House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
oldsoldier29 said:
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
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right.
Once this is over we need to focus as hard as we did on the bill to go after the likes of Naughton and Linsky.
Getting either one or both booted will send a strong message.
Even if we make them scramble and spend way more than they planned to stay afloat, it's still a message sent.
In spite of all the wringing of hands and the "we're outnumbered" cries, they heard us loud and clear.
If it was as lopsided as some of the doomsayers said we would be making NY look like a gun owners paradise right now.
We now have the advantage of knowing who stood for us and who stood against us.
No more guessing.
And now we have four months to prepare a proper thank you to those who tried to bone us.
In other words.... Sometimes being first isn't what you thought it would be
 
Last edited:
Dadstoys said:
Your absolutely right.
Once this is over we need to focus as hard as we did on the bill to go after the likes of Naughton and Linsky.
Getting either one or both booted will send a strong message.
Even if we make them scramble and spend way more than they planned to stay afloat, it's still a message sent.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. We may not win the fight, but if we can drain their campaign coffers, they'll feel a lot less comfortable and immune from making poor decisions.
 
Here is my response to Sen. Donnelly, one of the 28.

Mr. Donnelly-


Thank you for your response. I have reviewed the list of amendments regarding which were adopted and which were rejected.

Although you are correct that I still disagree on several issues that remain both in the bill and within the law that the bill fails to address, it appears as though this bill - as currently written - is an acceptable compromise towards the proper direction.


I thank you for your vote in this instance and hope the house votes to concur. Please understand, however, that even if this bill were to pass as is, second amendment regulations in Massachusetts will still be "overly burdensome" (to use your words). I look forward to the next opportunity for the people to regain more of the lost rights in future legislation sessions. Responsible citizens owning firearms is a natural right, not a privilege afforded by Beacon Hill. The sooner the law reflects that the better.


For the record, I will always be in favor of punishment and legislation that actually addresses violence on the streets. As long as the legislature doesn't confuse that with restrictions on lawful gun owners, you will have my support in this issue.
 
<<<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.
.....
We were successful in legalizing the purchase and possession of self defense sprays for anyone over 18 years of age.
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. >>>>


Huh?
Wasn't Pepper Spray, etc, was REMOVED from this bill, and , if so, why is GOAL still suggesting that its in there?
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
So based on Naughtons action on this Bill how is he still rated high from GOAL?

Sent from the blind
Click to expand...

GOAL updates those thing every two years I believe. They're based on how they voted in the prior period. Personally I think Jim doing them puts him in a tough spot, having to schmooze these guys to vote in our favor while at the same time rating them based on what they are. It's lose lose. We
would be better off if GOAL had some sort of independent rating team with a strict set of standards who handled the report. That way Jim could toss up his hands and say "not my fault". Good cop/bad cop. It would have to be volunteer thou as GOAL can't afford more paid staff.
 
GlockJock said:
<<<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.
.....
We were successful in legalizing the purchase and possession of self defense sprays for anyone over 18 years of age.
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. >>>>


Huh?
Wasn't Pepper Spray, etc, was REMOVED from this bill, and , if so, why is GOAL still suggesting that its in there?
Click to expand...
The see u next Tuesday from Newton had added an amendment that would make pepper a separate shall issue license. GOAL got that killed.
 
The barrage of phone calls, letters, and emails worked.

By Will Brownsberger, on July 18th, 2014. In: Gun Violence.
Yesterday, the Senate took up its version of the gun bill and moved it on to a conference committee with the House.
The bill has come a long way from its origins in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. To see how much has changed in the conversation, look back on the gun thread on my website early last year. The ideas with the most energy behind them then were about reducing access to firearms — limiting the types of guns can be owned or the number that can be acquired at one time, taxing guns, requiring more liability insurance for guns. We non-gun-owners have a natural first reaction to gun violence which says “Take away the guns”.
Over the past 18 months, however, many legislators have heard from lawful gun owners in their district who have basically been saying:
Hold on a second, the problem isn’t us. Why are you going to make our lives harder in ways that won’t increase the safety of the public. Take care of the mentally ill, punish bad guys, but don’t change gun laws that are working well as to the good citizens of the state who care about laws.
​
Even in my relatively urban and progressive district, I’ve heard in this vein from many obviously responsible and thoughtful gun owners. Many of them have posted on this website.
That response from gun-owners, has shifted the conversation substantially. In the Senate bill that we voted yesterday, the main ideas are much more about keeping guns out of the wrong hands than about generally taking away guns:

