House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[Billsail]

So does this mean that all or most of the "good" stuff for gun owners is delayed???!!! What a bunch of cowards!!! How many election cycles does that 6 1/2 years cover??

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So does this mean that all or most of the "good" stuff for gun owners is delayed???!!! What a bunch of cowards!!! How many election cycles does that 6 1/2 years cover??

No. Come 1/11/2015 courts and PDs are going to have to starting dealing with a much broader spectrum of license appeals.

 

[W.E.C]

Len when this goes through, sign me up for your first class,
I am totally confused now.

 

[Billsail]

No. Come 1/11/2015 courts and PDs are going to have to starting dealing with a much broader spectrum of license appeals.

Good

 

[LoginName]

It is Section 1112 of H4375 errata

put 19 different sections off until 2021!

I have Timilty's office looking into it (I hope)

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.

WTF? So was that thing adopted or was it just a request that didn't make it in there?

The latter perhaps?

The following language was inadvertently omitted or included in the final conference committee report for an act relative to the reduction of gun violence (House No. 4376). The conferees respectfully request that the following amendments be made to the conference committee report:

It could be that this is nothing more than a formal statement from the committee that these are the
changes we recommended, but were omitted and wish to make it publicly known.

I just download the most recent version of H4376 and at the top most of the page it states REPUBLISHED AS CORRECTED

However... the effective dates remain unchanged

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.

 

[NewGuyRay]

No. Come 1/11/2015 courts and PDs are going to have to starting dealing with a much broader spectrum of license appeals.

Just to be clear.. that is also the date that judicial review of restrictions begins as well? Time to start setting money aside for the challenge...

 

[xcom]

I think but not sure that the web portal will still allow for "registrations" so if you get a C&R from another state you would use that.

Yes a C&R is worth getting if you like older guns or guns such as the Winchester Commemorative s that are on the C&R List and have to get them from a dealer or if we lose the whole web portal when it doesn't do what they want and force all sales and purchases through dealers, That possibility is why I wrote it up and pushed Jim Timilty to put it in.

Under the current bill, is door to door delivery out? It seemed to me that the delivery would have to be at a Dealer FFL it is just that we can buy off list items. Am I missing something?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Just to be clear.. that is also the date that judicial review of restrictions begins as well? Time to start setting money aside for the challenge...

Correct. I think that 'poor customer service' issues really resonated with the legislators. They may give chiefs the power and authority to control licensing because they fundamentally don't trust private citizens with guns and they buy into the MCOPA bullshit about chiefs' prescience, but I do think they expect chiefs to follow the law, do their jobs, and treat people fairly and equitably. Just because a politician is anti-gun doesn't mean the want chiefs to abuse their power.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len when this goes through, sign me up for your first class,
I am totally confused now.

I've been mentioning some of the changes in the law/bill in my recent classes. Once we have a collapsed version (new stuff integrated with text of old stuff, plus effective dates), I expect to re-work some of my slides. Understanding the ramifications of the changes will take a lot longer than the changing of slides. Just keep an eye on my website for dates (after the Devil signs the bill into law), link at the bottom of every post (may not be visible on smartphones however).

The latter perhaps?

It could be that this is nothing more than a formal statement from the committee that these are the
changes we recommended, but were omitted and wish to make it publicly known.

I just download the most recent version of H4376 and at the top most of the page it states REPUBLISHED AS CORRECTED

However... the effective dates remain unchanged

I don't know for certain but I take it as "administrative corrections" to the text as passed and therefore the errata (none of which appears in the "republished as corrected" version) is the real deal. Once Sen. Timilty gets back to Ben, we'll have a better idea of what's really happened here and what we can do about it.

 

[LoginName]

I don't know for certain but I take it as "administrative corrections" to the text as passed and therefore the errata (none of which appears in the "republished as corrected" version) is the real deal. Once Sen. Timilty gets back to Ben, we'll have a better idea of what's really happened here and what we can do about it.

If that turns out to be the case, H4376 isn't officially the law until Patrick signs it by the 12th.

