House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[LoginName]

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.

If the revised bill with the new suitability standard passes (and more than likely it will), it would be disappointing if there were

endless tirades bashing Peterson, Timilty, Tarr, etc with accusations of "selling us out"... "back stabbers"... etc.

I think they did a fine job considering the situation and pressure that must have been put on them to ram this bill through.

 

[rwl1955]

Here is a rant directed at me from the Globe story on the bill from the comments section. It's hilarious.
*****
Hey Right-Wing Liar and all your thug friends: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
*******
When I pointed out to her Heller vs. DC and MacDonald vs. Chicago silence is golden. pissing off moonbats is fun.

 

[MrJones79]

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.

" (B) existing factors that suggest that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety."

Thanks. Umm, reason "B" has lawsuit written all over it. Let's hope that's the case, because I'm sure this will be abused. That particular reason basically looks like the broadcast definition that has porked us in the past.

 

[Jbarila]

Called my Rep, asked him to vote no because there were still too many compromises that did not fix any problems.

 

[Len-2A Training]

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.

You do realize that those words (in the bill) are just ripe for a Constitutional challenge in USDC, right? They are suitably vague such that in my IANAL knowledge the whole scheme should fail when challenged with a squeaky clean plaintiff. If I were MCOPA or those cockroach chiefs, I'd be very scared of this part of the bill, knowing that it would cost me and the state the entire enchilada!

 

[Palladin]

You do realize that those words (in the bill) are just ripe for a Constitutional challenge in USDC, right? They are suitably vague such that in my IANAL knowledge the whole scheme should fail when challenged with a squeaky clean plaintiff. If I were MCOPA or those cockroach chiefs, I'd be very scared of this part of the bill, knowing that it would cost me and the state the entire enchilada!

I would think Comm2A is dying for this thing to pass

 

[Quiet]

The standard of judicial review is "preponderance of the evidence" that means a judge must find that a person, based on credible, articulable evidence, is "more likely than not" to be a threat to public safety.

That's a pretty high standard compared to current discretion.

 

[Bfatz]

You do realize that those words (in the bill) are just ripe for a Constitutional challenge in USDC, right? They are suitably vague such that in my IANAL knowledge the whole scheme should fail when challenged with a squeaky clean plaintiff. If I were MCOPA or those cockroach chiefs, I'd be very scared of this part of the bill, knowing that it would cost me and the state the entire enchilada!

Indeed Lens, and this will cut into their vacation time. Karma will be a bitch here.

 

[pastera]

From: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/compromise_massachusetts_gun_b.html#comments

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts, said Thursday morning that he was still reading through the bill and deciding whether to support it. But he sounded a positive note regarding the compromise, which he framed as a way for the Legislature to give police chiefs a means to deny a license but not the outright authority.

Did Jim read the bill? The standard for evidence is dismal at best.

 

[pastera]

The standard of judicial review is "preponderance of the evidence" that means a judge must find that a person, based on credible, articulable evidence, is "more likely than not" to be a threat to public safety.

That's a pretty high standard compared to current discretion.

However if only one side presents evidence one could indict a ham sandwich

 

[ntomsw]

Another back room deal. No surprise there at all.

 

[Bfatz]

This is what I would like the Judge to say at the first suitability trial to the acting Chief..

 

[Quiet]

However if only one side presents evidence one could indict a ham sandwich

From what I gathered there is a hearing after a denial.

 

[Beansie]

Here is a rant directed at me from the Globe story on the bill from the comments section. It's hilarious.
*****
Hey Right-Wing Liar and all your thug friends: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
*******
When I pointed out to her Heller vs. DC and MacDonald vs. Chicago silence is golden. pissing off moonbats is fun.

The best rebuttal to this talking point is to simply link them the definition of a militia IMO.





As to the bill itself, I'm in the "this isn't good for our rights" camp, but also in the "I imagine given recent rulings across the nation a good lawyer or group of them was hoping the original version of this passed."

 

[HuntMaine]

Mass. Gun Bill Praised From Both Sides
By Matt Murphy July 31, 2014
BOSTON — Activist groups that over the years have regularly clashed over state gun law policies are united in singing the praises of legislation unveiled overnight and due up for votes in both branches on Thursday.

“Before you is an historic opportunity,” James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, wrote in a letter Thursday to legislators. “Never before has our Legislature seen a piece of legislation concerning gun trafficking and public safety that is supported so widely by so many — including Gun Owners’ Action League.”

In their own joint statement Thursday, Stop Handgun Violence and the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence said the bill “ensures that Massachusetts will remain a national leader on gun violence prevention.”

In addition to taking major steps toward addressing suicide awareness and prevention, the groups said the bill, if signed into law, would bring Massachusetts into compliance with a federal criminal background check system, require background checks for private gun sales, and give police chiefs greater discretion in issuing rifle and shotgun licenses.

“We commend the House and Senate for prioritizing this issue and for their hard work in crafting this important legislation,” coalition leader Janet Goldenberg said in a statement. “We are still reviewing the details of the bill to ensure that it will be as effective as possible, but overall this as a very important step forward.”

Stop Handgun Violence founder John Rosenthal called the bill a “solid compromise” and said the section giving chiefs discretion over issuing rifle and shotgun licenses was “the most critical and contested provision in the bill.”

 

[atilla]

“Before you is an historic opportunity,” James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, wrote in a letter Thursday to legislators. “Never before has our Legislature seen a piece of legislation concerning gun trafficking and public safety that is supported so widely by so many — including Gun Owners’ Action League.”

ouch...

 

[Gman021]

I'm not here to bash GOAL. But can someone fill me in on what the **** they're saying?

 

[Len-2A Training]

From what I gathered there is a hearing after a denial.

