House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[LoginName]

I think it may be very funny (and I am hoping it occurs) that Massachusetts may be listed as one of the states that loosened gun controls in the wake of Sandy Hook.

Loosening remains to be seen, but I still have to love comments like this...

It’s a shame to think that the gun lobby has that kind of influence in Massachusetts,” she said.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/201...k0J/story.html

The fact that this took place in MA, has to be eating away at them to no end.

 

[mattyw]

FIFY

well of course I agree, and I like that the bill is useless, it's the best we could hope for

 

[Bfatz]

Media perpetuates the perception by the Sheeple that Lawmakers and LEOs are special, and that it is somehow righteous to sacrifice individual rights for the greater good. Ayn Rand's dystopian societies are becoming reality (in this case, media glorifying individual sacrifice and oppression).

Indeed

 

[lancecolonel]

*******
Please explain.

i do believe he had a hand in getting the constitutional carry bill killed. long story with a ton of details that are a bit fuzzy to me. i remember reading about on here a couple years ago.

 

[Quiet]

I will answer the loosening part with a list of all the things that they fixed from the 1998 bill like --
Theft of guns by Village Vault et. al. including transfers and community storage (rules from a committee to be seen)
Suitability denials in writing and challengeable in court
Reduction of penalties for possession on an expire license
Receipt for renewals and elimination of the 90 day cap
Restoring of rights after 5 years automatically and/or by petition (I think that's new)

I'm sure I'm missing something.

Anyway, my approach to this with the legislature will be:

"I am not happy with (amendment 17) but I can live with this compromise, so please support the Senate version of the bill"

I don't want it to sound like gun owners are happy with this thing, otherwise they will "fix it" until we start squealing again.

 

[cmcgraw2]

I don't want it to sound like gun owners are happy with this thing, otherwise they will "fix it" until we start squealing again.

Absolutely - Beacon Hill will only consider it compromise if both sides are unhappy. Right now the other side (and the media) is back to fear-mongering and hurling insults.

 

[LoginName]

I will answer the loosening part with a list of all the things that they fixed from the 1998 bill like --
Theft of guns by Village Vault et. al. including transfers and community storage (rules from a committee to be seen)
Suitability denials in writing and challengeable in court
Reduction of penalties for possession on an expire license
Receipt for renewals and elimination of the 90 day cap
Restoring of rights after 5 years automatically and/or by petition (I think that's new)

I'm sure I'm missing something.

Anyway, my approach to this with the legislature will be:

"I am not happy with (amendment 17) but I can live with this compromise, so please support the Senate version of the bill"

I don't want it to sound like gun owners are happy with this thing, otherwise they will "fix it" until we start squealing again.

True... those are welcomed improvements and/or fixes to badly written existing laws, but I guess
I just have a different definition of "loosening"

as in... elimination of "may issue" licensing, allowing mail order ammo, elimination of mag restrictions/AWB, elimination of EOPS list/AG's CMR's, etc.

I know it's a pipe dream, but if we could ever accomplish achieving even one of those goals (either legislatively or through the courts), that would be real progress.

 

[Quiet]

True... those are welcomed improvements and/or fixes to badly written existing laws, but I guess
I just have a different definition of "loosening"

as in... elimination of "may issue" licensing, allowing mail order ammo, elimination of mag restrictions/AWB, elimination of EOPS list/AG's CMR's, etc.

I know it's a pipe dream, but if we could ever accomplish achieving even one of those goals (either legislatively or through the courts), that would be real progress.

We are just beginning to learn how to fight back here.

 

[LoginName]

We are just beginning to learn how to fight back here.

If only we could have been at the point we're at now back in 98... we might not be at this point right now.

 

[rogues]

Yup, next we need to show them we can influence who can get elected...

 

[mbullism]

question...

if adopted, we'd have the option to sell privately through the mystery web portal or through an FFL.

What happens when the webportal is unfunded, underfunded, or simply falls flat on its face like the state healthcare website, and they tell us to use option "B"?

 

[jasons]

question...

if adopted, we'd have the option to sell privately through the mystery web portal or through an FFL.

What happens when the webportal is unfunded, underfunded, or simply falls flat on its face like the state healthcare website, and they tell us to use option "B"?

I don't think there is an option B.

 

[The5thDentist]

If only we could have been at the point we're at now back in 98... we might not be at this point right now.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, one of the big reasons why we suffered in the 1990's was the talkmeisters did not cover guns and gun rights.

