House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[late08]

Reading the responses this is a tough nut to crack. Compromise is a slippery slope, but sometimes its all you have!

I agree that the bill we have (although it just should not have been) could have been far worse.

We just have to keep up the fight and whittle it down some more.

Keep supporting Comm2A or GOAL, become an NRA instructor and spread the gospel, whatever you need/want to do.

OR, you can leave the state, which is fine too if that works for you.

I know its been said before, but its just my two cents.

 

[Bfatz]

Reading the responses this is a tough nut to crack. Compromise is a slippery slope, but sometimes its all you have!

I agree that the bill we have (although it just should not have been) could have been far worse.

The thing that bothers me the most is these ****en clowns will take to the airwaves telling us how great this bill is for everyone, and how hard they worked.

 

[exo]

Please stop calling it "compromise". What rights of ours, previously taken away, did they give back?

The liberals are winning the "war on language". The quality and clarity of our thoughts can be no better than quality and clarity of the words in which we think.

 

[Bill Katt]

Please stop calling it "compromise". What rights of ours, previously taken away, did they give back?

The liberals are winning the "war on language". The quality and clarity of our thoughts can be no better than quality and clarity of the words in which we think.

THIS^^

 

[Horrible]

If nothing else came out of this, I know where my State Rep and State Senator stand on 2A issues. Not b/c they told me, but they showed with their ACTIONS.

- - - Updated - - -

Please stop calling it "compromise". What rights of ours, previously taken away, did they give back?

The liberals are winning the "war on language". The quality and clarity of our thoughts can be no better than quality and clarity of the words in which we think.

Totally agree. This "Compromise" wasn't that b/c the other side didn't sacrifice a damn thing.

 

[rwl1955]

In MA we'll always be waiting for the other shoe to fall. With the push from your forum and from GOAL we dodged getting terminal pneumonia and ended up with a very minor runny nose.

There are a lot of unhappy anti-gunners out there in both houses along with Whiney Rosenthal that are crying out loud.

******
Yup.

 

[rwl1955]

I'm not making any calls, but I am looking at this as a lot better than it could have been without GOAL and some help from retiring legislators.

******
My feelings exactly. The tide is turning, see recent DC ruling, and court challenges are mostly going our way. I'll wait and see what Comm2A has to say after Coupe Deval signs it. I just made small contributions to SAF and GOA.

 

[Bob P]

If nothing else came out of this, I know where my State Rep and State Senator stand on 2A issues. Not b/c they told me, but they showed with their ACTIONS.

- - - Updated - - -



Totally agree. This "Compromise" wasn't that b/c the other side didn't sacrifice a damn thing.

Compromise refers to it being a compromise between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

 

[MrJones79]

Reading the responses this is a tough nut to crack. Compromise is a slippery slope, but sometimes its all you have!

I agree that the bill we have (although it just should not have been) could have been far worse.

We just have to keep up the fight and whittle it down some more.

Keep supporting Comm2A or GOAL, become an NRA instructor and spread the gospel, whatever you need/want to do.

OR, you can leave the state, which is fine too if that works for you.

I know its been said before, but its just my two cents.

I'd be out of this craphole state in second if I could find suitable employment elsewhere. I have family in both Nashville and Louisville...would love to get down there in the next 3-5 years. It's not just a 2A thing either (i.e. the family element, cost of living, ideology, etc)!

 

[hv55maxx]

The next time ( and you know there will be one) they all start screaming compromise on gun rights they need to be called out on the spot as to exactly what we get in a compromise and explain the two way street that they don't understand. This drives me nuts that we let this slide every time we deal with this bullsh!t

 

[TheKingNothing]

The ability for the government to deny me access to my second ammendment right is a crime. Whether it is done objectively or subjectively it does not matter. We've sat and allowed our rights to be slowly hammered away. It all happens softly, and slowly and we cheer for our little victories. They are not victories, they are all defeats that lead to the ultimate loss of freedom.

This is a CRIMINAL attempt to deny my rights. It is unacceptable.

No compromise has been made, no real solution has been offered. This is what they wanted all along. Please look up hegelian dialectic principles and you will understand what I mean. Too lazy? Heres a cliff note: Offer something so rediculous you know cant possibly happen. When confronted: back down or change to something else slightly less or potentially equally rediculous that you really wanted the entire time. People cheer compromise while being none the wiser to the manipulation.

Anyone who calls this bill a win is ****ing retarded.

Also the most recent version of the bill still has FID discretion in it. Gives licencing authorities the ability to deny on suitability, only now they have to petition a court.

 

[rchap36]

Turn around Derek, you're preaching to the choir.

We are taking a significant hit here - my assertion was that the hit would have been a death blow without the effort organized here and by GOAL.

HaHaHa so people that had FID because the a@@holes would not give them a LTC can NOW have there FID pulled (YOUR RIGHT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A DEATH BLOW) I/we are down at the state house 2 sometimes 3 times aweek (because of work we have in boston) and I can tell you for a fact OGAM will be on the table next time around that is the word out of the state house

 

[goodzilla]

Sorry got lost here, What is OGAM please?

One Gun A Month

 

[Admin]

Sorry got lost here, What is OGAM please?