I haven't read the entire bill but I have read thru the FID section and it definitely has the following:

- chief applies to judge for denial, with reasons
- judge reviews to determine if there is any merit. Judge either sets a date for a hearing (with both sides) or denies the chief's request and thus orders issuance.
- judge rules (if there is a hearing) on evidence provided by both sides.

This process is a lot better than we have now for LTCs, but obviously is a step backwards for FID. However, the state just lost their excuse for "we aren't taking away anyone's 2A rights as they have a RIGHT to an FID" argument and leaving themselves ripe to lose everything in a proper court battle in USDC. If the end result kills discretion for both LTC and FID, we will win a tremendous victory in the long run. Sometimes you just have to look at the long game, not just the short-term pain.

 

[Bfatz]

“Before you is an historic opportunity,” James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, wrote in a letter Thursday to legislators. “Never before has our Legislature seen a piece of legislation concerning gun trafficking and public safety that is supported so widely by so many — including Gun Owners’ Action League.”

How I yearn for the days when the people's voices were heard through a ballot box. If he is so sure this was "supported so widely by so many" let the people vote on it.

 

[dennism]

I haven't read the entire bill but the FID definitely has the following:

- chief applies to judge for denial, with reasons
- judge reviews to determine if there is any merit. Judge either sets a date for a hearing (with both sides) or denies the chief's request and thus orders issuance.
- judge rules (if there is a hearing) on evidence provided by both sides.

This process is a lot better than we have now for LTCs, but obviously is a step backwards for FID. However, the state just lost their excuse for "we aren't taking away anyone's 2A rights as they have a RIGHT to an FID" argument and leaving themselves ripe to lose everything in a proper court battle in USDC. If the end result kills discretion for both LTC and FID, we will win a tremendous victory in the long run. Sometimes you just have to look at the long game, not just the short-term pain.

I in a completely inexpert and unqualified manner agree with this.

 

[late08]

Sometimes you just have to look at the long game, not just the short-term pain.

Exactly.

 

[lagrangian]

From what I gathered there is a hearing after a denial.

As I understand it from reading the bill (IANAL) the process is:

• The CLEO has some (unspecified? Specified via context surrounding the portion of the law being changed?) amount of time to file a petition with the court asking that the applicant be denied the FID.
• The court has 90 days to hold a evidence of unsuitability hearing. Not clear from the bill if this is an ex parte hearing (like when a cop asks for a warrant) or a real, contested hearing.
• Court has 15 days to decide if there is "sufficient evidence" to support a finding of unsuitability -- but does not actually issue a finding at this point.
• If the court finds there is sufficient evidence it has 75 days to hold a hearing to actually determine if the applicant is unsuitable.
• If the court does not act with 90 days of the CLEO filing the petition, the applicant is deemed suitable.
• If the court does not act within 75 days of finding "sufficient evidence", the applicant is again deemed suitable.

 

[Springfield_trapdoor]

does this apply to FID Or LTC or both????

 

[exo]

How I yearn for the days when the people's voices were heard through a ballot box. If he is so sure this was "supported so widely by so many" let the people vote on it.

Allowing our 2A rights to be voted on at the ballot box would be a disaster in this state.

 

[HuntMaine]

I unequivocally support those who do not support or agree in agreement with the bill set forth as it stands with the modifications stated and those in support of and opposed to, will be objectively reviewed in a manner that is in the best interest of the rights of the people.

In others words the politicians will do what they want but avoid be held accountable when they screw you over

 

[Dmiller27]

Have they voted on and 100% passed this?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[BobR51]

As I understand it from reading the bill (IANAL) the process is:

• The CLEO has some (unspecified? Specified via context surrounding the portion of the law being changed?) amount of time to file a petition with the court asking that the applicant be denied the FID.
• The court has 90 days to hold a evidence of unsuitability hearing. Not clear from the bill if this is an ex parte hearing (like when a cop asks for a warrant) or a real, contested hearing.
• Court has 15 days to decide if there is "sufficient evidence" to support a finding of unsuitability -- but does not actually issue a finding at this point.
• If the court finds there is sufficient evidence it has 75 days to hold a hearing to actually determine if the applicant is unsuitable.
• If the court does not act with 90 days of the CLEO filing the petition, the applicant is deemed suitable.
• If the court does not act within 75 days of finding "sufficient evidence", the applicant is again deemed suitable.

And then,after all this, you wait for the Chief who called you "unsuitable" to now file your paperwork for your FID?

 

[7OGlock]

You do realize that those words (in the bill) are just ripe for a Constitutional challenge in USDC, right? They are suitably vague such that in my IANAL knowledge the whole scheme should fail when challenged with a squeaky clean plaintiff. If I were MCOPA or those cockroach chiefs, I'd be very scared of this part of the bill, knowing that it would cost me and the state the entire enchilada!

With all due respect, I've read your recent posts in this thread and respect you, but think in this case you are living in a dream world... It is possible that the lawsuit won't go to an activist judge, but not a guarantee. It is also possible that even an activist judge would even have to find it unconstitutional, but also not a guarantee. Even if this did happen though, odds of throwing out the whole "enchilada" are slim to none, more likely they will throw out that tiny part of the bill and licensing scheme and the legislator will quickly re-write yet another crappy "compromise" to weasel their way around it. The pols know this and probably want it in there knowing this as it is softball for comm2a et al. That ties up their money on this lawsuit and keeping it away from attacks on other parts of the bill.

 

[HuntMaine]

And then,after all this, you wait for the Chief who called you "unsuitable" to now file your paperwork for your FID?

Is it possible to be unsuitably unsuitable?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

If you guys that still live in MA plan to stay there, start stuffing money into Comm2A's pockets, you will need them to be well funded.