  • Report Massachusetts data more consistently to the national reporting system that alerts firearms dealers to buyers with mental health issues or histories of violence. Historically, Massachusetts has not fully participated in the national system, perhaps out of privacy concerns. Participation in the national system will mean better information for firearms dealers in Massachusetts as well as elsewhere.
  • Strengthen school safety protections — strengthen emergency planning, connect two-way safety communications with public safety centers, add police resource officers, fund physical safety upgrades.
  • Enhance criminal penalties for violent gun crimes — more punishment for criminals who use guns.
  • Improve firearms tracking and the integrity of gun dealers — CORI checks for dealer employees, real time reporting of private gun sales, increased penalties for failure to report lost guns.
  • Reduce the discretion of police chiefs to arbitrarily deny licenses to carry by requiring police chiefs to offer written reasons for denial (see further discussion below).
  • Improve suicide prevention programs and build awareness of available suicide prevention resources.
  • Streamline rules that are unnecessarily burdensome to gun owners — for example, relieve active military officers with military firearms training from an obligation to receive firearms training for licencing.
  • Improve data collection about guns and gun violence.
During the debate, the only issue that was controversial enough to lead to a roll call was the issue of suitability for Firearms Identification Cards. Under current law, there are two main categories of licenses — handgun licenses (licenses to carry, LTC’s) and rifle licenses (Firearms Identification Cards or FID cards). To get either kind of license a prospective gun owner must apply to his or her local police chief. The police chief has complete discretion to deny an LTC without reason, but must issue an FID unless the applicant has a criminal record, a history of major mental illness or other disqualifications.
The House version of the bill made a balanced change in these basic rules (a) putting some limits on police chief discretion to deny LTC’s by requiring chiefs to provide written reasons for a denial which could then more effectively be appealed to district court; (b) subject to those new limits, giving police chiefs discretion to deny FIDs. An amendment was offered to strike the language giving police chiefs new discretion to deny FIDs (while preserving the language creating new limits on LTC discretion).
I found this vote a difficult one. Through the years, I have heard enough anecdotes about arbitrary denials of LTCs that I believe it happens. Extending discretion to FID issuance would mean some more arbitrary denials. At the same time, I think it makes obvious sense for some screening to occur and believe that there will be cases where an FID should be denied even though none of the statutory red flags are present. I liked the balance that the House struck which created some additional discretion for FID denials but also added protections against arbitrariness in both FID and LTC denials. In the end, the vote was 28 to 10 against giving chiefs additional discretion to deny FIDs — I voted in the minority, in favor of giving chiefs some controlled discretion to deny FIDs.
That vote behind me, I expect to vote for the final bill — the moving draft includes many positive elements. My hope is that the bill will get a little simpler in the conference process — it has a little bit of a kitchen sink feeling to it right now. For additional detail, please see the Senate’s press release on the bill.
Resources:

Click to expand...
 
oldsoldier29 said:
Glockjock, good point, but look beyond this state. It's a huge slap in the face to the anti crowd. It's like our own co recall election. They spent millions here. They got all the press. Everything. Yet, we got all the anti stuff removed. This isn't like a Starbucks victory-this one hurt them. It shouldn't have happened here. But, at least so far, it did. And, even though the current bill increases safety, increases criminal penalties, etc-they're angry because we didn't lose our rights. That pretty much lays bare any claims of "its for safety, and not about guns". Nationally, this hurts them. Big time.
Click to expand...
Have to agree
 
The barrage of phone calls, letters, and emails worked.
Click to expand...
We are fortunate that the MA legislative process does not have an emergency provision that bypassed public feedback and debate. ("Emergency" MA legislation goes into effect very quickly after signing, but the debate process is not bypassed).

