House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[aeromarine]

Wednesday the 13th at about 10:00am.

Don't bills signed into law by the Governor usually go into effect after 60 days unless there is an "emergency preamble" attached in which case they go into effect immediately? Does anybody know what the situation is with this bill?

 

[jasons]

Don't bills signed into law by the Governor usually go into effect after 60 days unless there is an "emergency preamble" attached in which case they go into effect immediately? Does anybody know what the situation is with this bill?

This bill does have an emergency preamble. Some sections will take effect immediately, others will take effect on dates specified in the bill.

 

[Garys]

Will NRA send out a notice to protest, while GOAL sends out a notice to celebrate?

The NRA will protest, which will make the anti gunners happy at the thought that they got an "anti gun" bill passed despite the "gun lobby". GOAL will laud the bill, which will help them with legislators in the future. The Guv will declare this a victory for public safety and gun control, even though he will be sad that his one gun a month brain storm didn't make it into even the original bill.

Everyone will claim victory and go away happy.

It's just politics, in the end it doesn't mean much outside of narrow constituencies.

 

[silversquirrel]

Everyone will claim victory and go away happy.

no. not everyone.

 

[JZ1018]

As far as OGAM goes, I better get on the ball. I haven't bought anything since May. I need to make up for June, July, and now August. Please don't tell Deval I am running behind.

 

[milktree]

sorry, but i havnt been following this after the vote, so its signed now? does that mean I can tell freinds to buy pepper spray now without getting a FID first?

I can't tell if you're joking, so I'll answer seriously:

The law only changes what is required to *buy* pepper spray.
It does not change what's required to *possess* pepper spray.
It does not change what's required to *sell* pepper spray.

Pepper spray is still considered ammunition, so you need an FID to possess it.

Pepper spray is still considered ammunition, so only those with licences to sell ammunition can legally sell it.

The only difference is that pepper spray sellers aren't required to check for an FID before selling it. (even though you need to have one to leave the store with it)

If you actually *use* pepper spray to defend yourself and the police get involved, you could be charged with illegal ammunition possession.

I really hope I'm wrong about the above.


Edit: It turns out I was wrong. See below.

 

[pastera]

I can't tell if you're joking, so I'll answer seriously:

The law only changes what is required to *buy* pepper spray.
It does not change what's required to *possess* pepper spray.
It does not change what's required to *sell* pepper spray.

Pepper spray is still considered ammunition, so you need an FID to possess it.

Pepper spray is still considered ammunition, so only those with licences to sell ammunition can legally sell it.

The only difference is that pepper spray sellers aren't required to check for an FID before selling it. (even though you need to have one to leave the store with it)

If you actually *use* pepper spray to defend yourself and the police get involved, you could be charged with illegal ammunition possession.


I really hope I'm wrong about the above.

Can you point to that in the bill?
Pretty certain the bill covers possession pretty clearly.

 

[GJH86]

IF there is a clear self defense situation where a person w/o an FID uses OC (under current law) and the cop charges you then he is the Summers Eve of all Officer Massegills....hell, even if it's an "iffy" SD situation and the charge is sought...a whole

 

[milktree]

Can you point to that in the bill?
Pretty certain the bill covers possession pretty clearly.

Aw crap...

Never mind, I misread it before. You're right:

From the bill:

SECTION 20. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in lines 6 to 8, inclusive, the words “chemical mace or any device or instrument which contains or emits a liquid, gas, powder or any other substance designed to incapacitate”.

that's the part that defines ammunition.

I don't know where I got the idea they'd that kind of brain dead.

There's this, which implies an FID is still necessary:

Section 33: A firearm identification card issued pursuant to subclause (vi) of clause (1) of section 122D, shall be valid to purchase and possess chemical mace, pepper spray or other similarly propelled liquid, gas or powder designed to temporarily incapacitate

.

Maybe that's what led me down the wrong path.

Sorry about that.

but you still need a licence to sell pepper spray:

Section 22: ... (b) Whoever, not being licensed as provided in section 122B, sells self-defense spray 492 shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in a house of correction 493 for not more than 2 years.

and you still need an FID if you're under 18:

(c) Whoever sells self-defense spray to a person younger than 18 years of age, if the person younger than 18 years of age does not have a firearms identification card, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $300.

(d) A person under 18 years of age who possesses self-defense spray and who does not have a firearms identification card shall be punished by a fine of not more than $300.

and you still can't possess pepper spray if you're anything but squeaky clean:

Section 122D. No person shall purchase or possess self-defense spray who:
i youthful offender in MA
ii youthful offender outside of MA
iii has been committed to a hospital
iv in treatment or abuser of anything
v under 15 years old
vi between 15 and 18 w/o FID
vii a non-permanent resident alien
viii subject of 209A or similar
ix has an active arrest warrant

I paraphrased i through ix.

