House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[Whutmeworry]

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.

S2284 Section 45, Paragraph x:
The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry or
847 suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the
848 licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to
849 continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable
850 and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that
851 suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to the applicant or
852 licensee, to another person in the household of the applicant or licensee or to public safety; or (ii)
853 existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to
854 the applicant or licensee, to another person in the household of the applicant or licensee or to
855 public safety. Upon denial of an application or renewal of a license based on a determination of
856 unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the applicant in writing setting forth the specific
857 reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (e). Upon revoking or suspending a
858 license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the holder of
859 a license in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with
860 paragraph (f). The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said
861 paragraph (f).

 

[Reptile]

S2284 Section 45, Paragraph x:
The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry or
847 suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the
848 licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to
849 continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable
850 and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that
851 suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to the applicant or
852 licensee, to another person in the household of the applicant or licensee or to public safety; or (ii)
853 existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to
854 the applicant or licensee, to another person in the household of the applicant or licensee or to
855 public safety. Upon denial of an application or renewal of a license based on a determination of
856 unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the applicant in writing setting forth the specific
857 reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (e). Upon revoking or suspending a
858 license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the holder of
859 a license in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with
860 paragraph (f). The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said
861 paragraph (f).

What do they mean by "The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said paragraph (f)."

Currently, if denied a LTC you can take the chief to court.

How is this proposed law going make your chances any better?

 

[piman]

What do they mean by "The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said paragraph (f)."

Currently, if denied a LTC you can take the chief to court.

How is this proposed law going make your chances any better?

Well today there is no requirement to explain the reason for denial so if you take it to court you and your lawyer are in for a box of chocolates as you never know. With this the reason is right there and if you can disprove the reason or maybe provide safeguards you have a much better case. At least that is my guess and IANAL...

 

[billmelater]

@RedMassGroup: House and Senate Both In Formal Session Tuesday
http://t.co/HC2foJ98jg

They're going to vote on making the Fluffernutter the official state sandwich, but not on the gun bill?

 

[Reptile]

Well today there is no requirement to explain the reason for denial so if you take it to court you and your lawyer are in for a box of chocolates as you never know. With this the reason is right there and if you can disprove the reason or maybe provide safeguards you have a much better case. At least that is my guess and IANAL...

Is the burden of proof still on the applicant?

It should be on the chief who should prove that an applicant is unsuitable.

I haven't been this thrilled since the last bone the legislature threw us.

The last time in 2004 we got an AWB and a bonus just for us...

A license that was small enough to fit in a wallet.


You know what though...

It could have been worse- the legislators were threatening to ban AR's.

They had the votes too but GOAL and Romney accepted extending the AWB rather than a total ban on AR's.

Not sure what is worse- killing the bill OR going into the next session without any big 2a advocates to prevent things from getting worse.

The other wrench thrown into the works is if DeLeo get sent to Prison.

He better go quick so Deval can pardon him so he won't become a prohibited person and lose his gun rights at his own hands.

 

[MA_Shooter]

Even if this bill passes there's no guarantee they won't come back with new proposals in the next legislative session.

 

[rlee]

The conference committee just needs a simple majority to return a compromise bill.
That means that no more than 2 members can object.

 

[exo]

Even if this bill passes there's no guarantee they won't come back with new proposals in the next legislative session.

This. I don't understand why some folks here believe that they won't come back for more of our rights as soon as they feel like it?

 

[Jbarila]

Well if the bill dies it gives us more time to organize and make license holders aware of whats going on. I am amazed at how many did not know this was even going on. We have reached out to our club members to call and write and will continue to do so. Let the tidal wave build for the future. If the Pols thought it was bad this session wait until the next time this crap comes up. MHHO.

 

[ggboy]

Are they really voting on making the "fluffernutter " the state sandwhich?
Good lord!!
ggboy

- - - Updated - - -

A baloney sandwhich would be more "representative.
ggboy

 

[Garys]

True, but it takes the issue their radar and makes it less likely to be a pressing matter next year.

Even if this bill passes there's no guarantee they won't come back with new proposals in the next legislative session.

 

[goodzilla]

Are they really voting on making the "fluffernutter " the state sandwhich?
Good lord!!
ggboy

- - - Updated - - -

A baloney sandwhich would be more "representative.
ggboy

Wasn't this approved back in April? Regardless, if I were in the legislature, every time sh*t like this came up I would introduce an amendment that would move to make the legislative session part-time, no more than 2 months long, and include the wording "to focus on non-frivilous legislation." I'm sure I'd be a real hit with my collegues.

 

[StevieP]

Try using "Deleo" as your search term.

Found it. This is the thread. No posts since last Wednesday. It *seems* as though the rank and file LEO's (I assume that's who mostly post over there on masscops.com) are with us, not the chiefs. Comments re:FID suitability mirror what's said here.

http://masscops.com/threads/ma-house-speaker-to-introduce-gun-control-bill.123606/page-3

 

[Artie]

@RedMassGroup: House and Senate Both In Formal Session Tuesday http://t.co/HC2foJ98jg

They're going to vote on making the Fluffernutter the official state sandwich, but not on the gun bill?

Contact the Senate and the House and demand that they vote "NO" on making the Fluffernutter the official state sandwich. The fluffernutter is a killer!