If locally, Howie, and before him, the late Jerry Williams; and nationally, Rush and others, had realized the importance of defending the Second Amendment back in the 1970's, 1980's and especially the 1990's, life would be very different now. We've lost a lot, but at least now there is a general understanding of the vital importance of the 2A. Plus, we have to credit the current occupier of the Oval Office for waking up a hell of a lot of people.

Now I have to go and thank Ms. Ives for her vote.

 

[LoginName]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, one of the big reasons why we suffered in the 1990's was the talkmeisters did not cover guns and gun rights.

If locally, Howie, and before him, the late Jerry Williams; and nationally, Rush and others, had realized the importance of defending the Second Amendment back in the 1970's, 1980's and especially the 1990's, life would be very different now. We've lost a lot, but at least now there is a general understanding of the vital importance of the 2A. Plus, we have to credit the current occupier of the Oval Office for waking up a hell of a lot of people.

Now I have to go and thank Ms. Ives for her vote.

Looks like I get to repeat myself too.

A big plus this time around was more widespread access and use of the Internet (thank you, Al Gore).

Without it, getting the word out, organizing, emailing, brainstorming, kicking ass and taking names, contacting our reps, the real time updates of what was taking place in the legislature, etc wouldn't have been possible.

if we had had the level of connectivity we have now back in 98... the gun control laws we currently live under might have never
materialized, or at the very least, not be as onerous.

 

[oldsoldier29]

I'm in the same boat as others, that amendment 17 can potentially open up an Avenue to repeal the AWB. As the law stands now, any retired police officer can maintain their exemption from the AWB so long as they maintain their dept qualification. So, my assumption is that this does away with that Qual standard. Here's another interesting thing-this amendment was completely unsolicited by the union. Unless he introduced it as a favor to someone he represents, this was a lone wolf amendment, not brought on by police unions or chiefs. Political favor, perhaps?

 

[sieveboy]

Old cops will be pissed when they find out they can't easily liquidate their guns

 

[mattyw]

I'm in the same boat as others, that amendment 17 can potentially open up an Avenue to repeal the AWB. As the law stands now, any retired police officer can maintain their exemption from the AWB so long as they maintain their dept qualification. So, my assumption is that this does away with that Qual standard. Here's another interesting thing-this amendment was completely unsolicited by the union. Unless he introduced it as a favor to someone he represents, this was a lone wolf amendment, not brought on by police unions or chiefs. Political favor, perhaps?

I would put my life savings on the fact that the union supports the amendment sponsor in the next election

 

[Quiet]

Nobody -and I mean NOBODY- should be walking out of a gun shop in MassO'twoShits without having been personally asked if they are on GOAL's email list at a minimum. Every time.

The store owner or salesperson can even enter it into GOAL's web page for them in under 30 seconds. It's 3 fields: Email addy, first name and last name.

I don't care if you get annoyed by it. Take it to mean the shop owner cares about you and your rights.

We MUST be able to reach out to those who aren't constantly surfing NES.... which is about 290,000 of the state's 300,000 gun owners.

 

[JayMcB]

question...

if adopted, we'd have the option to sell privately through the mystery web portal or through an FFL.

What happens when the webportal is unfunded, underfunded, or simply falls flat on its face like the state healthcare website, and they tell us to use option "B"?

The issue here is if said portal does not exist, FTF may not be legal, since you cannot comply with the statute with a portal that doesn't exist.

 

[silversquirrel]

What happens when the webportal is unfunded, underfunded, or simply falls flat on its face like the state healthcare website, and they tell us to use option "B"?

well, we all know what happened with the cutting edge fingerprint scanner technology fail. I also predict "web portal fee"

 

[jefftk]

I'm in the same boat as others, that amendment 17 can potentially open up an Avenue to repeal the AWB. As the law stands now, any retired police officer can maintain their exemption from the AWB so long as they maintain their dept qualification. So, my assumption is that this does away with that Qual standard. Here's another interesting thing-this amendment was completely unsolicited by the union. Unless he introduced it as a favor to someone he represents, this was a lone wolf amendment, not brought on by police unions or chiefs. Political favor, perhaps?

Who is the "he" in this situation?

Linsky proposed this in the House, but I thought it got voted down, then re-added in the senate?

 

[rlee]

S.2265 #17 was Rush.

 

[oldsoldier29]

I would put my life savings on the fact that the union supports the amendment sponsor in the next election

Not a safe bet. But-and, this is only for the dept I work for-i don't think to 2 many police want to create a second class of citizenry. I think this is more a legislators dream of a well armed paramilitary class they can draw from in the event the gun owners rise up against them. Catch 22: most of them, are us

 

[milktree]

question...

if adopted, we'd have the option to sell privately through the mystery web portal or through an FFL.

