House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike S said:
how are they going to know if the info is input a week later?
Click to expand...

C"mon, use your imagination. There are a whole host of scenarios that could play out. Here's a possible one:

Seller and buyer meet FTF in a parking lot somewhere with no (reasonable) internet access. They examine each others' LTCs (as is done today via FA-10), agree to the sale. Seller jots down the buyer's info and will fill out the stuff on the web portal when they get back home. All good, right?

Buyer has an accident on the way home, and the police search the vehicle (or "inventory the contents") prior to it being towed. The gun is turned up, and they check the database and find that it's registered to the Seller. They now have evidence of not complying with the web portal law.

Probable? Maybe, maybe not. Possible? Yes.

Under the current law, while there may be a bunch of BS to deal with, neither buyer nor seller has broken the law.
 
exodious said:
C"mon, use your imagination. There are a whole host of scenarios that could play out. Here's a possible one:

Seller and buyer meet FTF in a parking lot somewhere with no (reasonable) internet access. They examine each others' LTCs (as is done today via FA-10), agree to the sale. Seller jots down the buyer's info and will fill out the stuff on the web portal when they get back home. All good, right?

Buyer has an accident on the way home, and the police search the vehicle (or "inventory the contents") prior to it being towed. The gun is turned up, and they check the database and find that it's registered to the Seller. They now have evidence of not complying with the web portal law.

Probable? Maybe, maybe not. Possible? Yes.

Under the current law, while there may be a bunch of BS to deal with, neither buyer nor seller has broken the law.
Click to expand...

In that scenario, it could be that the gun was merely lent, one LTC holder to another, which would be non-criminal. The only scenario I could see being a problem is if the seller of the gun attempts to put the transaction through the system after the buyer is declared dead, which has gotta be a pretty rare situation.

edit: Or if the buyer gets arrested between the physical transfer and the electronic registration.
 
Mike S said:
how are they going to know if the info is input a week later?
Click to expand...

What is the seller going to do if the system rejects the sale when it's recorded a week later, and the buyer is long gone? The seller has not not only committed a felony, he's recorded it for all posterity.
 
Ultimately it is up to the lawful gun owner to suffer thru any poorly thought out legislation. That is the problem here. There is no genuine concern for integrity in any of these new laws. Just more rules to complicate the game being played. No better way to than that to reduce the numbers of interested players.
 
exodious said:
Worse, because even with eFA-10 the seller still has 7 days to report the sale, which can help work around lack of internet issues.

With this bill, reporting is required immediately prior to or at the point of sale.
Click to expand...

I just read thru that section as passed. I no longer see the "immediately prior" in there. I was hoping you could do the LTC verification prior to meeting and bring it with you, then if no Internet access, do the web portal afterwards. Looks to me that this option is now gone.


mbullism said:
Instead of recording the transaction, it's more akin to asking for permission- .

frankly, the devil in the details will be how smoothly the system runs (imo)... if a legal transaction between two legally licensed parties gets gummed up because the web portal runs like the health care portal, things will get interesting.

.02
Click to expand...

Yup, if the system is down, no paper forms acceptable, thus no transactions by anyone until the system is back up. NOT good.
 
I was figuring the web portal would require each participant to enter their pins or something similar to verify identities. This would mean it couldn't be done except at the meeting.

The system bein down is one possible problem to worry about as noted above.

I'd think the awkwardness of some sort of rejection would be an interesting situation.
 
LenS said:
Yup, if the system is down, no paper forms acceptable, thus no transactions by anyone until the system is back up. NOT good.
Click to expand...

For comparison, what is the system that the dealers use like? Does it stay up? Is it completely separate from the current eFA-10 system?
 
jefftk said:
Off the top of my head:
Police now have the ability to deny FID cards (although there is some semblance/facade of oversight/due process)
Increased penalties for having a gun on school grounds, and - I think - increased penalties for safe storage violations.
Some bullshit about having to affirm that you have not lost any firearms on renewal (might not be bad, but certainly can't be good)
New private transfer web portal - will do away with paper forms (bad), TBD whether better or worse than e-fa10.
Click to expand...

For heaven's sake educate yourself before posting WRONG information amid marginally accurate opinions.

This...

Some bullshit about having to affirm that you have not lost any firearms on renewal
Click to expand...

Was NOT included, thanks to the lobbying efforts of GOAL and those of us actually paying attention.
 
30Mauser said:
For heaven's sake educate yourself before posting WRONG information amid marginally accurate opinions. This... Was NOT included, thanks to the lobbying efforts of GOAL and those of us actually paying attention.
Click to expand...

Actually it was....
 
30Mauser said:
For heaven's sake educate yourself before posting WRONG information amid marginally accurate opinions.

This...



Was NOT included, thanks to the lobbying efforts of GOAL and those of us actually paying attention.
Click to expand...


Well someone is wrong. This is what passed.

SECTION 56. Paragraph (l) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the first sentence the following sentence:- The form for renewal shall include an affidavit in which the applicant shall verify that the applicant has not lost any firearms or had any firearms stolen from the applicant’s since the date of the applicant’s last renewal or issuance.
Click to expand...
 
terraformer said:
Well someone is wrong. This is what passed.
SECTION 56. Paragraph (l) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the first sentence the following sentence:- The form for renewal shall include an affidavit in which the applicant shall verify that the applicant has not lost any firearms or had any firearms stolen from the applicant’s since the date of the applicant’s last renewal or issuance.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

30Mauser said:
thanks to the lobbying efforts of GOAL and those of us actually paying attention.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.
 
