House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[jasons]

This is undoubtedly an improvement for those seeking to submit their application to a non-responsive PD. They must notify the applicant within seven days of receipt of the application. However, it seems there is nothing compelling them to schedule appointments, or submit applications to the proper authorities, for review, in a timely manner? I don't see any wording that would alter an anti chief's MO. What's to stop them from dragging their feet, after receipt?

They still have the existing 40 day limit in section 131 (not that it's ever enforced.) An aggrieved applicant could file for judicial review on day 41 and use the certified mail receipt and / or receipt from the PD as proof of application.

 

[kingfisher]

This is undoubtedly an improvement for those seeking to submit their application to a non-responsive PD. They must notify the applicant within seven days of receipt of the application. However, it seems there is nothing compelling them to schedule appointments, or submit applications to the proper authorities, for review, in a timely manner? I don't see any wording that would alter an anti chief's MO. What's to stop them from dragging their feet, after receipt?

Assuming the new bill goes into effect, there's this for people who already have an LTC (people who are renewing):

• The 90 day grace period - license renewal issue was fixed. Gun owners will now receive a receipt upon renewal, which makes the license valid until the new license is received.

 

[exo]

Assuming the new bill goes into effect, there's this for people who already have an LTC (people who are renewing):

That depends on whether it takes effect in 2015 or 2021...

 

[Len-2A Training]

And I believe I read that PDs will have to accept mailed-in LTC applications and mail back receipts for the $100 fee. This will be very different for some police departments who input your information into a computer during the interview and currently will not even look at a paper application!

Some of those will merely pile them up. And if they don't enter something in the MIRCS system (an "under renewal" tag of some sort), you will NOT be able to buy/sell anything until they do.

There has never been a penalty for the PD to ignore the law and there never will be, so those that are stubborn will still be stubborn.

This is very troubling. Who reviews the Regs. for consistency with the law before it goes into affect (at which point the courts get involved when a reg is broken that may be inconsistent with the law)?

If this is happening in the slightest (a ****ing comma out of place) the People should go ballistic on those responsible.

LenS, are their other examples of this, or is this a hypothetical?

Nobody but us! Seriously, they tried to sneak stuff in a CMR some years ago that violated MGL. I was the only speaker testifying to this "you can't do it legally and here's why" and Jason Guida (Director of FRB and running the hearing) told me afterwards that I was the reason that the CMR was killed. Last year DCR tried to create 2 CMRs that would have made it ILLEGAL to merely transport locked firearms anywhere on DCR property! DCR actually controls 10% of the entire state and this includes numerous roadways!! We really don't know the status of these CMRs as I type this. So, no this is not merely hypothetical. I have no idea what other "illegal" CMRs might be out there.

This is undoubtedly an improvement for those seeking to submit their application to a non-responsive PD. They must notify the applicant within seven days of receipt of the application. However, it seems there is nothing compelling them to schedule appointments, or submit applications to the proper authorities, for review, in a timely manner? I don't see any wording that would alter an anti chief's MO. What's to stop them from dragging their feet, after receipt?

Agreed, nothing forces chiefs to follow the law.

Fair point. However, I think it's important to attack CLEO discretion for LTCs and it seems to me, this makes it easier.

I have to ask though, why not get an LTC in the town you reside in? Or are you locked out of that due to your employment situation?

Some departments make a condition of employment that you will only obtain a LTC thru your department. I understand that MSP does this. Therefore they don't have to ask any other department to revoke/suspend, they can do it themselves for any reason that they want (justified or not)!

 

[LoginName]

Nobody but us! Seriously, they tried to sneak stuff in a CMR some years ago that violated MGL. I was the only speaker testifying to this "you can't do it legally and here's why" and Jason Guida (Director of FRB and running the hearing) told me afterwards that I was the reason that the CMR was killed. Last year DCR tried to create 2 CMRs that would have made it ILLEGAL to merely transport locked firearms anywhere on DCR property! DCR actually controls 10% of the entire state and this includes numerous roadways!! We really don't know the status of these CMRs as I type this. So, no this is not merely hypothetical. I have no idea what other "illegal" CMRs might be out there.

It's a shame that this amendment didn't pass...

Amendment #7 to H.4278
Legislative Action
Mr. Dooley of Norfolk move that the bill be amended by adding the following new section:—

“SECTION X. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, no requirements shall be placed on gun owners by any authority or constitutional officer acting without the direction of the Legislature.”