NY state has an emergency process that allows bypassing of all public feedback, which is how the SAFE act was passed. There are "Repeal the SAFE act" signs all over NY but, repealing a gun ban is at least 10 times as difficult as stopping it in the process.
 
Quiet said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think trumpeting this as a "win" (insomuch as it is....) and that we defeated/crushed them is a good idea.

As someone said before, this is the "everyone gets a trophy" crowd, and they need to get their trophy.

Rather than saying we won it might be better to say "we worked with them and passed a bipartisan bill" and let them be the ones to complain they didn't get everything they wanted, if they so choose to. Let them dig their own hole and paint themselves as the uncompromising extremists.
 
Does anyone have a link to the roll call for 63.1...I'm trying to figure out who to thank.

ALSO...have we reached a consensus on the plan? Most of us think the LEO exemption is BS, on the other-hand cops never followed the rule on personal weapons in the first place. Are we going to push for the bill in the house so it doesn't get ****ed again in the conference committee or are we gonna keep on fighting it? My inclination is the push the bill forward at this point (and note an objection to the LEO exemption) rather than risk the committee. Anyone have any thoughts?
 
I heard back from Sen. Donnelly. I thought is was well thought out and straight forward. My response is below the quotation field. I also copied Jim Dwyer in the House and DeLeo.


Dear Mike,

Thank you for writing me about the recent debate on reducing gun violence and the bills that were offered in the house and senate. I appreciate every email I received and the numerous calls weighing in on the issue.

I believe we have a serious problem in this country and here in Massachusetts with gun violence and addressing this problem in the legislature is critical. We cannot ignore the violence that takes place in both our cities and many of our small towns, and we certainly cannot ignore the tragedies that have taken place within our schools.

During the debate I heard from advocates and constituents supporting and opposing the changes offered to the commonwealth’s gun regulations. I believe the bill that passed the Senate included many reasonable reforms that addressed concerns that I heard from both sides. It includes steps like background checks for all gun purchases regardless of where they take place and bringing Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It also includes a measure that requires licensing authorities to give specific reasons for why a person has been denied the ability to purchase a firearm and eliminates Class B licenses, provisions long supported by gun owners. There are also important provisions that improve State Police ability to trace and prosecute firearms trafficking and firearms crimes as well as requirements to improve safety and mental health support at our schools.

This has been a difficult debate for many people and it involves compromises from both sides. As a hunter and gun owner myself, I believe that the bill does take steps that will contribute to reducing gun violence without overly burdensome regulation on lawful gun owners.

Although we may disagree on aspects of this bill, I hope we agree on other provisions and I always appreciate hearing your opinion.

Sincerely,

Senator Ken Donnelly
Click to expand...



Dear Senator Donnelly,

Thank you for getting back to me on S.2265. I agree that this bill has made steps in the right directions in addressing concerns from both sides of the discussion, and I appreciate the obvious time it took for the Senate to read and analyze some 63 amendments. However, I still have an issue with the following language:

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.
If a person meets all suitability requirements and the Chief of Police issues an LTC with restrictions, then why not have the same requirement as you have stated below, requiring that the issuing authority give the reasons for issuing the LTC with restrictions, at the time of issuance, instead of making the license holder engage a lawyer, take time off work, and file for a judicial review. As I stated in my previous email:

[FONT=&amp]Given the fact that police chiefs are human and subject to the foibles of being such, this discussion should be centered around developing a unifying set of criteria for shall issuance of an FID/LTC that holds across the board for everybody in the state.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Ii is obvious[/FONT][FONT=&amp] that a lot of hard work went into the Senate version of the bill, and I hope that further discussion will produce further changes that will make it less onerous for law abiding firearms owners to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to continuing our discussion. [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
We are fortunate that the MA legislative process does not have an emergency provision that bypassed public feedback and debate. ("Emergency" MA legislation goes into effect very quickly after signing, but the debate process is not bypassed).

