House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quiet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's one problem though. Not every gun shop employee really cares about what is going on. Back before the Gardner Auditorium hearing, I was at the Mass Firearms School talking about the House Bill. I was talking about the new proposed training requirements since I am an instructor and they make a lot of money off of training. The Guys there hadn't called. Said they had been too busy. Now if we can't get people whose livelihood depends upon the legislation to call, then what hope is there to get them to ask about being on the GOAL email list. I know it would be the right thing to do and it would be so easy, but apathy runs rampant out there.
 
mattyw said:
why is everyone on here (me especially) under the impression that pepper spray was still FID only but GOAL and that rep say it's now not?

we were pretty on the ball on everything, how did we miss that?

also I agree that the house will not vote positively on this. FID suitability was DeLeo's baby
Click to expand...

Well, for me at least, I tracked the House bill pretty closely - read pretty much the whole thing.... When the Senate bill came out and went to session I was significantly more busy at work, and once I got behind with what was happening it went further downhill from there... for the senate version I barely read any of it and was relying mostly on what other people were saying. Apparently lots of other people were doing the same as well [laugh]
 
Rekonn said:
I'm going to send a very short email per the action alert - let me know if this is right. Today is the first I've heard the word "concurrence" so I want to make sure I'm using it right.

Subject: Support S2265 Concurrence
Body:
Dear Representative Sean Garballey:

Please support S2265 with a positive vote when it comes up for concurrence.

Thanks,
Name and Address
Click to expand...

Hey - I'm also in Garballey's district; we must be neighbors. I've spoken to him on the phone before and he seems like a decent and intelligent guy. Your email looks great, but I'd also call and speak to someone or at least leave a message. I just left a message for him and Rep. Rogers this evening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Quiet said:
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.
Click to expand...

This! This This This...a friggin BILLION times This!!
I've said repeatedly - WHERE are all the other gun owners? As far as I know, this is the best (and only) forum like this where Massachusetts Pro-2A gun owners can exchange info, etc. And I look at the number of members here at NES and say to myself..."OK, then where the f*ck are all the other Mass gun owners???"

Then I'll go to the gun club or be talking to someone who is an LTC holder, and I'll mention the ridiculous legislation being proposed (and not just this DeLeo bill in this session - I'm talking whatever moonbat bill in whatever session, every year!)..

And the answer I get from 95% of them is the deer in the headlights "Huh? Bill? What bill? What legislation? Huh????"

And a percentage of them don't even know who "DeLeo" is, and I'm totally serious...

[banghead]
 
this has probably been posted before..where can I see what senator voted for what...im down on south shore...I know keating was pushing to tighten the noose...but I wanted to know about therese murray
 
sampsta said:
this has probably been posted before..where can I see what senator voted for what...im down on south shore...I know keating was pushing to tighten the noose...but I wanted to know about therese murray
Click to expand...

Roll call for amendment 63.1
https://malegislature.gov/Document/RollCall/188/Senate/411.pdf
"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) (also, please note the amendment # was changed to 63.1)"

Huh. I don't see Murray on the list.
 
Last edited:
Does the Senate bill as passed require reporting of additional (mental health-related?) information/circumstances to NICS that are not federal disqualifiers?
 
sorry im sure this was covered and ive been trying to keep up with this thread, I know about the changes to the suitability definition but I saw a post about the blanket restrictions of some towns. Is there anything in this bill that addresses that?
 
I'm going to review GOAL and the threads and try to provide an unbiased summary in OP by end of day tomorrow.
 
Senator Flanagan did us proud, I urge everyone who is in her district to give her a verbal pat on the back:

Dear Timmay,

Thank you for your recent email regarding the gun legislation, passed by the Senate yesterday. Over the past week, I have received many phone calls and emails making recommendations on this legislation. Throughout the last ten years as an elected official I have worked to protect the Second Amendment. After speaking with gun owners, listening to your stories and reading your emails, the importance of this issue to you was reinforced even more.

Before the debate yesterday I overwhelmingly heard feedback from individuals who wanted to ensure that language was removed which would have allowed individual police chiefs to use a “suitability” decision to deny someone their FID card. Subsequently, I voted to remove this clause from the Senate version of the bill in order to keep the law as it stands currently.

