THIS is a good point to make when writing and calling. Tell them WE want a SAFETY BILL, and not to let Rosenthal and others screw it up!!!!
Maybe (and that's a BIG maybe).
If across the board suitability does become the standard, it could actually work to our advantage in the long run
by offering the opportunity to bring down the whole may issue licensing scheme in federal court.
We get rid of Class B licenses. I think we get rid of Class D licenses for pepper spray.
Your Chief would have to submit in writing the specific reasons for any denial or restriction of an LTC, and the burden of proof would be on him in court. This is a big plus for us, because currently the chief can do whatever he f-ing wants for no reason whatsoever and the burden of proof is up to YOU.
Is it verified that Peterson can kill this? All by his lonesome?
I still would prefer the burden of proof on the chief and may issue FIDs. That's still a big win for us. People keep saying that losing May Issue FIDs would be such a huge loss... Your LTC is what you have RIGHT to for all intents and purposes. I'd rather more people can get LTCs and there is a shift of burden of proof to the chiefs while maybe a handful of people in this state then have to fight for FIDs... Which makes them even more open to a lawsuit.
Either way it's a bandaid until we get some good litigation against the state.
Mike
Either way it's a bandaid until we get some good litigation against the state.
Mike
goodzilla
NES Member
Death, taxes, and this, IMHO.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 443
- Likes
- 49
@RedMassGroup: House and Senate Both In Formal Session Tuesday http://t.co/HC2foJ98jg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Horrible
NES Member
Bill will also allow us to challenge restrictions!
Aaron[MA];4049272 said:
Apparently, if one person on the committee votes NO- the bill is dead.
I did not realize that the burden of a LTC will be on the chief and a reason must be given in writing. I thought that was removed from the Senate version and shall issue FID was put in place. If you are sure the burden to deny a LTC must be in writing - I AGREE THAT WOULD BE A WIN.
I just never saw that in the Senate bill.
I would like somebody to cite that in the bill.
If you can prove that it is in the bill I would appreciate that very much.
StevieP
NES Member
I occasionally lurk over at masscops.com.
What does it say that I can't find any thread(s) discussing this bill(s)? Either I'm a lousy searcher, or they're under a gag order?
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
What does it say that I can't find any thread(s) discussing this bill(s)? Either I'm a lousy searcher, or they're under a gag order?
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
Try using "Deleo" as your search term.
Garys
NES Member
Killing this bill will be bad for us. They will come back after the election with something far worse and it will pass and signed before the end of January. The politicians will have two years to worry about reelection and we will be screwed. With or without FID suitability, this our best chance to get something out of this bill and keep some bad stuff out.
- Status
Similar threads