Section 59 C&R Exemption - effective date Jan 1, 2021 yes 2021!!!

I just notified that the effective date of the C&R exemption just got moved to Jan 1, 2021!!!

That is 6 1/2 years down the road!

I just got off the phone with Liz at Jim Timilty's office and she is going to contact Rob his Chief of Staff and they will look into it.

I don't know why this is put off so long!
 
jefftk said:
Off the top of my head:
Police now have the ability to deny FID cards (although there is some semblance/facade of oversight/due process)
Increased penalties for having a gun on school grounds, and - I think - increased penalties for safe storage violations.
Some bullshit about having to affirm that you have not lost any firearms on renewal (might not be bad, but certainly can't be good)
New private transfer web portal - will do away with paper forms (bad), TBD whether better or worse than e-fa10.
Click to expand...

Mike S said:
From GOAL
..
The original bill would have drastically increased penalties for improper firearms storage, we were successful in removing this language.
...
Click to expand...
Looking back, according to GOAL the increased safe storage penalties were removed.
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
I just notified that the effective date of the C&R exemption just got moved to Jan 1, 2021!!!

That is 6 1/2 years down the road!

I just got off the phone with Liz at Jim Timilty's office and she is going to contact Rob his Chief of Staff and they will look into it.

I don't know why this is put off so long!
Click to expand...

don't get too worried yet. The internal reference, such as when certain sections are to go into affect, weren't quite right in the final bill. They've got some 'T's to dot and some 'I's to cross.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
don't get too worried yet. The internal reference, such as when certain sections are to go into affect, weren't quite right in the final bill. They've got some 'T's to dot and some 'I's to cross.
Click to expand...

Who should get polite but firm phone calls and emails to fix this 2021 nonsense?

- - - Updated - - -

jefftk said:
Looking back, according to GOAL the increased safe storage penalties were removed.
Click to expand...

er.... the actual bill on the state's website says otherwise. Unless there were *other* increased penalties that got removed.
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
I just notified that the effective date of the C&R exemption just got moved to Jan 1, 2021!!!

That is 6 1/2 years down the road!

I just got off the phone with Liz at Jim Timilty's office and she is going to contact Rob his Chief of Staff and they will look into it.

I don't know why this is put off so long!
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from? The text of H.4376 has section 59 taking effect Jan 1 2015 (see section 117). What do you mean it got "moved"?
 
SECTION 122. Sections 24, 25, 34, 42, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 61, 62, 63, 66, 71, and 75 shall take effect on January 1, 2021.
Click to expand...

So looking at section 122 which is the Jan 1 2021 stuff, there's a bunch of stuff in there that's F'd. Section 42 requires the police to notify the person from whom they're confiscating guns that they can have their stuff transferred up to 1 year, what is the purpose behind pushing that out to 2021?

Some other prohibited person language going on in section 48. Section 50 receipts for licenses, section 53 good until revoked on renewals.

Seems like a lot of the "good" stuff that has been touted won't take effect until 2021.
 
LoginName said:
Shit... he's right...

https://malegislature.gov/Document/Bill/188/House/H4376/DocumentAttachment/H4376 errata.pdf
Click to expand...

I flagged it to Ben for him to get in touch with Jim.

The C&R stuff is a tiny part of another section. It probably should have had its own section number.

When I went to DL the latest copy of the bill as passed from the state website, I noticed an errata sheet . . . that is where they apparently changed effective dates for a number of sections including the C&R material (in Section 59).

No idea if it can be corrected now or if it must wait for another bill this year or next session.

I hope to be long gone from this state before 2021, so I have a vested interest in this issue.
 
jefftk said:
Hmm..., do you have the section number for that part handy?
Click to expand...

Mike S said:
That was a mistake which has since been corrected. Apologies for any confusion.
Click to expand...

Ok, figured it out:

Section 64: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4376/History
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131L

improper storage for non-large capacity firearm/rifle/shotgun
was $500 - $5000 and < 1 yr
is now $1000 - $7500 and/or < 1.5 yrs

large cap:
was $1000 - 10,000 and/or 1 - 10 yrs
is now $2000 - $15,000 and/or 1.5 - 12 years
---------------------------------------------
improper storage around someone less than 18:
low cap
was $1000 - $10,000 and/or 1 - 10 years
is now $2500 - $15000 and/or 1.5 - 12 years

high cap
was $5000 - 10,000 and/or 2.5 - 10 years
is now $10,000 - $20,000 and/or 4 - 15 years
 
LenS said:
I flagged it to Ben for him to get in touch with Jim.

The C&R stuff is a tiny part of another section. It probably should have had its own section number.

When I went to DL the latest copy of the bill as passed from the state website, I noticed an errata sheet . . . that is where they apparently changed effective dates for a number of sections including the C&R material (in Section 59).

No idea if it can be corrected now or if it must wait for another bill this year or next session.

I hope to be long gone from this state before 2021, so I have a vested interest in this issue.
Click to expand...


Yup, thanks Len!

I would assume that since both houses voted on the bill already and the year is closed that it is too late to get it changed. I have talked to Liz and she is leaving a message for Rob the COS, I also left a message at Jim's house and also texted Jim Wallace regarding it.

My feeling is we are going to have to see if we can't get it cut into it's own section next year [sad2]

Since this was my baby I want to keep on top of it.


(from the Ponderosa)
 
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
82
Views
2K
Uzi2
U
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