I also supported removing pepper spray and mace from the FID card requirements for individuals over the age of 18, as many had requested. Within the Senate legislation, I also supported tougher penalties for criminals and the creation of new crimes for gun-related offenses to punish those who are acting unlawfully with a firearm. Also, this bill includes provisions for the expansion of mental health services and increased protections for children in school.

This legislation comes after a year and a half of hearings, letters, emails and face-to-face meetings with my constituents. I take the rights afforded under the Second Amendment very seriously and I appreciate you taking the time to express to me your concerns and thoughts on the legislation, amendments, and the issue as a whole.

This legislation will now move to a Conference Committee to reconcile the two versions of passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. I will continue to advocate once the Conference Committee is appointed and I hope you will as well.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully,

Jennifer L. Flanagan
State Senator
 
GlockJock said:
I personally feel - and this is just one man's opinion - that it's a major MAJOR mistake for any of us, GOAL, Jim, anyone...to "crow" or proclaim anything a "great day for the 2nd Amendment" blah blah.

Especially when this thing is still floating back and forth between chambers of that Golden upside-down urinal atop Beacon Hill...A place inhabited by at least 8 or 10 of the most dishonest, scurrilous, untrustworthy, scumballs I've ever met on this planet (and those are just the ones that I've met!!)

If it were me I wouldn't say ANYTHING that gives or even MIGHT possibly give, in any way, the Anti's the idea that we pro-2A citizens have "won" anything in their looney, left-wing, liberal, communist, wingnut hellhole that they call home.

I would have, instead, been "crying" about how this bill falls FAR short of what GOAL and/or the NRA is seeking here. I would be absolutely LIVID about Section ______ (whatever, fill in the blank with something that the Libs wouldn't even understand, maybe something about "supressors" or whatever).

I would let them think we are HUGELY DISAPPOINTED in our legislature for having failed to _____ (whatever) and that we are "very disheartened" over _____ (some innocuous, irrelevant, non-2A related issue).

If the Starbucks crowd thinks they've "won" something, thinks that gun owners and 2A supporters are "unhappy and disheartened", the friggin' coffee there will be free for a week in celebration of their "win" (even though they really hadn't "won" anything).

I wouldn't "let them in" on anything, that we are "satisfied" or anything even remotely close. I'd just keep it "our secret". And, being Irish, I live by the old saying that my grandfather taught us many years ago: "Three people can keep a secret - if two of them are dead

I wouldn't even put anything on GOAL's website about this, nor anywhere else.

"Pleased"???
We'll be "pleased" when our gun laws are those of Arizona, Florida etc.
As of now, we are "furious over the passing of this legislation and....."

[wink]
Click to expand...


Yup spot on. They read this rag don't kid yourself. The bill in its entirety sucks to high heaven. Not sure about the rest of you but I hate scraps from the table, the entire bill should be tossed. Keep the information and party hats low key until further notice.

" shall not be infringed." is not a bargaining chip.
 
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.


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.
Click to expand...

This is from GOAL.

Thinking strategically, there are a lot of major good things for us in this bill. If it fails the house, it WILL be back next year. The only difference is that next year, there will not be any negotiating with our side like there was this year. A couple of our most senior and influential allies in the legislature are retiring this year, so we will not have the ability to rewrite any legislation like we did this time.
 
Last edited:
timmay said:
Senator Flanagan did us proud, I urge everyone who is in her district to give her a verbal pat on the back:

Dear Timmay,

Thank you for your recent email regarding the gun legislation, passed by the Senate yesterday. Over the past week, I have received many phone calls and emails making recommendations on this legislation. Throughout the last ten years as an elected official I have worked to protect the Second Amendment. After speaking with gun owners, listening to your stories and reading your emails, the importance of this issue to you was reinforced even more.

Before the debate yesterday I overwhelmingly heard feedback from individuals who wanted to ensure that language was removed which would have allowed individual police chiefs to use a “suitability” decision to deny someone their FID card. Subsequently, I voted to remove this clause from the Senate version of the bill in order to keep the law as it stands currently.

