House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[Billsail]

I believe you overlooked it.

Here's the section relevant to LTCs. Emphasis mine.

H.4376
SECTION 51. "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."


The section you quoted says you have a right to appeal to a judge, just like you had before. Not really any great successes there. Where does it say a chief is required to petition a judge, in writing, when he wishes to restrict an LTC? It does not put the onus on the licensing authority to present accurate and compelling reasons for restrictions, to a judge, before he is allowed to issue a restricted LTC??? Isn't that 'letter requirement' wording in the FID section? At least, that's the way I read it.


The wording is terrible, but what it says, basically is " An applicant aggrieved by a restriction, may file a petition for review in a district court. There was never any reason why you couldn't bring it to court before, beyond the fact that you would lose.

 

[lagrangian]

H.4376 is now showing up on MA legislature website as part of the Acts of 2014. So perhaps this is the definitive text:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2014/Chapter284

 

[GlockJock]

I read the latest version of the bill that was available to the public a while ago, and I don't recall seeing wording that specifically requires CoPs to to explain to a court, in writing, reasons for LTC restrictions. Are we just assuming that is the case, or did I overlook it? I know it mentions "restrictions", but that is in the section that talks about FIDs. Or is this something that may require the court's, or the AG's interpretation??
It frustrates me to read posts in here, asking questions about the bill that have been answered numerous times, in previous posts. I think to myself "tough luck, if you can't keep up", and now... here I am...asking questions...sorry.

This, Exactly.

Plus, "keeping up" has meant keeping up with literally hundreds of posts from peoplewho really AREN'T sure, stating "as fact" that a certain piece of the bill takes effect in ____ or a certain emergency preamble make it effective _____ etc etc etc...Look at post # 2013. Here's a guy like all of us, a good guy , who has read this thing over and over yet still realized "Wait....wait!!" (etc)...because it's all so confusing!

Then someone else very knowledgable stated above that "we don't even know what's in the final version until we see it"...
This should give anyone an idea as to how "effed up" Massachusetts is. We often legislate, rule and govern based on Nancy Pelosi's theory: "We need to pass this bill so that people will know what's in it...."

Jesus. This hellhole really is just that, and I'm seriously starting to really backtrack on my "Stop saying move to NH and fight the fight here" rants to all those to whom I've ranted. A bill is finally passed, yet we don't even know what's really passed and/or when it is the LAW.....

That, and the legislative dweeb who said "Oh, by the way, we simply overlooked inviting Jim Wallace from GOAL to the signing of the bill".....not to mention Deval's snide little remark about this being a step towards the "ultimate goal"....(?? the ultimate goal of, what?? eliminating GOAL? Or, more accurately, removing what the the "G" and the "O" stand for in the acronym "GOAL")

Those ham and bean suppers aren't sounding too bad to me now....

 

[jasons]

H.4376
SECTION 51. "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."


The section you quoted says you have a right to appeal to a judge, just like you had before. Not really any great successes there. Where does it say a chief is required to petition a judge, in writing, when he wishes to restrict an LTC? It does not put the onus on the licensing authority to present accurate and compelling reasons for restrictions, to a judge, before he is allowed to issue a restricted LTC??? Isn't that 'letter requirement' wording in the FID section? At least, that's the way I read it.


The wording is terrible, but what it says, basically is " An applicant aggrieved by a restriction, may file a petition for review in a district court. There was never any reason why you couldn't bring it to court before, beyond the fact that you would lose.

The LTC stuff doesn't change much. The biggest changes are the elimination of the class B (which was rare anyway) and the fact that you can take restrictions to judicial review now.

 

[lagrangian]

The wording is terrible, but what it says, basically is " An applicant aggrieved by a restriction, may file a petition for review in a district court. There was never any reason why you couldn't bring it to court before, beyond the fact that you would lose.

Incorrect. Before this law you had no right to challenge a restriction in court. The law as it read before the passage of H.4376 was:

Any applicant or holder aggrieved by a denial, revocation or suspension of a license, unless a hearing has previously been held pursuant to chapter 209A, may, within either 90 days after receiving notice of such denial, revocation or suspension or within 90 days after the expiration of the time limit during which the licensing authority is required to respond to the applicant, file a petition to obtain judicial review in the district court having jurisdiction in the city or town wherein the applicant filed for, or was issued, such license. A justice of such court, after a hearing, may direct that a license be issued or reinstated to the petitioner if such justice finds that there was no reasonable ground for denying, suspending or revoking such license and that the petitioner is not prohibited by law from possessing same.

Notice that "restriction" is nowhere mentioned there.

That said, since judges routinely rubberstamp the chiefs re: denials, suspensions, and revocations, and since the new language doesn't appear to make any changes to the standard of review or deference, I'd sadly expect the judges will continue to rubberstamp the chiefs on restrictions as well.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Sad that I found this on my ****ing FB trending posts, at least the rest of this country knows what this ****face Deval is doing.

I said. SMD on a comment. Makes sense eh.