So, still seriously regulated.

 

[The5thDentist]

Oh darn. I was hoping to set up a sales display in my office. Oh well, I guess I'll direct everyone to the LGS for pepper spray.

 

[Garden12]

Heard on wbur earlier today and they mentioned that Deval will sign the bill any day now.

 

[milktree]

Screwed up pepper spray laws:

am I reading this right?

It appears that if you were ever a youthful offender it's illegal for you to possess pepper spray:

[You can't possess if ]
(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender

But it says nothing about possession by anyone who commits a felony *after* becoming an adult.


I didn't catch this last night 'cuz I was tired: there's clause "v", which doesn't make any sense in the context of that section:

Section 122D. No person shall purchase or possess self-defense spray who:

...

(v) at the time of the application, is younger than 15 years of age;

What the hell? Application? What does "application" have to do with "purchase or possess"?

All these quotes came from the PDF version of the bill published on the MA website.

 

[pastera]

They were trying to tie possession by minors to an FID, but they just made it confusing.

 

[MaynardDad]

Oh darn. I was hoping to set up a sales display in my office. Oh well, I guess I'll direct everyone to the LGS for pepper spray.

It says "sells," not "sell, rent, or lease" (as for guns), "sell or supple" (as for ammunition), or "sell, lease, rent, transfer or deliver or offer for sale, lease, rent, transfer or delivery" (as for assault weapons and large-capacity feeding devices). So maybe you can rent them out or give them away to donors?

 

[Quiet]

Has anyone checked POTUS' schedule for Wednesday or for those temporary flight restrictions? I'm wondering if POTUS might not stop by the signing ceremony to laud this "model for the nation compromise."

 

[exo]

But it says nothing about possession by anyone who commits a felony *after* becoming an adult.

I think they just didn't use commas.

Section 122D. No person shall purchase or possess self-defense spray who:

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child as defined in section 52 of chapter 119 for the commission of: ...

I read that as 3 different things. If you've been convicted of, adjudicated a youthful offender, or a delinquent child.... then all the disqualifying convictions/adjudications etc.

 

[milktree]

I think they just didn't use commas.

Section 122D. No person shall purchase or possess self-defense spray who:

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child as defined in section 52 of chapter 119 for the commission of: ...

I read that as 3 different things. If you've been convicted of, adjudicated a youthful offender, or a delinquent child.... then all the disqualifying convictions/adjudications etc.

.... I'm pretty sure you're joking, but I'm not totally sure.

The joke is that if you've been convicted of anything at all ever....

right?

 

[exo]

.... I'm pretty sure you're joking, but I'm not totally sure.

The joke is that if you've been convicted of anything at all ever....

right?

You need to understand how MA laws are written. They are written poorly, with bad prose. They write them as if we were still in ye oldyen tymes. Those 3 things (convicted, adjudicated youthful offender, or delinquent child) are prefaces to the next big part that I didn't quote, which lists all the disqualifying convictions/adjudications.

 

[browncoat]

You need to understand how MA laws are written. They are written poorly, with bad prose. They write them as if we were still in ye oldyen tymes. Those 3 things (convicted, adjudicated youthful offender, or delinquent child) are prefaces to the next big part that I didn't quote, which lists all the disqualifying convictions/adjudications.

I'm pretty sure they do this part on purpose just to screw citizens over. Why else would a legislature use a phrase like "Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary" when they could just delete the laws to the contrary and shrink the volume of the body of law?

 

[exo]

I'm pretty sure they do this part on purpose just to screw citizens over. Why else would a legislature use a phrase like "Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary" when they could just delete the laws to the contrary and shrink the volume of the body of law?

They absolutely like to put the screws to us, but I think phrases like that amount to laziness on their part.

 

[milktree]

I think they just didn't use commas.



I read that as 3 different things. If you've been convicted of, adjudicated a youthful offender, or a delinquent child.... then all the disqualifying convictions/adjudications etc.

You need to understand how MA laws are written. They are written poorly, with bad prose. They write them as if we were still in ye oldyen tymes. Those 3 things (convicted, adjudicated youthful offender, or delinquent child) are prefaces to the next big part that I didn't quote, which lists all the disqualifying convictions/adjudications.

OK here's the whole thing:

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child as defined in section 52 of chapter 119 for the commission of: (A) a felony; (B) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years; (C) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (D) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (E) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession or sale of a controlled substance as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C including, but not limited to, a violation under said chapter 94C; provided, however, that except for the commission of a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances, if the person has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever occurs last, for 5 or more years immediately preceding the purchase or possession, that person may purchase or possess self-512 defense spray;

I don't see how an extra comma after "convicted" would make it make any sense since the word "of" is also missing.