I also supported removing pepper spray and mace from the FID card requirements for individuals over the age of 18, as many had requested. Within the Senate legislation, I also supported tougher penalties for criminals and the creation of new crimes for gun-related offenses to punish those who are acting unlawfully with a firearm. Also, this bill includes provisions for the expansion of mental health services and increased protections for children in school.

This legislation comes after a year and a half of hearings, letters, emails and face-to-face meetings with my constituents. I take the rights afforded under the Second Amendment very seriously and I appreciate you taking the time to express to me your concerns and thoughts on the legislation, amendments, and the issue as a whole.

This legislation will now move to a Conference Committee to reconcile the two versions of passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. I will continue to advocate once the Conference Committee is appointed and I hope you will as well.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully,

Jennifer L. Flanagan
State Senator
Click to expand...

Got the exact same reply. Felt like she is covering her arse. It's crap.
 
Bfatz said:
Yup spot on. They read this rag don't kid yourself. The bill in its entirety sucks to high heaven. Not sure about the rest of you but I hate scraps from the table, the entire bill should be tossed. Keep the information and party hats low key until further notice.

" shall not be infringed." is not a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...
Unrealistic. We all knew a bill will come out. What scraps? This bill works FOR us. Honestly, it gets rather tiring to explain to people that setting an expectation that we would win back all our rights while fighting an extremely anti gun bill is tilting at windmills. If you honestly thought this was a loss, feel free to stop supporting those who went to bat to keep legislation from being passed that negatively affects us. And, if you didn't support them in the first place-then, this was never your fight.
 
sevenMMmag said:
This is from GOAL.

Thinking strategically, there are a lot of major good things for us in this bill. If it fails the house, it WILL be back next year. The only difference is that next year, there will not be any negotiating with our side like there was this year. A couple of our most senior and influential allies in the legislature are retiring this year, so we will not have the ability to rewrite any legislation like we did this time.
Click to expand...

Can someone please clarify in the versions from the House and Senate what the new laws would be in regards to restrictions on LTCs? Those of us with Target & Hunting neutered licenses would like to know. :)

I have seen people say that the restrictions will be changed and COP has to prove we should have restrictions, but GOAL's announcement only mentions restrictions for FID.

Thanks!
 
sevenMMmag said:
This is from GOAL.

Thinking strategically, there are a lot of major good things for us in this bill. If it fails the house, it WILL be back next year. The only difference is that next year, there will not be any negotiating with our side like there was this year. A couple of our most senior and influential allies in the legislature are retiring this year, so we will not have the ability to rewrite any legislation like we did this time.
Click to expand...

I agree, mostly. It's also likely that there'll be new anti-2A legislation filed next session even if this bill passes intact. The landscape may change after the 2014 election, in whose favor remains to be seen. IMO our two biggest enemies have shown themselves in Naughton and Linsky, both of whom have challengers I'm willing to support - upset those two and the landscape will definitely change.

http://bradwyatt.com/
http://www.grindleforrep.com/
 
cmcgraw2 said:
I agree, mostly. It's also likely that there'll be new anti-2A legislation filed next session even if this bill passes intact. The landscape may change after the 2014 election, in whose favor remains to be seen. IMO our two biggest enemies have shown themselves in Naughton and Linsky, both of whom have challengers I'm willing to support - upset those two and the landscape will definitely change.

http://bradwyatt.com/
http://www.grindleforrep.com/
Click to expand...

I think you're ignoring my vile senator.. Creem.
 
Allright. So it's now the 19th. No action will be taken until Monday, the 21st. At the most, there's 11 days remaining in the session, including the weekends.

I know they could rain all over our parade here, but I think this will sail through and be signed by next week. Let's see how this plays this weekend. If any of the anti groups come out and praise the bill, then the media spin will be favorable.

You guys worry too much about Rosenthal. I was very politically awake before joining NES. I had never even heard of this joker. He's a non-issue. Sorry, Johnny. You just aren't that big a deal.

My gut is telling me we're going to be ok.