Could have spared us a lot of BS later on down the road.

 

[amb]

However, who knows when the bill "hit his desk" so when does the clock start ticking?

"Laid before the Governor" on Monday (8/4), per https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4376 (click on "Bill History").

 

[Quiet]

Some departments make a condition of employment that you will only obtain a LTC thru your department. I understand that MSP does this. Therefore they don't have to ask any other department to revoke/suspend, they can do it themselves for any reason that they want (justified or not)!

...And if you're charged with any firearms related law they're yanking the fid, and yanking it anyway if they want to, and if they don't want to and you are not very well liked by the chief they are taking all your guns away regardless to your fid status, and let the courts sort it out. At that point you will have so many issues on your plate your fid status will be buried down low on your list of priorities.

Plus... Can you even have more than one LTC-A? I doubt it. Maybe a machine gun license...? Lol

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Haven't heard anything about section 59 (C&R) and see it still as implement 2021. No word back from anyone. Hopefully they can do something about the date.

 

[browncoat]

Haven't heard anything about section 59 (C&R) and see it still as implement 2021. No word back from anyone. Hopefully they can do something about the date.

In other words, C&R FFLs will be useless from 2015 until 2021 unless something changes? Also, what about CMP orders? Will those need to go to FFLs now?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

In other words, C&R FFLs will be useless from 2015 until 2021 unless something changes? Also, what about CMP orders? Will those need to go to FFLs now?

You can still take direct shipment from out of state with a C&R FFL.

 

[warwickben]

In other words, C&R FFLs will be useless from 2015 until 2021 unless something changes? Also, what about CMP orders? Will those need to go to FFLs now?

There not useless now. It's like the ammo game just need to know what sites will shop to you .

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

In other words, C&R FFLs will be useless from 2015 until 2021 unless something changes? Also, what about CMP orders? Will those need to go to FFLs now?

The only thing the new law (sec 59) would do would enable you to buy a C&R gun from a Mass dealer that isn't on the Mass approved list. There are Mass dealers who will do a FFL to FFL transfer but some won't and this law will make it ok for dealers to sell you a non Mass gun. It is a small victory and really doesn't have much impact unless an out of state FFL insists on sending to a Mass dealer and you can't find one who will do a FFL to FFL.

 

[Prepper]

In other words, C&R FFLs will be useless from 2015 until 2021 unless something changes? Also, what about CMP orders? Will those need to go to FFLs now?

What else is in this 2021 thing? Is the pepper spray change in that or is it right away (or 2015 I guess)?

 

[Springfield_trapdoor]

The new LTC Suitability doesn't come in till 2021

 

[Coyote33]

The new LTC Suitability doesn't come in till 2021

You mean FID suitability, right? We already have LTC suitability. :-(

 

[lagrangian]

The new LTC Suitability doesn't come in till 2021

Huh? In both the original bill and the errata sheet (and apparently the errata sheet controls), Section 51 -- the section dealing with the changes to the LTC process (like COPs having to give written reasons and being able to appeal in court) -- is listed as becoming effective on Jan 1, 2015.

 

[inerlogic]

Damn, if that passes I'm gonna go broke trying to buy one a month.

I asked my rep if there'd be a state funded public assistance program for those of us who can't afford to BUY one every month.....

He didn't seem to understand the question.....

Sent from my EVO 4G LTE using Forum Runner

 

[MaynardDad]

I asked my rep if there'd be a state funded public assistance program for those of us who can't afford to BUY one every month.....

He didn't seem to understand the question.....

They would have to change MGL ch. 18 sec. 5J, which prohibits gun stores from accepting EBT cards. Until recently, they only prohibited "firearms and ammunition as defined sec. 121 of ch. 140." I'm not sure why they changed it. Maybe someone discovered that "firearm" didn't mean what they thought it meant.

 

[Springfield_trapdoor]

Just Read it Section 47 is the new LTC suitability Guidelines.
READ IT

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.

 

[lagrangian]

I did. And section 47 says nothing about the LTC suitability processes. They are in Section 51. It looks to me like Section 47 is what gets rid of LTC Class B. And it makes sense for that to wait until 2021 so all the existing LTC-B licenses remain valid.

