House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
MaynardDad said:
Now, if the chief had to go to court for every restricted LTC, that would be something!
Click to expand...

Now.......if they applied that to ALL licenses that would be something.......but then again ....not realy cuz what judge is going to go against what a police chief is requesting.
This whole thing sucks
 
The5thDentist said:
It's not quite as bad as what the house wanted, but it's still bad enough to be taken into court. Let's pass this sucker and then use the opportunity we've been handed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps..but how long until the 'right' defendant comes along before Cmomm2A can file a bullet-proof suit. These cases take years to work their way through the court system. And all of this isn't free. Meanwhile, the state continues to usurp people's rights up until (and probably after) any decision that might favor our side.
 
hv55maxx said:
Screw em right back at the elections. I'd like to see a mega thread about any contested elections coming up and how we can help turn the tides here. Even if they aren't my district
Click to expand...

+1 and what is the process to fight this "law" in court

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
As the title reads "to tighten Mass gun laws".....i am glad these gun laws are finally getting tightened.....far too many loose ends around here.
 
I doubt many cities and towns will be encouraging their chiefs to initiate numerous, costly court cases. At least new applicants, and current FID holders, have that going for them.

I'm sure this will discourage chiefs in all but the most obvious cases. Of course it still won't stop them from denying someone for personal reasons, which is why this new wording in the law will be challenged. We will have to wait until it happens, and some poor soul is denied.

Edit: Yes, this is unconstitutional!
 
Last edited:
Section 28 strikes out registration language
Section 29 add the following
such information as is determined to be necessary to verify the identification of the seller and purchaser and ensure that the sale or transfer complies with this section.
Click to expand...

Looks like they are killing the registry as the serial number and make are not necessary for compliance.

Also, the pepper spray section retains the must be 15 to apply language but
Section 30 allows for 14 YO's to apply in order to get an FID at 15.


Suitability is not as bad as it could be (go ahead and flame me by PM) and seems to open up the door for Com2A.
The court has 15 days to review the COP 'evidence' that the person is unsuitable
A determination of unsuitability shall be based on a preponderance of evidence that there exists: (A) reliable, articulable, and credible information that the applicant has exhibited or engaged in behavior to suggest the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety; or (B) existing factors that suggest that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety.
Click to expand...

(A) is not bad but (B) is a catch all as it does not define any factors or standards.

Given the 5 year forgiveness for convictions - I don't see how COP's will be able to get away with holding older CWOFs or non-convictions over anyones head AND have it hold up in court.
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
Section 28 strikes out registration language
Section 29 add the following

Looks like they are killing the registry as the serial number and make are not necessary for compliance.

Also, the pepper spray section retains the must be 15 to apply language but
Section 30 allows for 14 YO's to apply in order to get an FID at 15.


Suitability is not as bad as it could be (go ahead and flame me by PM) and seems to open up the door for Com2A.
The court has 15 days to review the COP 'evidence' that the person is unsuitable


(A) is not bad but (B) is a catch all as it does not define any factors or standards.

Given the 5 year forgiveness for convictions - I don't see how COP's will be able to get away with holding older CWOFs or non-convictions over anyones head AND have it hold up in court.
Click to expand...

Still requires an FID for Pepper Spray, though, correct?
 
pastera said:
Section 28 strikes out registration language
Section 29 add the following

Looks like they are killing the registry as the serial number and make are not necessary for compliance.

Also, the pepper spray section retains the must be 15 to apply language but
Section 30 allows for 14 YO's to apply in order to get an FID at 15.


Suitability is not as bad as it could be (go ahead and flame me by PM) and seems to open up the door for Com2A.
The court has 15 days to review the COP 'evidence' that the person is unsuitable


(A) is not bad but (B) is a catch all as it does not define any factors or standards.

Given the 5 year forgiveness for convictions - I don't see how COP's will be able to get away with holding older CWOFs or non-convictions over anyones head AND have it hold up in court.
Click to expand...
Is the applicant allowed to be present for the judges review, and is there a mechanism for appeal?
or is this like a cop going to a judge for a warrant, to be issued solely on evidence provided by the cop? This sounds like a can of worms... not to mention how this could be shifted to the LTC process, (imho that would be a plus, but is assuming a pro 2a judge cancels out an anti cop. Anti cop + anti judge = denied)
 
Any indication at all how this affects the "suitability" requirement for LTCs or if LTC-B will keep existing? I'm especially curious as to how suitability will apply to LTC and FID with the same word, but different meanings if LTCs aren't covered by this. Looks like another job for Comm2A (remember to buy through their amazon link!)
 
silversquirrel said:
Is the applicant allowed to be present for the judges review, and is there a mechanism for appeal?
or is this like a cop going to a judge for a warrant, to be issued solely on evidence provided by the cop? This sounds like a can of worms... not to mention how this could be shifted to the LTC process, (imho that would be a plus, but is assuming a pro 2a judge cancels out an anti cop. Anti cop + anti judge = denied)
Click to expand...
If a court determines that sufficient evidence exists to support a finding of unsuitability, the court shall within 75 days hold a hearing to determine if the applicant is unsuitable under clause
Click to expand...

