Here:
-
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
It'll be very interesting to see the actual text of the bill to see who the burden of proof is on. When the police ask a court to issue a denial, does the applicant have to prove he is suitable or do the police have to prove he is unsuitable? And what is the quantum of proof?
And will this be an adversarial thing (i.e. both parties involved) or will it be ex parte (like when the cops ask for a warrant) where the cops submit an affidavit why the FID should be denied and the court rubber-stamps it?
(Of course, since this is MA we all know the answer
)
Last edited:
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Maybe, maybe not. Depends if you get notice and an opportunity to be heard aka due process.
Lank
NES Member
how can the senate stop the "compromise"?
So, what happens if 91 days pass? Does the person just get it? Does everybody have to wait 90 days now for a chief to decide whether or not to question it, before the licensing process can move forward?
Lank
NES Member
I sincerely doubt any thought was given here.
Under the rules of the Legislature the bill that comes out of Conference is unamendable. The House and Senate can only vote it up or down.
Lank
NES Member
Well then- so the consensus among law abiding mass residents is NO!
I dont agree with the compromise.
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Moreover, 90 days...from when?
goodzilla
NES Member
Must these jackwagons incessantly complicate everything? So basically the chief has one extra hurdle to go through since the courts rubber stamp everything they say anyway? What happens while the parties are waiting for their court date??!? Argggh
xero2099
NES Member
good question
Lank
NES Member
Anyone got Peterson's #?
My guess is this "compromise" language will, in effect, give the chiefs full discretion over FIDs. How many people are going to be willing or able to spend the time, money, and energy it will take to fight the chief in court? This of course assumes that they would even be given the chance, it could just be a judge rubber-stamping the denial with no chance for due process. at all.
The devil is in the details.
The devil is in the details.
Now, if the chief had to go to court for every restricted LTC, that would be something!
Bingo..I doubt they even thought for two seconds about how these deadlines would line-up.
This compromise sounds like garbage...more strong words, complex and unproven legal proceedings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quiet
Banned
I haven't seen the language of this compromise, but I say "bring it on"!!!
They are going to go to court to have a judge strip people of their 2A rights? Sounds like they are going to initiate the legal challenges to the law themselves. lol
I can't wait to see this in print.
They are going to go to court to have a judge strip people of their 2A rights? Sounds like they are going to initiate the legal challenges to the law themselves. lol
I can't wait to see this in print.
Didn't turn out so well for government the last time a lack of representation became an issue that aroused the American people.
"Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope." - Patrick Henry, St. John's Church, March 23, 1775
"Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope." - Patrick Henry, St. John's Church, March 23, 1775
If only there were an organization that could help people fight these things in court...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
From the Globe 15 minutes ago:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...day-session/hRJpSYqtQfRf7orwSxwQ0K/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...day-session/hRJpSYqtQfRf7orwSxwQ0K/story.html
So having them petition a court raises the bar a bit on capricious denials...
Yes, it is embarrassing to look like a horse's ass in front of a judge.
“could potentially create a risk to public safety.”
"Could Potentially"???
Anybody could potentially create a risk to public safety.
The law should say "likely create a risk to public safety".
Level 3 Sex Offenders are "likely to re-offend" - yet they are free.
Level 3 Sex Offenders get treated better than INNOCENT GUN LICENSE APPLICANTS in Massachusetts.
What about due process and equal protection.
I can't wait till this garbage gets thrown out in court - and maybe discretionary LTC's as well!!!
"Could Potentially"???
Anybody could potentially create a risk to public safety.
The law should say "likely create a risk to public safety".
Level 3 Sex Offenders are "likely to re-offend" - yet they are free.
Level 3 Sex Offenders get treated better than INNOCENT GUN LICENSE APPLICANTS in Massachusetts.
What about due process and equal protection.
I can't wait till this garbage gets thrown out in court - and maybe discretionary LTC's as well!!!
Garys
NES Member
This happens every session. There are a lot of bills that need to be acted on before tomorrow. Ours is just one of them.
Quiet
Banned
fify.
Funny thing is this... only people with NO convictions will be able to be denied. Someone with multiple misdemeanors should not be affected because the law is very clear on what criminal convictions and what severity constitute a denial; clearly someone with several less-than-two-year misdemeanors is not a public risk. So only people with completely extra-legal reasons will fall under such a stringent level of scrutiny of discretion.
"Ohhh, their behavior didn't warrant an arrest?"
"No, we couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt"
"Oh, you had no proof enough to warrant an arrest or obtain a conviction but you want to be able to strip civil rights based on that?"
"Oh the domestic arguments didn't even rise to the level of a person seeking a restraining order, and not even a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction?"
Yeah, this'll go over big with courts outside the Commiewealth.
So only the whacko odd-behaving, gang member, scary looking and/or suicidal will be able to be denied. In other words -- blacks and suicidals.
Oh yeah, they and homeless people because the homeless don't reside in a town and are less human than people who have money.
Someone needs to explain to these ****heads what a compromise is... Ok, you can do that for FIDs, but that same standard must be followed for LTCs as well as the RESTRICTIONS for LTCs...
THAT, would be a compromise.
Mike
THAT, would be a compromise.
Mike
Quiet
Banned
I wonder if that discussion went on. We can only hope.
- Status
Similar threads