This reads to me (now that I've re-read it yet again) that adults who had been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child, where the conviction was for (list of bad things) can have pepper spray five years after the latest conviction.

(note bolded part)

I don't understand why they had to duplicate (i) as (ii) with only the difference being "in another state or federal jurisdiction" instead of "in a court of the commonwealth" when they could have easily said, "in a court"

 

[Horrible]

They absolutely like to put the screws to us, but I think phrases like that amount to laziness on their part.

That and if everyone needs a lawyer to interpret and understand the laws, there will be a continued demand for lawyer's services. Most pols are...?

You guess it! LAWYERS! This is an easy way to maintain job security for them and their cronies.

 

[exo]

OK here's the whole thing:



I don't see how an extra comma after "convicted" would make it make any sense since the word "of" is also missing.

This reads to me (now that I've re-read it yet again) that adults who had been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child, where the conviction was for (list of bad things) can have pepper spray five years after the latest conviction.

(note bolded part)

I don't understand why they had to duplicate (i) as (ii) with only the difference being "in another state or federal jurisdiction" instead of "in a court of the commonwealth" when they could have easily said, "in a court"

Alright, let's try it again.

Section 122D. No person shall purchase or possess self-defense spray who:

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child as defined in section 52 of chapter 119 for the commission of: (A) a felony; (B) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years; (C) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (D) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (E) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession or sale of a controlled substance as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C including, but not limited to, a violation under said chapter 94C; provided, however, that except for the commission of a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances, if the person has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever occurs last, for 5 or more years immediately preceding the purchase or possession, that person may purchase or possess self-defense spray;

But let's focus just on the first part:

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child as defined in section 52 of chapter 119 for the commission of:

You can read that as 3 separate statements if it will help.

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted for the commission of:

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been adjudicated a youthful offender for the commission of:

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been delinquent child as defined in section 52 of chapter 119 for the commission of:

Make sense? That's how the courts are going to interpret it. It's not a ban on pepper spray for any and all convictions, and it doesn't mean that as an adult you get a free pass with regards to pepper spray.

But as to the last question,

provided, however, that except for the commission of a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances, if the person has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever occurs last, for 5 or more years immediately preceding the purchase or possession, that person may purchase or possess self-defense spray;

Yes, so long as you weren't convicted/adjudicated/etc. of a violent crime or a drug trafficking crime, 5 years after you're done with confinement, probation, or parole you can have pepper spray.

 

[NFD9]

That and if everyone needs a lawyer to interpret and understand the laws, there will be a continued demand for lawyer's services. Most pols are...?

You guess it! LAWYERS! This is an easy way to maintain job security for them and their cronies.

Now that's a truism...

Lawyers and insurance companies run the whole damn state!

 

[ArnoldDent]

I have a couple of questions.
Now that suitability has been removed and probated person isbeing used instead. How can I check if I am considered one?.
And since there are so many people that would need to go tocourt is there a chance of a class action? For having restrictions removed.

 

[rosefox911]

I have a couple of questions.
Now that suitability has been removed and probated person isbeing used instead. How can I check if I am considered one?.
And since there are so many people that would need to go tocourt is there a chance of a class action? For having restrictions removed.

I would like to know the same. I have 0 record, not even a parking ticket. Yet I have a restricted LTC, if I were to approach my police department and ask to have the restriction removed, would they be forced to reconsider or at the very least provide me a written reason as to why I was denied? Or would "I don't think you really need a LTC-A" be enough? Because, that is what I was told.

 

[murf4321]

send them a letter requesting to have them removed. Got nothing to lose, & others have been met with success trying that approach.

 

[pastera]

Under the new bill, anyone having restrictions is entitled to a judicial review of the evidence supporting those restrictions at any time

 

[Quiet]

I would like to know the same. I have 0 record, not even a parking ticket. Yet I have a restricted LTC, if I were to approach my police department and ask to have the restriction removed, would they be forced to reconsider or at the very least provide me a written reason as to why I was denied? Or would "I don't think you really need a LTC-A" be enough? Because, that is what I was told.

send them a letter requesting to have them removed. Got nothing to lose, & others have been met with success trying that approach.

Under the new bill, anyone having restrictions is entitled to a judicial review of the evidence supporting those restrictions at any time

If your goal is to get your restrictions lifted, I would tread lightly for a bit. A very polite letter requesting restrictions be removed. A different approach might be "please remove my restrictions, or we're going to court". Another approach might be simply head straight to court, but if you lose in court you haven't made any friends with the chief and at that point the polite letter is probably not going to work.

I might want to wait a little bit and see what happens and/or talk to an attorney or Comm2A first before doing anything, frankly.

Good luck! It's an exciting time to be you!

 

[pastera]

It would be nice to have a few thousand request letters sent in each red city right after this bill takes effect.