NY state has an emergency process that allows bypassing of all public feedback, which is how the SAFE act was passed. There are "Repeal the SAFE act" signs all over NY but, repealing a gun ban is at least 10 times as difficult as stopping it in the process.
Click to expand...

Agree this is an important difference in our favor (and in favor of avoiding oppressive knee jerk legislation in general). But also over time (19 months), the debate has shifted. No wait, the debate has -happened-, our side got organized (antis are always "organized"), expressed the arguments, and the people concluded (surprise!) that good guys are not the problem...owning firearms is not the problem.

My point I guess is NY didn't have this cooling off time, and they now suffer (and regret?) their gov's quick "emergency" action.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rob Boudrie said:
We are fortunate that the MA legislative process does not have an emergency provision that bypassed public feedback and debate. ("Emergency" MA legislation goes into effect very quickly after signing, but the debate process is not bypassed).

NY state has an emergency process that allows bypassing of all public feedback, which is how the SAFE act was passed. There are "Repeal the SAFE act" signs all over NY but, repealing a gun ban is at least 10 times as difficult as stopping it in the process.
Click to expand...
+1


gunclinger said:
Agree this is an important difference in our favor (and in favor of avoiding oppressive knee jerk legislation in general). But also over time (19 months), the debate has shifted. No wait, the debate has -happened-, our side got organized (antis are always "organized"), expressed the arguments, and the people concluded (surprise!) that good guys are not the problem...owning firearms is not the problem.

My point I guess is NY didn't have this cooling off time, and they now suffer (and regret?) their gov's quick "emergency" action.
Click to expand...
+2

We can actually "thank" DeLeo for not pushing stuff through in the wake of Newtown. It would have all passed had he pushed it through. The knee jerk reaction was off-topic and the cooling off period allowed for those cooler heads to prevail as well as it gave the opposition time to organize, and then they ran a gazillion public hearings which woke people up and brought out the opposition. That's the way it is SUPPOSED to work, but I gurandamntee ya that's not what they expected. They expected to be running gun control PR rallies.

I don't know to what extent our emergency bypass laws differ if the pols wanna get something done immediately. The upskirt bill got passed and signed into law within what, 32 hours or something silly?

Laws should NEVER be rushed when emotions are running high. See Patriot Act.
 
After this thing passes (hopefully) we need another sticky thread for staying organized and a strategy to oust Naughton and Linksy (for starters). I'm 26 and granted I am from a more rural like minded thinking part of the state, however, I am constantly convincing people to come to the range with me, or just get their LTC even if they don't plan to carry but be able to defend themselves. It works. Perhaps we should try to divide up the state to many small sections and get a group of 5 or so people in each section to help get the word out for votes and just firearm ownership in general. I would volunteer to help organize out my way. If we are able to run massive group buys and distribution networks why not use a similar design to get the word out and make our voices heard like we have over the past 2 months? Our calls and our pressure definitely transformed this bill from being very bad for us and passing with no opposition to being something, while still not great, our voices were heard.
 
I got this pablum from Rosenberg. I was shocked when he voted with us on 63.1--I'm sure it was soley because of my pressure (ha).Thank you for your email on gun related legislation. On Thursday, the Senate passed a bill to reduce the impact and prevalence of gun violence in Massachusetts.The bill calls for streamlined licensing, enhanced background checks, enhanced penalties on gun-related crimes, increased protections in schools, and mental health considerations, among other provisions designed to overall ensure a safer Commonwealth. Both the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners Action League have praised the measure, with the former calling it a step in the right direction and the latter dubbing it “history-making”. The Senate proposal:· Expands mental health awareness and treatment and requires school districts to provide two hours of suicide awareness and prevention training to licensed school personnel every three years.· Requires schools to develop emergency response plans in consultation with local police, fire and emergency personnel;· Supports secure and safe learning environments in our schools, by tightening security and increasing communication and training in events of emergencies;· Permits Massachusetts to join the National Instant Background Check System;· Allows the Colonel of the State Police to establish a special unit to investigate and prosecute firearms trafficking;· Requires secondary market sales to be conducted over a real-time web portal, instead of a licensed dealer, beginning January 1, 2021;· Establishes unsuitability standards that licensing authorities must use in making determinations relative to both Firearms Identification Card and license to carry applications and eliminates the 90-day renewal process for both; and· Streamlines the license to carry process by eliminating the classes of a license to carry, known as Class A and Class B, beginning January 1, 2021.During debate, language was eliminated which that would have given police chiefs discretion to issue Firearms Identification Cards. This debate was the most recent part of a conversation that started shortly after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, when Speaker DeLeo vowed to put forward a comprehensive piece of legislation to combat gun violence. The Speaker assembled a working-group to study and report to the legislature. Their findings, which were issued in March of 2013, became the basis of the House bill passed a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, during the summer of 2013 the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security heard testimony from 507 individuals at 6 public hearings totaling over 42 hours. Those many hours of testimony are reflected in the Senate bill. The House and Senate proposals will now go to a conference committee to be reconciled before the end of formal sessions on July 31st. Thank you again for taking the time to email about this. Stan --Stan RosenbergMassachusetts Senate Majority LeaderHampshire, Franklin & Worcester District StanRosenberg.com
 