Somewhere around 150 to 200 people die in the U.S. each year because of food allergies. It's estimated that around 50 percent to 62 percent of those fatal cases of anaphylaxis were caused by peanut allergies

http://health.howstuffworks.com/dis...eople-die-each-year-from-peanut-allergies.htm

Dont miss the sarcasm

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

As I read the bill we would gain better access to appeals as delays past the 40 day mark and restrictions are all reasons for appeal. The bill also opens the door to submitting applications by mail and requires the chiefs to be more specific as to their reason(s) for denying a license.

However, the standard for judicial review doesn't change. There is no de novo review and chiefs still do not bear the burden of justifying their denial. A disctrict court cannot substitute its own judgement of suitability for that of the chief. They can only overturn a denial if the court determines that there is no reason for the chief's denial - much as it is now. It doesn't have to be a good reason in the eyes of the court.

All that said, it will be easier to start the appeal process and that works very well for putting together a good suitability challenge.

 

[EJFudd]

Even if this bill passes there's no guarantee they won't come back with new proposals in the next legislative session.

Correct. No guarantee whatsoever. There will be more lunatic moonbat anti-2A bills filed next year just like there always are. It is a never ending battle. Who here doesn't know that?

This. I don't understand why some folks here believe that they won't come back for more of our rights as soon as they feel like it?

Probably because history has shown a pattern wherein sweeping, high-profile, anti-2A bills such as this one don't normally get leadership backing and serious consideration in every subsequent legislative session. But again, there are no guarantees. None whatsoever.

 

[DarthRevan]

Only two days left...
11th hour shenanigans?

 

[JJ4]

Only two days left...
11th hour shenanigans?

The silence is making me nervous.

I think I'd much rather have this passed now then have them take a fresh stab at it next year.

 

[hv55maxx]

timilty tarr and peterson were on our side, and i would hope will remain so so long as suitability stays out. we have been loud and im sure they know what peaves us with whats left in this bill at this point.

 

[mattyw]

The silence is making me nervous.

I think I'd much rather have this passed now then have them take a fresh stab at it next year.

who's to say they don't take another run at it next year regardless of what passes now?

a failed law is a good law in my opinion

 

[Horrible]

who's to say they don't take another run at it next year regardless of what passes now?

a failed law is a good law in my opinion

Who knows, they might try to pass more crap. One would think that the legislature will not want to deal with this issue after grappling with it for the past 6+ months? But, who knows?

 

[Permanent Waves]

Correct. No guarantee whatsoever. There will be more lunatic moonbat anti-2A bills filed next year just like there always are. It is a never ending battle. Who here doesn't know that?

Probably because history has shown a pattern wherein sweeping, high-profile, anti-2A bills such as this one don't normally get leadership backing and serious consideration in every subsequent legislative session. But again, there are no guarantees. None whatsoever.

If we as a concerned citizens group help folks like Brad Wyatt (Boylston), Doug Grindle (Natick), and Shawn Craig (Upton) knock the political stuffing out of their opponents (particularly Naughton), that would certainly help the cause. I'm not saying that it would put an end to ridiculous moonbat utopian ideals, but would introduce some caution in their thought process. The only thing they fear is being pushed out of office.

 

[JJ4]

who's to say they don't take another run at it next year regardless of what passes now?

a failed law is a good law in my opinion

Maybe. But I like to think that if they pass this now they will have "done something about gun violence" and not bother with it again for many years. Additionally the senate bill and to some extend the house bill contain some good changes for us - a net gain. If they fail this year they may feel pressured to "do something" next year. Of course they could still come back next year no matter what...

 

[Garys]

It gives the other side more time to organize and to make it a big campaign issue. If that happens then you can expect that we will get a process much like what happened in New York with the SAFE Act. The house and senate leadership will be intent on ramming something through before we even know what hit us. There is no reason to think that they can't get something through and signed by the Governor in 24-48 hours.

Well if the bill dies it gives us more time to organize and make license holders aware of whats going on. I am amazed at how many did not know this was even going on. We have reached out to our club members to call and write and will continue to do so. Let the tidal wave build for the future. If the Pols thought it was bad this session wait until the next time this crap comes up. MHHO.

 

[mattyw]

Maybe. But I like to think that if they pass this now they will have "done something about gun violence" and not bother with it again for many years. Additionally the senate bill and to some extend the house bill contain some good changes for us - a net gain. If they fail this year they may feel pressured to "do something" next year. Of course they could still come back next year no matter what...

they "do something" about gun violence every time they try, we can't stop when they try, it will only last until the next "incident" where they can parade dead bodies around in front of everyone

god forbid that happens in MA

 

[30Mauser]

Per Jim Wallace's latest Facebook update, the conference committee is meeting right now. Everybody clench!

 

[Whutmeworry]

god forbid that happens in MA

I wish you hadn't said that. Please un-say it!

 

[mbullism]

Per Jim Wallace's latest Facebook update, the conference committee is meeting right now. Everybody clench!

House in formal session (since 11am?), video feed says roll calls at 1:00pm... senate scheduled for formal session at 1:00pm... Joint committee meeting between the two-

Ya ever notice how you never see Bruce Wayne and Batman at the same time?

 

[rwl1955]

House in formal session (since 11am?), video feed says roll calls at 1:00pm... senate scheduled for formal session at 1:00pm... Joint committee meeting between the two-

Ya ever notice how you never see Bruce Wayne and Batman at the same time?

******
Here we go!

 

[Bfatz]

******
Here we go!