If a court enters a judgment that an applicant is unsuitable the court shall notify the applicant in a writing setting forth the specific reasons for such determination. If a court has not entered a judgment that an applicant is unsuitable under this clause within 90 days for petitions under clause (ii) or within 75 days under clause (iii), the court shall enter a judgment that the applicant is suitable for the purposes of this paragraph.
Click to expand...

The notify in writing scares me that you will not be there to defend yourself. However, I think if you are not allowed to defend yourself ($$$) they open up federal issues.

- - - Updated - - -

wolfenkraft said:
Any indication at all how this affects the "suitability" requirement for LTCs or if LTC-B will keep existing? I'm especially curious as to how suitability will apply to LTC and FID with the same word, but different meanings if LTCs aren't covered by this. Looks like another job for Comm2A (remember to buy through their amazon link!)
Click to expand...

LTC-B is gone.

No change to LTCs but I am still reading
 
Start calling your congress critters - let them know that the changes to FID will be abused (per Boston) and will cost the state and town large money in court costs (hearings and Com2A)

Also - Review of Restrictions on LTC

SECTION 51. Paragraph (f) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out the second paragraph and inserting in place thereof the following 1026 paragraph:- Any applicant or holder aggrieved by a denial, revocation, suspension or restriction placed on a license, unless a hearing has previously been held pursuant to chapter 209A, may, within either 90 days after receiving notice of the denial, revocation or suspension or within 90 days after the expiration of the time limit during which the licensing authority shall respond to the applicant or, in the case of a restriction, any time after a restriction is placed on the license pursuant to this section, file a petition to obtain judicial review in the district court having jurisdiction in the city or town in which the applicant filed the application or in which the license was issued. If after a hearing a justice of the court finds that there was no reasonable ground for denying, suspending, revoking or restricting the license and that the petitioner is not prohibited by law from possessing a license, the justice may order a license to be issued or reinstated to the petitioner or may order the licensing authority to remove certain restrictions placed on the license.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have the right to a judicial review but this is meaningless as the standard is any reasonable grounds (any excuse other than race, gender or religion passes)
 
Reptile said:
“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!!!
Click to expand...

putting it all in perspective. +1
 
Section 54
however, that, if the licensee applied for renewal before the license expired, the license shall remain valid after its expiration date for all lawful purposes until the application for renewal is approved or denied
Click to expand...

They could have written 'as originally issued' vice the 'for all lawful purposes'. Therefore, on a plain language reading it seems the clear intent is to allow for unrestricted licensing during renewal extension. This will push red towns to renew quickly!
 
pastera said:
Section 54


They could have written 'as originally issued' vice the 'for all lawful purposes'. Therefore, on a plain language reading it seems the clear intent is to allow for unrestricted licensing during renewal extension. This will push red towns to renew quickly!
Click to expand...


But the chiefs may interpret it to mean lawful purposes "as issued" anyway, as carrying with restrictions is presently unlawful.
 
pastera said:
Section 54


They could have written 'as originally issued' vice the 'for all lawful purposes'. Therefore, on a plain language reading it seems the clear intent is to allow for unrestricted licensing during renewal extension. This will push red towns to renew quickly!
Click to expand...

This part mystifies me because it shows that either no anti legislators read the bill, or else they don't realize that the sole purpose of restrictions is to reduce lawful carry. Frankly, it's unlikely that someone who doesn't carry now due to restrictions would start carrying during their renewal period if they expected to get another restricted license, but it could happen.
 
pastera said:
Section 54


They could have written 'as originally issued' vice the 'for all lawful purposes'. Therefore, on a plain language reading it seems the clear intent is to allow for unrestricted licensing during renewal extension. This will push red towns to renew quickly!
Click to expand...

I think instead that it means the license's use is so extended. That is, you will still be able to buy a gun firing this extended grace period.
 
Anyone know when they are voting on this crap?

Edit: Looks like the Senate session starts at 11am. Nothing listed for the House.
 
It would seem to me this will eliminate red towns... blanket policies should no longer be able to exist. My .02

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
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 3
Replies
80
Views
2K
drgrant
drgrant
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