Paragraph (f) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out the second paragraph and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:- Any applicant or holder aggrieved by a denial, revocation, suspension or restriction placed on a license, unless a hearing has previously been held pursuant to chapter 209A, may, within either 90 days after receiving notice of the denial, revocation or suspension or within 90 days after the expiration of the time limit during which the licensing authority shall respond to the applicant or, in the case of a restriction, any time after a restriction is placed on the license pursuant to this section, file a petition to obtain judicial review in the district court having jurisdiction in the city or town in which the applicant filed the application or in which the license was issued. If after a hearing a justice of the court finds that there was no reasonable ground for denying, suspending, revoking or restricting the license and that the petitioner is not prohibited by law from possessing a license, the justice may order a license to be issued or reinstated to the petitioner or may order the licensing authority to remove certain restrictions placed on the license.

 

[Quiet]

There is confusion over section numbers between the different versions of the bill and the enactment dates and the errata. It will get fixed, hopefully correctly.

 

[lagrangian]

The errata sheet doesn't change the text of any of the actual sections other than Section 93 and the sections saying when various things become effective. Specifically, the errata sheet doesn't change what Section 51 is about and it doesn't change when Section 51 takes effect.

 

[Quiet]

There is confusion over section numbers between the different versions of the bill and the enactment dates and the errata. It will get fixed, hopefully correctly.

The errata sheet doesn't change the text of any of the actual sections other than Section 93 and the sections saying when various things become effective. Specifically, the errata sheet doesn't change what Section 51 is about and it doesn't change when Section 51 takes effect.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive!

This is my understanding about the issues. Tarr was explaining to Creem during the Senate session that there was an issue with the system which caused confusion with the sections and the ordering of the sections.
If the bill had the wrong section numbers when the errata was written, then the errata would have the wrong section numbers.

That's all I think I know about someothing that I'm not familiar with. Do you have more experience and info about the problem to help me understand it better, or are you just looking at what you can find on the state's website like the rest of us?

Thanks.

 

[late08]

Still waiting for this to be signed.....might have been all for nothing no matter which way you look at it.

 

[Palladin]

Still waiting for this to be signed.....might have been all for nothing no matter which way you look at it.

if the Gov doesn't sign it or veto it within 10 days, it automatically becomes law

 

[exo]

if the Gov doesn't sign it or veto it within 10 days, it automatically becomes law

I see people saying that it becomes law or it doesn't within the 10 days, which is it? Some say because they're out of session then it doesn't become law, some say because that it was in session when they submitted it that it does...

 

[LoginName]

There is confusion over section numbers between the different versions of the bill and the enactment dates and the errata. It will get fixed, hopefully correctly.

The funny thing about it, the bill was passed as "emergency legislation"... meaning once Patrcik signs it, it goes into effect immediately.

But then, they go and assign a shitload of sections varying effective dates making it even more confusing.

Some of them I can understand the reason for (web portal, elimination of Class B LTC), others make no sense (C&R, LTC suitability appeal process).

if the Gov doesn't sign it or veto it within 10 days, it automatically becomes law

Just the opposite. If he doesn't sign it in 10 days (excluding Sundays and holidays), the bill dies...

Following enactment, the bill goes to the governor, who may sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without signing it (if the governor holds the bill for ten days without taking any action while the legislature is in session, it be comes law without his or her signature), veto it, or return it to the legislature with recommended changes. If the legislature has prorogued (concluded its yearly session) and the governor does not sign the bill within ten days, it dies. This is referred to as a "pocket veto." The ten-day period includes every day except Sundays and holidays, and it begins the day after the legislation is laid on the governor's desk.

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/trs/trslaw/lawidx.htm

 

[Duxprep]

Just the opposite. If he doesn't sign it in 10 days (excluding Sundays and holidays), the bill dies...

Please help me understand why this assclown would be waiting this long to take credit for a "landmark, model for the rest of the country" gun bill. Is this idiot planning to let the bill die?

 

[Paul455]

It would not surprise me if the bill dies, and the next Dem governor can drive even more restrictive laws.

Patrick wanted the "One Gun per Month" legislation, but did not get it.

 

[jasons]

Just the opposite. If he doesn't sign it in 10 days (excluding Sundays and holidays), the bill dies...

I don't think the legislature is prorogued. They're still technically in session.