 

[rlee]

The FID stuff is in section 30.
Basically, it says that the FID is shall-issue unless the applicant is unsuitable.
It then defines all of the things that would make him/her unsuitable.
At the end is the ability of the CLEO to petition the court for special unsuitability and the procedures for that petition.

 

[nin7474]

COMM2A has their explanation of H.4376 up

http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/h...rce=H.+4376&utm_campaign=93A&utm_medium=email

 

[GlockJock]

COMM2A has their explanation of H.4376 up

http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/h...rce=H.+4376&utm_campaign=93A&utm_medium=email

But, again, the Q many are asking (and getting multiple - and confusing - replies) is:
"When does this (or the various sections) take effect?
Immediately?... Jan 1, 2015?.... 2021?..... Next lifetime???

The media, however, has gathered a group of legal masterminds from across the land, has seemingly studied every word of every sentence in the bill and "cleared it all up for us". Thank you, MSNBC, for helping NES, GOAL, Comm2A etc figure it all out with the help of your article.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gov-deval-patrick-signs-sweeping-gun-bill-law

("The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country.")

Uh-huh. Yep, the media is right on top of everything once again. God bless em.

 

[jasons]

But, again, the Q many are asking (and getting multiple - and confusing - replies) is: "When does this (or the various sections) take effect? Immediately?... Jan 1, 2015?.... 2021?..... Next lifetime???

I've posted the answer at least three times now. There is no single date, there are multiple dates depending on which section you're talking about. Some sections are in effect immediately, others go out as far as 2021. All of the dates are in the bill.

 

[Keeper]

Not sure if this covers all the sections. Just a quick cut and paste of the dates I saw:

SECTION 107. By December 3, 2014, the department of elementary and secondary education, subject to appropriation, shall adopt rules and regulations pursuant to section 95 of chapter 71 of the General Laws requiring that all public school districts shall provide suicide awareness and prevention training. School personnel hired after the effective date of this section but before December 3, 2014 shall obtain the training by March 4, 2015.
SECTION 108. Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 80, 84, 87, 88, 90, 96 and 97 shall take effect on January 1, 2015.
SECTION 109. Sections 28 and 29 shall take effect on March 1, 2015; provided, however, that the chief information officer of the commonwealth, in conjunction with the secretary of public safety and security, shall procure any necessary information technology services to implement the real time web portal pursuant to said section 29 by October 1, 2014.
SECTION 110. Section 11 shall take effect on July 1, 2015.
SECTION 111. The first report under clause (10) of section 18 ¾ of chapter 6A of the General Laws shall be due not later than March 1, 2016.
SECTION 112. Sections 23, 24, 33, 35A, 35B, 41, 46, 47, 49, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 68, 71 and 91 shall take effect on January 1, 2021.

 

[Mattyweb]

So, people renewing their license now have to provide an affidavit:

Section 36 paragraph 9:
"The form for renewal shall include an affidavit whereby the applicant shall verify that the applicant has not lost a firearm or had a firearm stolen from the applicant’s possession since the date of the applicant’s last renewal or issuance. "

I hope I, or anyone else, is never in this situation, but what if you can't provide such and affidavit, i.e., you have been robbed? You don't get renewed?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The affidavit is a potential 5th Amendment violation. If you failed to report a lost or stolen firearm you're either going to commit perjury or implicate yourself in a crime.

The other problem here in the new law is that you do get a pass the first time you report a lost or stolen firearm. But if you report lost or stolen firearms a second time you can be deemed 'unsuitable' and lose your rights.

 

[DONALDG-HOG]

My understanding is that you will sign an affidavit that states you have not had any firearms or stolen. MY understanding is based on posts I read in this thread.

So, people renewing their license now have to provide an affidavit:

Section 36 paragraph 9:
"The form for renewal shall include an affidavit whereby the applicant shall verify that the applicant has not lost a firearm or had a firearm stolen from the applicant’s possession since the date of the applicant’s last renewal or issuance. "

I hope I, or anyone else, is never in this situation, but what if you can't provide such and affidavit, i.e., you have been robbed? You don't get renewed?

 

[browncoat]

The affidavit is a potential 5th Amendment violation. If you failed to report a lost or stolen firearm you're either going to commit perjury or implicate yourself in a crime.

The other problem here in the new law is that you do get a pass the first time you report a lost or stolen firearm. But if you report lost or stolen firearms a second time you can be deemed 'unsuitable' and lose your rights.

Completely right. There was a court case about felons and registration of NFA firearms during the periods of "amnesty" registrations - the court found that compelling the registration of NFA firearms by felons is a violation of their 5th amendment rights because the registration would be in essence an admission of guilt.

 

[milktree]

So, people renewing their license now have to provide an affidavit:

Section 36 paragraph 9:
"The form for renewal shall include an affidavit whereby the applicant shall verify that the applicant has not lost a firearm or had a firearm stolen from the applicant’s possession since the date of the applicant’s last renewal or issuance. "

I hope I, or anyone else, is never in this situation, but what if you can't provide such and affidavit, i.e., you have been robbed? You don't get renewed?