The antis have a script and know they are losing.

I hope that provision will be restored by the Conference Committee, and the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence is working to that end.
As someone involved in the gun violence prevention movement and a representative of my church in the Mass Coalition, I’ve never heard nor thought myself that the solution to gun violence was to “take guns away.” [funny how we hear that dismissal all the time and then catch the same spokesperson on an open mic saying JUST THAT] That’s not going to happen. What we do advocate is a broad public health approach to gun violence, and we are working to reduce the many ways guns do fall into the wrong hands, which sadly include the hands of family, friends and neighbors of law abiding gun owners. (Safe storage of firearms is essential.) [woman appears to be ignorant of the current law]The Senate bill, with its kitchen sink feel, is a start on that approach, building on the good laws that we do have in Massachusetts.[bs1]
Personally, I have come to feel that as a law-abiding citizen, I could no longer ignore the increasing devastation of gun violence in our communities. [well if we were like other states and reduced restrictions on law abiding people our crime would have gone down but that's not what they want] Like many, I was prompted by Sandy Hook and still more recently by the January murders of nine young people in a very small area of Boston. [gang members killing gang members] All those victims[rolleyes] and their families are our neighbors.
Click to expand...
 
Well, their entire rhetoric can be taken down with one question. How, exactly, does imposing restrictions on hunters, primarily old men and young children, make the inner cities a safer place, when 99% of gun crimes in this state is committed by individuals who never possessed an FID card?
 
oldsoldier29 said:
Well, their entire rhetoric can be taken down with one question. How, exactly, does imposing restrictions on hunters, primarily old men and young children, make the inner cities a safer place, when 99% of gun crimes in this state is committed by individuals who never possessed an FID card?
Click to expand...

But what about the graaaay areas??? [crying]


Clearly we should be focusing all of our efforts on the licensed individuals, er - I mean pre-criminials, who could potentially, possibly, maybe, commit a crime at some point in their life.
 
I agree with previous posters about not celebrating yet. If Deleo really wants, he will lobby his people to not concur, send his three appointed minions to the committee, put the FID suitability back in (and god know whatever else) and then it goes to an up or down vote. I agree with GOAL, we should be calling and emailing hard on a vote to concur.
 
delgrifith said:
I agree with previous posters about not celebrating yet. If Deleo really wants, he will lobby his people to not concur, send his three appointed minions to the committee, put the FID suitability back in (and god know whatever else) and then it goes to an up or down vote. I agree with GOAL, we should be calling and emailing hard on a vote to concur.
Click to expand...

This 100x

Sent from the blind
 
I'm a little bit blown away that we've arrived at such a favorable outcome for 2A rights in MA... let's keep up the momentum! I strongly believe that firearms should be a non-political issue, and hopefully this can be the first step in a broad-based coalition to make it so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shooting At Northborough House Party Leaves One 16 Y/O Dead
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
pupchow
pupchow
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
4K
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
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
Back
Top Bottom