What happens when the webportal is unfunded, underfunded, or simply falls flat on its face like the state healthcare website, and they tell us to use option "B"?

I don't think there is an option B.

The issue here is if said portal does not exist, FTF may not be legal, since you cannot comply with the statute with a portal that doesn't exist.

well, we all know what happened with the cutting edge fingerprint scanner technology fail. I also predict "web portal fee"

This is why I think it's so terrible that the paper FA10 is going away. The only way it could be remotely acceptable is if FFLs were also required to do transfers *for free*, during any business hours, *and* those transfers were not subject to either the AG's list or the EOPS list. Even that would suck because it would mean you'd still have to go to a store during business hours instead of meeting at a club or in a parking lot or wherever you want.

Plus, if you don't have a smartphone (many don't) or can't afford wireless data service ($50/month is a lot for some people) or are uncomfortable with computers (are you over 65?) or whatever, you're now a second class (third, after cops) citizen.

I'm going to continue writing letters and calling my elected representatives about this, there's no defensible public safety reason to ditch the paper FA10, and it disenfranchises people.

 

[Squire]

Not a safe bet. But-and, this is only for the dept I work for-i don't think to 2 many police want to create a second class of citizenry. I think this is more a legislators dream of a well armed paramilitary class they can draw from in the event the gun owners rise up against them. Catch 22: most of them, are us

I would like to Poll LEOS and see what they think about their newfound rights in MA. Break it down into NES and non-NES LEOs. Ask which ones are willing to stand in solidarity with "common" citizens with Constitutional Rights, and continue observing the AWB until it's repealed FOR ALL, not just the privileged employees of the State.

 

[mbullism]

... during any business hours, ...

This is a fail for me... I dont go to my LGS anywhere near as much as I'd like to simply because "I work during normal business hours"...

 

[milktree]

This is a fail for me... I dont go to my LGS anywhere near as much as I'd like to simply because "I work during normal business hours"...

Yep, it also disenfranchises anyone who works normal business hours.

 

[Mike S]

GOAL rundown and action alert on legislation - they are asking everyone to contact their State Rep immediately and ask for a concurrence vote. Here's a link to the page with active links etc. http://goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html

7/18/14 Update - ACTION ALERT

Senate Votes for Second Amendment – GOAL Asks Membership to Support Bill – Contact State Representative.

The Massachusetts State Senate voted yesterday for the Second Amendment. The Senate, voting on 63 amendments to the latest version of Majority Leader DeLeo’s “gun violence” bill voted to protect our rights via a 28-10 majority vote on the focus of the day, amendment #6.

The adopted version of the bill from the House, known as S.2265 featured a section that GOAL members were completely opposed to. This section, had it passed would apply the “suitability” language to the issuance of FID cards and would have grossly abused our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Amendment #6 corrected the bill to prevent the suitability clause from being applied to FID cards. The Senate saved this amendment for last, after hours of debate on the other 62 amendments a roll call vote was taken and the amendment passed by a 28-10 vote. (see results below)

There are many people to thank for this vote, our members for the incredibly hard work in contacting their senator(s), the 28 Senators who voted to protect our rights and especially Senator Richard Moore, Senator Mike Moore, Senator James Timilty, Senator Stephen Brewer and Senator Bruce Tarr.

The bill, in its current form is vastly different from where we started in early June, with the original incarnation known as H.4121.

Action Alert: As GOAL feels this legislation is a positive step forward, please contact your State Representative today, ask that they support this bill via a positive vote when it comes up for concurrence.

Click here to get your State Representatives Contact Information.



Please see our listing of positive changes and more information about the legislation below.