Hopefully, something can be done before that happens.

 

[milktree]

Under the current bill, is door to door delivery out? It seemed to me that the delivery would have to be at a Dealer FFL it is just that we can buy off list items. Am I missing something?

Both before and after you could have a C&R gun shipped to your house, as long as it's from out of state.

The bill would change the way Massachusetts dealers deal with C&R guns and Massachusetts C&R holders.

 

[pastera]

When reviewing a few sections for GOAL, I noticed the section numbers were screwed up in several places. It seems the edits the committee performed did not extend to the enactment dates

 

[NewGuyRay]

Correct. I think that 'poor customer service' issues really resonated with the legislators. They may give chiefs the power and authority to control licensing because they fundamentally don't trust private citizens with guns and they buy into the MCOPA bullshit about chiefs' prescience, but I do think they expect chiefs to follow the law, do their jobs, and treat people fairly and equitably. Just because a politician is anti-gun doesn't mean the want chiefs to abuse their power.

Thanks for the quick reply. We're talking about the City of Medford where restricted LTCs abound.

My plan once Deval signs is to meet with one of my city Councillors I have a connection with and make him aware of the change in the law so that the city council understands the potential of an onslaught of judicial review hearings and associated legal costs for the city all caused by the Chief's naked abuse of discretion.

I like to think I could make a decent test case going early for a challenge. Atty Guida assisted me with writing a good letter to the chief to justify issuance of Unrestricted. I doubt the letter was ever read so I received target and hunting based on, as the licensing officer explained to Atty Guida, that being the Chief's policy to not issue unrestricted on first issuance and not on renewal either.

I had absolutely nothing in my background that would raise suitability issues for unrestricted, hell, I've been a homeowner in the city for over 20 years, raised my family there, coached little league, and etc.. basically did all the things that one would consider the be the attributes of a respectable, law-abiding citizen, documented firearms training well beyond the basic requirements, and documented a non-cash, work-related need and it all meant nothing.

Any thoughts on whether continuing on with Atty Guida or retaining "The Former Member Known as Scrivner" would be the better course of action when the time comes?

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Errata update

I just talked to Rob at Timilty's office and I pointed the errata out to him, he wasn't aware of it. He said they will check right into this but that this is what happens when you rush a bill through.
He also said he will review all the sections that are delayed to see what others shouldn't have been. He said it is too late to anything about it now but that we could push for a technical amendment this fall to try to get these back to the 1/1/15 effective date.

From talking to him it does sound like the dates in the Errata supersede the dates in the bill

 

[Billsail]

If that turns out to be the case, H4376 isn't officially the law until Patrick signs it by the 12th.

Hopefully, something can be done before that happens.

If he doesn't sign it, it becomes law anyway. The only other outcome would be if he vetoes it.

 

[pastera]

The errata also calls out sections 35A and 35B in SECTION 1112
It also overwrites sections 108-110

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I just got a call on my cell from Jim Wallace, he took a look at section 1112 and said that what should be in there are things like the elimination of the class B's that will take time to implement but that Section 59 should not have been. He is going to call Senator Timilty's office tomorrow regarding it.

Thanks again for the heads up Len

 

[Kurtz]

Both before and after you could have a C&R gun shipped to your house, as long as it's from out of state.

The bill would change the way Massachusetts dealers deal with C&R guns and Massachusetts C&R holders.

Yup! Some people fail to remember a C&R IS a FFL

 

[Coyote33]

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.

Actually it was....

Well someone is wrong. This is what passed.

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.

Confusion sets in...

So, what now?

Who should get polite but firm phone calls and emails to fix this 2021 nonsense?
er.... the actual bill on the state's website says otherwise. Unless there were *other* increased penalties that got removed.

This. We just KNOW the other side is pushing, and hard!

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

Wait, this is what Milktree and I were going back and forth on yesterday. Glad to see it wasn't just me.

If that turns out to be the case, H4376 isn't officially the law until Patrick signs it by the 12th.
Hopefully, something can be done before that happens.