Woah... I just realized what my brain had been inserting into this clause.

There's no "unreported" bit.

i.e. if you have a gun stolen, or loose one (in a boating accident) and you *do* report it, you can't sign an affidavit to "verify that the applicant has not lost a firearm or had a firearm stolen from the applicant’s possession since the date of the applicant’s last renewal or issuance" without lying.

There doesn't appear to be any way to keep an LTC or FID if you get robbed. I'm assuming that failure to sign the affidavit would result in renewal denial.

Am I really reading that correctly?

 

[terraformer]

Woah... I just realized what my brain had been inserting into this clause.

There's no "unreported" bit.

i.e. if you have a gun stolen, or loose one (in a boating accident) and you *do* report it, you can't sign an affidavit to "verify that the applicant has not lost a firearm or had a firearm stolen from the applicant’s possession since the date of the applicant’s last renewal or issuance" without lying.

There doesn't appear to be any way to keep an LTC or FID if you get robbed. I'm assuming that failure to sign the affidavit would result in renewal denial.

Am I really reading that correctly?

The statute only refers to the affidavit's presence. It doesn't indicate how to handle not signing it and for what reason. We need to see how FRB handles the exact language and how this will work exactly. It's a TBD for right now but a person who doesn't sign it because they reported something stolen in the last 5 years is likely not to be denied, especially with the free pass provision elsewhere. It's something we will be happy to litigate.

 

[NFD9]

Yes, the bill removes pepper spray from the definition of ammunition. (Section 20.)

Section 22 adds a whole bunch of stuff regulating pepper spay itself:

Since it is no longer considered ammo... can it be possessed on school grounds now?
TIA

 

[Len-2A Training]

No.

 

[browncoat]

Since it is no longer considered ammo... can it be possessed on school grounds now?
TIA

I think it is still considered a weapon.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I think it is still considered a weapon.

Bingo!

"other weapon" under C. 269 S. 10. Hell, under that law you can't even possess a Boy Scout jack knife on school grounds. [I carried one from the 3rd or 4th grade thru college, but that was a long time ago before most of these laws went crazy. Never used it as a weapon, but stripping wire, opening boxes or even Mail makes it a useful TOOL!]

 

[exo]

I've posted the answer at least three times now. There is no single date, there are multiple dates depending on which section you're talking about. Some sections are in effect immediately, others go out as far as 2021. All of the dates are in the bill.

The question is still being asked because there was the text of the bill, and then there was that addendum thing that we weren't sure if it was part of the bill. That addendum changed the dates again.

 

[jasons]

(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.

My favorite part there is the "smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means" thing. Anyone else ever shoot spitballs out of a straw when you were a kid?

The whole "other dangerous weapon" thing is pretty humorous too. Baseball bats are OK, but apparently pepper spray is "dangerous?" Bunch of clowns...

 

[billmelater]

Wow, think of all those kids running around in school with shod feet! It's a bloodbath just waiting to happen.

 

[NFD9]

I think it is still considered a weapon.

You think?
Can you please provide a section that lists PS as a "dangerous weapon". My understanding is that it was always classified as ammo...not a dangerous weapon.
thanks

 

[terraformer]

You are kidding me. The SJC has misread law to justify illegal searches on school grounds and you think they wouldn't classify pepper spray as dangerous? Just because they didn't need to before, doesn't mean they won't in a heartbeat next.

 

[NFD9]

You are kidding me. The SJC has misread law to justify illegal searches on school grounds and you think they wouldn't classify pepper spray as dangerous? Just because they didn't need to before, doesn't mean they won't in a heartbeat next.

I am totally serious, where does Ma law define pepper spray as a dangerous weapon? All I can find is it being controlled as ammo.
If you can find something different...please provided. I'm not looking for opinions.
TIA

 

[jasons]

The question is still being asked because there was the text of the bill, and then there was that addendum thing that we weren't sure if it was part of the bill. That addendum changed the dates again.

The dates in the addendum appear to be the same as the dates in the bill. In any case, addendum or not, different sections take effect on different dates. There is no single date. Maybe I'm not understanding the question.

 

[terraformer]

If I wasn't on vacation I would dig out the case where the SJC defined what dangerous weapons are and proceeded to say that just about anything was dangerous if used that way and that a jury could determine this, but things intended to do harm are per se dangerous. Maybe someone else can dig it up, but it's the one that defined shod foot as dangerous IIRC.

That's the answer you seek. It's not defined in law. That would make the state bound by what the law said and not flexible to make it up as they go.

 

[jasons]

I totally serious, where does Ma law define pepper spray as a dangerous weapon? All I can find is it being controlled as ammo.
If you can find something different...please provided. I'm not looking for opinions.
TIA

I don't know that there is a specific definition in the MGLs, but I know of one guy who got charged with "assault and battery with a dangerous weapon" because he was wearing a ring on his finger.