The original bill would have criminalized private sales of firearms between licensed individuals. This section was struck and private sales remain legal.
The original bill would have applied a “suitability” clause to the issuance of FID cards. This was defeated and FID cards are still “shall issue”.
The original bill would have made an FID applicant list a “reason” for applying. This was struck from the legislation.
The original bill would have given the licensing authority the ability to place restrictions on FID cards. This was struck from the legislation.
We were successful in modifying the age limit for applying for FID cards so that 14 year olds can apply.
We were successful in streamlining LTC licenses to one license, going forward there will be no more LTC “B” licenses.
We were successful in fixing the 90 day grace period issue. Going forward the licensing authority will issue a receipt upon renewal. This receipt will validate the license for all lawful purposes until the new license is received.
We were able to add language which requires that a licensing authority who denies the issuance of an LTC to an individual because of “unsuitability” be required to list the reason(s) in a letter of denial.
We were successful in clarifying language, which applies to junior training.
We were successful in ensuring that the application of the NICS process uses the federal definitions.
The original bill had very onerous language regarding confiscated/seized firearms. We were successful in getting that removed.
We were successful in ensuring that School Resource Officers were provided protection under C269 10j
We were successful in adding the term “prohibited person” to the license issuing language in C140 s131 & s129B. This legal definition clarifies who should not be licensed and places the burden of proof for denial upon the licensing authority.
The original bill would have granted even more power to the MA Chiefs of Police and EOPSS to determine what unsuitability is. We were successful in removing this language
We ensured that the definition of prohibited person would not include people who sought voluntary treatment for substance abuse, alcohol, or mental health issues.
We were successful in legalizing the purchase and possession of self defense sprays for anyone over 18 years of age.
We were successful in striking the language which would have given the MA Attorney General unprecedented power over which firearms can be purchased in MA. (EOPSS list)
We were successful in striking the language which would have given the Colonel of the State Police power to define the primer for firearms safety training programs.
The original bill had language which would have forced hunters safety courses and firearms safety courses to include a module on suicide prevention. This was amended so that the state will now provide hand out materials for the teachers.
We were successful in creating a criminal firearms trafficking division to help combat illegal sales.
We were successful in including language which requires the Colonel of the State Police to offer Public Service Announcements on firearms safety, storage, transportation, education, etc.
We were successful in adding language giving active duty servicemen a 180 day grace period to get a LTC/FID.
The original bill had a poorly written section regarding increased penalties for carrying while intoxicated. We were successful in getting this removed as the definition of intoxicated was too vague.
With thanks to some of our members who put in extra effort on the issue, we were able to add language which would allow “off the list” transfers of C&R firearms by 01 FFL’s.

Going forward, the legislation will return to the House for a concurrence vote. (Basically they will have to agree with the Senate vote and amendments and vote to reflect that agreement).

If the house disagrees and votes to reflect that they don't like the bill (concurrence is rejected), a bi-partisan conference committee of three members from each branch is appointed to craft a new compromise bill that will be sent to both legislative branches for a final vote.

The conference committee’s report recommending the compromise bill is not subject to amendment.

At this time GOAL would like to ask that our members support this legislation and contact your State Representative today. Please ask that they vote in concurrence to this legislation.

Thank you again to everyone for your hard work and please contact your State Representative, encourage them to support this bill!

Final note, over the last month plus, we received many questions about a line on the original bills summary which would have required a licensee to list the firearms in their possession upon every renewal. This language never made it to any form of any bill and is not in play. Also please note, at the time of this writing a final version of this legislation has not been posted online for viewing.

Click here to review the Senate Vote - Did YOUR Senator Vote to Protect Your Rights?

 

[Dadstoys]

I will answer the loosening part with a list of all the things that they fixed from the 1998 bill like --
Theft of guns by Village Vault et. al. including transfers and community storage (rules from a committee to be seen)
Suitability denials in writing and challengeable in court
Reduction of penalties for possession on an expire license
Receipt for renewals and elimination of the 90 day cap
Restoring of rights after 5 years automatically and/or by petition (I think that's new)

I'm sure I'm missing something.

Anyway, my approach to this with the legislature will be:

"I am not happy with (amendment 17) but I can live with this compromise, so please support the Senate version of the bill"

I don't want it to sound like gun owners are happy with this thing, otherwise they will "fix it" until we start squealing again.

So if I understand what that means is that the suitability denial in writing is still in and would apply to LTC denials?
Bear with me here, I'm politicly challenged .
What other than the awb exemption, (And I agree with others we should leave it alone if it gets a legal foot in the door), should we be calling about?

 

[oldsoldier29]

So if I understand what that means is that the suitability denial in writing is still in and would apply to LTC denials?
Bear with me here, I'm politicly challenged .
What other than the awb exemption, (And I agree with others we should leave it alone if it gets a legal foot in the door), should we be calling about?

No, well, let my try to explain as I see it. The writing for suitability is now only for ltc. They must provide a valid reason for denial-actual proof, not just because they don't like guns. The burden of proof lies with the chief now, as well as valid evidence. FID remains as it was. Don't protest the AWB clause-honestly, I think the path of this could, ultimately, do away with it altogether. But, IANAL, I'm just hypothesizing. This bill should just be rubber stamped and passed as is, as it really doesn't have any teeth against us.