And as far as this bill being a continued infringement, I agree, but we didn't get where we are overnight. This is a good step in the right direction. It's taken our enemies something like 75 years chip away at our rights to get to where we are today. It's going to take some time to cement them back together, but the momentum is on OUR side, and as was shown over the last two weeks, we can effect the political landscape. Just us.

Take every opportunity to tell fellow gun owners about NES and how great this place is. Heck, tell non-gun owners. I do. I tell anyone I know that's politically aware about this site to get them to check it out. Had a nice conversation with a guy today about this place, and he's an avid hunter. He had no idea NES even existed. I think he'll be joining when he checks this place out and sees what a great group of people make up the membership.

And don't forget to call your Senator and thank them. The aide at Sen. Kathleen O'Connor Ives' office was totally shocked when I called to express my thanks for her vote on 63.1. I get the feeling that NOBODY does that. It goes a long way to kill the image of a Plaid-wearing Neanderthal.
 
Last edited:
My senator was one of the 10. Someone needs to run against eldridge.
If any significant changes are made, the bill has to be rewritten, and approved, via the joint committee. As that will be time consuming, this is why I'm hedging my bets that this will pass as is.
As for next session? Anti gun bills, if they're introduced, we'll attack as we did. After all-they wanted tools to prevent gun violence. They were given ample tools for that. The icky thing they didn't get were restrictions against us. So, introducing new bills, they're flat out stating that it's NOT about safety-its about gun owners. If we work on getting more pro 2a people elected, we can stem that tide easily. Get rid of Naughton. Linsky. Creem. Eldridge. Anyone who voted against us. We need to focus on that. Then, start working on repealing the current laws.
As others stated, this will bit happen overnight. Think of it like a diet. We (well, me, anyway) didn't get fat overnight. I can't expect to lose the weight overnight. It's a long term commitment. We need to keep that in mind
 
I posted this in the other thread, but it really needs to be in this thread.

If this bill fails, there is no such guarantee that there will be another bill next year, nor that it will be worse than this year. That is a risk.

That said, this bill should pass. While it is not perfect (no bill will be perfect for us) it is not onerous. It is on the whole a net plus for gun owners, while giving the anti's what they need: Universal Background Checks.

They NEED Universal Background Checks.

They MUST HAVE Universal Background Checks

The WANT Universal Background Checks.

Remind them of this. It is a huge win for them!!!!


They already had near real-time Universal Background Checks, but they didn't like that so we gave them even nearer real-time Universal Background Checks. In other words we gave up virtually nothing and gave them a huge win. Our compromise for that was the removal of FID suitability from the bill. They should be reminded that they are getting UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

If they don't pass the bill they are saying "no" to UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS and their opponents in an election either now or in the future will use that against them.

C'mon folks. Understand how to push their buttons.
 
Any odds on how many hundreds of millions the state will waste on creating a "real-time web portal" that won't work?
 
So what are the Libs going to do next year after universal background checks fail to quell violence in areas like Dorcester & Mattapan? More bills, more restrictions. You can count on it like the sun rising each morning in the east.
 
Last edited:
cmcgraw2 said:
I agree, mostly. It's also likely that there'll be new anti-2A legislation filed next session even if this bill passes intact. The landscape may change after the 2014 election, in whose favor remains to be seen. IMO our two biggest enemies have shown themselves in Naughton and Linsky, both of whom have challengers I'm willing to support - upset those two and the landscape will definitely change.

http://bradwyatt.com/
http://www.grindleforrep.com/
Click to expand...

The way to beat naught on is to have vets call him out. He will grandstand wih his overseas service yet comes home and craps on the constitution. He was just another useless lawyer overseas. He will hide behind public safety but as well know that's a joke hence the law enforcement retiree exemption
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
T-Unit
T
Shooting At Northborough House Party Leaves One 16 Y/O Dead
2 3
Replies
78
Views
2K
MAGA99
MAGA99
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
3 4 5
Replies
144
Views
5K
PappyM3
PappyM3
ATF at the behest of the White House attempt to ban all private firearm transactions
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
spt_1955
spt_1955
Back
Top Bottom