One Gun A Month

 

[late08]

????????

ogham or ogam (ˈɒɡəm, ɔːm, ˈɒɡəm, ɔːm)

— n
an ancient alphabetical writing system used by the Celts in Britain and Ireland, consisting of straight lines drawn or carved perpendicular to or at an angle to another long straight line

[C17: from Old Irish ogom, of uncertain origin but associated with the name Ogma, legendary inventor of this alphabet]

Sorry got lost here, What is OGAM please?

 

[mbullism]

Sorry got lost here, What is OGAM please?

one gun a month


ETA: damn these pudgy keyboard fingers...

 

[MrJones79]

So are we still in limbo with regard to 'unsuitable'? Have they added any language to say this must be more clearly defined, or is just as ambiguous as before? Like others have said, in the long-run if it's still just some BS, undefined criteria it may work out in our favor via the courts.

 

[Bill Katt]

Sorry got lost here, What is OGAM please?

One Gun A Month, Joe.

 

[TheKingNothing]

OGAM = One Gun a Month. Guess whats next? Can only pray once a month. Then? Only read one book a month. Then? Only have one baby every 10 years. Because you know, the government has a right to tell me what to do with my money, or my thoughts. /rage

 

[mbullism]

So are we still in limbo with regard to 'unsuitable'? Have they added any language to say this must be more clearly defined, or is just as ambiguous as before? Like others have said, in the long-run if it's still just some BS, undefined criteria it may work out in our favor via the courts.

(iv) 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.

I took this to mean "because I said so" was no longer a valid reason.... unless of course simply owning a gun "could potentially create a risk to public safety"... then we're screwed.

 

[rchap36]

GOAL did all the damage control that could be done here but anyone suggesting that their reps vote for this in hope that the bogeyman goes away is smoking crack.

Sorry Derek but crack is unlawful

 

[TheKingNothing]

(iv) 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. .

Im confused. Innocent until proven guilty. Do these words sound familiar to anyone or am I going ****ing crazy? This is unacceptable. If I havent been convicted of a prohibitable crime ( even that part I have an issue with ) then I cant be punished for it. One of the founding principles of our system.

 

[goodzilla]

Im confused. Innocent until proven guilty. Do these words sound familiar to anyone or am I going ****ing crazy? This is unacceptable. If I havent been convicted of a prohibitable crime ( even that part I have an issue with ) then I cant be punished for it. One of the founding principles of our system.

Clearly the "Spirit Of Liberty" now includes pre-crime profiling.

 

[rchap36]

I took this to mean "because I said so" was no longer a valid reason.... unless of course simply owning a gun "could potentially create a risk to public safety"... then we're screwed.

Any reason is and will be good in ma just look a 209a's also how many can or will pay 5,000or 10,000 dollars for a FID

 

[Billsail]

the card shall remain valid after the expiration date on the card for all lawful purposes until the application for renewal is approved or denied

Carrying on a restricted LTC is not a "lawful purpose". It should be, but it isn't. At least that's how LEOs will see it. Unrestricted LTCs say "restrictions:none", not "all lawful purposes", as most of them used to. My early LTCs used to say "personal protection", or "protection of life". Taken literally that would mean I couldn't hunt or target shoot. Of course that wasn't really the case, but an example that shows MA gun laws have been asinine for many years.

 

[Bfatz]

The ability for the government to deny me access to my second ammendment right is a crime. Whether it is done objectively or subjectively it does not matter. We've sat and allowed our rights to be slowly hammered away. It all happens softly, and slowly and we cheer for our little victories. They are not victories, they are all defeats that lead to the ultimate loss of freedom.

This is a CRIMINAL attempt to deny my rights. It is unacceptable.

No compromise has been made, no real solution has been offered. This is what they wanted all along. Please look up hegelian dialectic principles and you will understand what I mean. Too lazy? Heres a cliff note: Offer something so rediculous you know cant possibly happen. When confronted: back down or change to something else slightly less or potentially equally rediculous that you really wanted the entire time. People cheer compromise while being none the wiser to the manipulation.

Anyone who calls this bill a win is ****ing retarded.

Also the most recent version of the bill still has FID discretion in it. Gives licencing authorities the ability to deny on suitability, only now they have to petition a court.

Fact! +1 So when do we gather or start a fund for a class action suite against these tyrants? I'll be the first to donate.

 

[Revelationechc]

From Masslive:

http://www.masslive.com/politics/in...omise_massachusetts_gun_b.html#incart_m-rpt-2

 

[rchap36]

Im confused. Innocent until proven guilty. Do these words sound familiar to anyone or am I going ****ing crazy? This is unacceptable. If I havent been convicted of a prohibitable crime ( even that part I have an issue with ) then I cant be punished for it. One of the founding principles of our system.

You are crazy AGAIN LOOK AT 209A'S guilty until proven Innocent

 

[Quiet]

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)

That is just not true. See simkin for starters.

In addition this ends blanket policy-based restrictions

 

[Editor]

So I spoke to a Reps aid, and they are going to push to keep the FID Suitability option IN the Bill . . .

If it's in, it's in; if it's not in, it's not in. Nothing published by the committee can at this point be modified; it can only be approved or rejected by each house, whole meal, without modification.