It takes a while go get out of state ""victims of gun violence" together and arrange small coffins just right to stand on, so the runt can be seen over the podium.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
- Status
It takes a while go get out of state ""victims of gun violence" together and arrange small coffins just right to stand on, so the runt can be seen over the podium.
Danor
NES Member
In 2021
Nope, the court review process going into effect in January of 2015.
Is it law yet?
hv55maxx
NES Member
My friend has one waiting already for New Year's Day for the Salem chief. I suggest everyone work on one now. It will not go unnoticed if they all come at once. Judges probably won't want to deal with a few hundred/thousand cases of this either.
Can someone break down for me what parts go into effect in Jan 2015 and what parts go live 2021?
Make sense? Hardly. I can imagine that someone might think that was a sensible way to interpret that abortion of English, but you really have to torture the language to get there.
Bah...
Because it adds certainty. If you go the deletion route there's always a chance something gets missed. By using "Notwithstanding" it is guaranteed the new law trumps anything in conflict with it. Also, it's not as simple as deletion. You will often have to add special cases to existing laws if you don't use a "notwithstanding".
For example:
Section 1. It is unlawful to use left-handed spanners on odd-numbered days.
Section 2. It is unlawful to use left-handed spanners on Sundays.
Section 3. It is unlawful to use left-handed spanners on Monday holidays.
Now the legislature wants to make it legal to use left-handed spanners when the moon is full, regardless of existing law. I don't blame them for saying "Notwithstanding any existing law, it is lawful to use left-handed spanners when the moon is full" instead of having to do something like this:
Section 1. It is unlawful to use left-handed spanners on odd-numbered days, unless the moon is full on such a day.
Section 2. It is unlawful to use left-handed spanners on Sundays, unless the moon is full on a such a day.
Section 3. It is unlawful to use left-handed spanners on Monday holidays, unless the moon is full on a such a day.
And in reality it's worse than that, since the prohibitions on left-handed spanner use may be scattered throughout the MGL, or some sections may use a synonym (possibly archaic) for left-handed spanners, and so on.
As much as I can't stand the MA legislature, I can't really blame them for using "notwithstanding" language.
Last edited:
The trouble here stems from the affront that is their approach to gun laws that make all possession, ownership and carry illegal and then provide exception to that absolute prohibition by license and bureaucracy.
That alone should have been enough decades ago to toss these laws on a constitutional basis, but our courts are too busy gazing at their own legal navels to actually serve justice.
The very presumption that they can ban everything and still meet 2A is ridiculous regardless of exemptions granted. It is entirely backwards.
GlockJock
NES Member
So he signs it today, finally...(probably ran out of Crayolas and had to wait 'til he could find some on sale after blowing the entire budget on renovating his state house throne)...
When does it take effect? Some here say immediately, some say 2015, some say most of it but remainder not til 2021, etc etc...
When does it take effect? Some here say immediately, some say 2015, some say most of it but remainder not til 2021, etc etc...
Quiet
Banned
It depends on the text of what the heck he finally signs. There may have been fixes to the screwed up enactment dates that nobody knows about. I think we're all in the dark at the moment.
You're right, I should say "make sense [within the context of massachusetts law]". It's certainly not the plain language you can sometimes find in other states.
So what happens if there's an old law that has the "notwithstanding" language, and then they add a new law that also has it, and they are in conflict? Does the newer law take precedence?
if i were a betting man, I would put my $$ that the FID suitability goes into effect 8/14/14 and LTC appeal system goes into effect 1/1/2040.
True, but that's orthogonal to the use of "notwithstanding". If they were not allowed to use "notwithstanding" they would have done it the long way.
StevieP
NES Member
Will the signing be televised? Streaming video?
StevieP
NES Member
Hey I know it's a little late to get this into H.4376, but in light of Robin Williams hanging himself with a belt, will clothing stores now be required to provide suicide awareness literature with every belt purchase? Same applies for home depot in the rope department.
goodzilla
NES Member
What's the over/under on 1) children and 2) Newtown Parents at the signing?
IANAL, but IIRC the general rule of statutory construction is that the new takes precedence over the old, though some jurisdictions have rules against "implied repeal" (a new law should not be read to repeal an older law unless there's no other way to make sense of the new law). That's another reason for "Notwithstanding" because that's going to count as an explicit repeal of conflicting things.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
C&R provision is still effective date 2021. Here is the response from Timilty's office, basically in order to get the provision in the law it had to be put off for 6 years, they said there are too many legislators who feel it will put more guns on the street
YUP the gang bangers are clamoring for S&W top-break revolvers in .32 Smith and Wesson they would rather have then than a Glock
here it is
The section in the final bill, to be signed by the Governor today, was the same as it was passed as an amendment in the Senate and both were set with an effective date of 1/1/21 (see sections 56 & 110 of Senate 2284).