Or, should we call Patrick and tell him to veto it?

When reviewing a few sections for GOAL, I noticed the section numbers were screwed up in several places. It seems the edits the committee performed did not extend to the enactment dates

Ruh roh.

If he doesn't sign it, it becomes law anyway. The only other outcome would be if he vetoes it.

See above. ?????

 

[Quiet]

As I mentioned in the other thread where Comm2a is transcribing differences, there was massive confusion about section numbers and what was included/excluded in the bill. Creem was pissed about the errata. As far as I know, the conference bill passed with the errata. If there were corrections to section numbers in there they passed. If there weren't there will need to be a "Technical Corrections" (or whatever term Massachusetts uses) bill passed by both chambers and signed by da governor.

 

[terraformer]

As I mentioned in the other thread where Comm2a is transcribing differences, there was massive confusion about section numbers and what was included/excluded in the bill. Creem was pissed about the errata. As far as I know, the conference bill passed with the errata. If there were corrections to section numbers in there they passed. If there weren't there will need to be a "Technical Corrections" (or whatever term Massachusetts uses) bill passed by both chambers and signed by da governor.

Yeah, the errata claims to delete massive numbers of sections but they were valid sections. I expect some issues to come from this. This is why the legislature holds the session open. They can fix this easily enough.

 

[pastera]

The section numbers that are incorrect are those in the bill. If to you edit the existing law using the text of the bill, it comes out correct

 

[Coyote33]

So, I guess we can't ask if the new laws are posted yet, because it is not signed into law yet. I don't care what the bill looks like at this point, because it is barely legible as it is.

Is there a "DRAFT" of what the new law will be anywhere on the state's web site yet?

 

[Quiet]

Yeah, the errata claims to delete massive numbers of sections but they were valid sections. I expect some issues to come from this. This is why the legislature holds the session open. They can fix this easily enough.

I don't know if you were watching live; Creem was ticked off about a section that was in the bill that, according to Tarr, did not survive the conference. She was complaining that it was in the bill when she read it but removed from the bill in the errata that she just happened to read and if she hadn't read it she wouldn't know is wasn't in the bill. I can't recall the substance of the section she was peeved about, but she sure did need a blankie after she voted for the bill.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I don't know if you were watching live; Creem was ticked off about a section that was in the bill that, according to Tarr, did not survive the conference. She was complaining that it was in the bill when she read it but removed from the bill in the errata that she just happened to read and if she hadn't read it she wouldn't know is wasn't in the bill. I can't recall the substance of the section she was peeved about, but she sure did need a blankie after she voted for the bill.

As long as she was ticked off that's good.

 

[milktree]

Off the top of my head:
(snip)
Increased penalties for having a gun on school grounds
(snip)

The jail time has changed from up to 1 year to up to two years, and the wording is re-arranged a bit, but otherwise the same as before.

The fine is still up to $1,000; and the penalty for failure to report (if you're a school officer) is still $500.

 

[jefftk]

The jail time has changed from up to 1 year to up to two years, and the wording is re-arranged a bit, but otherwise the same as before.

The fine is still up to $1,000; and the penalty for failure to report (if you're a school officer) is still $500.

I thought I heard some people claiming that it was previously not an arrestable offense, but now is?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I thought I heard some people claiming that it was previously not an arrestable offense, but now is?

yes, arrestable.

 

[Coyote33]

My God!

What a train wreck!

 

[LoginName]

I don't know if you were watching live; Creem was ticked off about a section that was in the bill that, according to Tarr, did not survive the conference. She was complaining that it was in the bill when she read it but removed from the bill in the errata that she just happened to read and if she hadn't read it she wouldn't know is wasn't in the bill. I can't recall the substance of the section she was peeved about, but she sure did need a blankie after she voted for the bill.

https://malegislature.gov/Events/Ev...&eventDataSource=VideoService&videoSource=sen

@ 13:20

She was bitching about collecting information about multiple gun sales that she supported as a trade-off for OGAM,

but that trade-off was removed by the committee.