For us this was an acceptable compromise to get the Curio & Relic language included in the bill as a floor amendment. Without the future effective date there were some members of the Senate who felt, however irrationally, that this language would put more guns on the streets. They didn’t understand what Senator Timilty was trying to do, and the type of firearms and the federally licensed individuals that you pointed us in the direction of, for the amendment. In my opinion, and I think Senator Timilty will give you his own version personally, there were many Senators who just didn’t want to know anything about the Commonwealth’s gun laws and were opposing amendments if they didn’t involve banning guns outright.
I know it is not an ideal situation to have the effective date of this section 6 years away but in the end it is better than nothing. We can file a bill in January for next session to insert the language into the current statute but I can bet there will be little appetite from anyone to do anything related to firearms
YUP the gang bangers are clamoring for S&W top-break revolvers in .32 Smith and Wesson they would rather have then than a Glock
here it is
The section in the final bill, to be signed by the Governor today, was the same as it was passed as an amendment in the Senate and both were set with an effective date of 1/1/21 (see sections 56 & 110 of Senate 2284).
For us this was an acceptable compromise to get the Curio & Relic language included in the bill as a floor amendment. Without the future effective date there were some members of the Senate who felt, however irrationally, that this language would put more guns on the streets. They didn’t understand what Senator Timilty was trying to do, and the type of firearms and the federally licensed individuals that you pointed us in the direction of, for the amendment. In my opinion, and I think Senator Timilty will give you his own version personally, there were many Senators who just didn’t want to know anything about the Commonwealth’s gun laws and were opposing amendments if they didn’t involve banning guns outright.
I know it is not an ideal situation to have the effective date of this section 6 years away but in the end it is better than nothing. We can file a bill in January for next session to insert the language into the current statute but I can bet there will be little appetite from anyone to do anything related to firearms
Quiet
Banned
I might take the other side of that bet. For a large at Dunkies?
Ben, thanks for the update. That sucks big time.
MSant
NES Member
What ended up being the c&r provision? I tried rereading it all.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
I know it was section 59, I will have to read the signed bill to see exactly what section it is in (121 or 12.. something)
but basically it says that as of 1/1/2021 if you buy a gun from a dealer and you have a 03FFL C&R and the gun is a C&R eligible gun then the "previous owned/registered in Mass" doesn't matter C&R's buying C&R guns from dealers are exempt. Hopefully we never lose the FTF ability, but if we do this will help. Also if you buy a gun on gunbroker and the 01 or 03 at the other end (out of state) requires you to have it shipped to an 01 then this will cover that. If is a very obscure provision and really won't affect much.
dixidawg
NES Member
Would that apply to > 10 round mags that may come with them?
I'd like to send a polite, informative, short-enough-to-understand letter to the senators and representatives who don't understand what a C&R is. Do we have (or can we get) a list of those folks?
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
That would be a good idea, however at the same time I wonder if letting this in under the radar isn't the best idea since currently you can legally have the gun shipped to your house (address on your 03FFL) and we don't want any state laws being made that would upset that awful practice (what they would say) We get the exemption in and then work on changing the date quietly. The less they know about C&R's the better IMOP
After all they did that in California, I believe, you cannot ship to a C&R in CA, we don't want that be enacted here.
Thoughts?
CrackPot
NES Member
I guess I don't see the need for this. OK, some FFLs are cautious/dumb/illiterate but as of right now I have had no issues with 01s selling/xfering C&R eligible to me on my 03 with no paperwork other than a bill of sale. I then do the (E)FA10 as required.
I was talking with someone on FacePage who came up with an easy to read and understand explanation for that language:
milktree's friend on FacePage said:
Or in other words, there are two sections to that horrible phrase, not three:
paraphrased bill language said:
I get it now, it makes some sort of sense.
Thanks for your patience.
The full size magazines would presumably be older than '94, so therefore exempt from the AWB laws.
However, if you bought a 1939 Browning HiPower and the previous owner bought some new full capacity magazines, then no, those modern, post ban magazines would *not* be covered.
MA's AWB is still in effect, regardless of how you acquire the magazine or rifle.
Remember, Massachusetts' AWB is about *possession*, not about purchase or sale. (there are other laws about dealers selling AWBs, but that's outside the scope of FFL03s)
- Status
Similar threads
