House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ferroprussiate said:
The antis have a script and know they are losing.
Click to expand...

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...

He might also want to get it over and done the **** with, and under his present circumstance, could be likely.

Besides... if it goes to a conference committee, it has to be bi-partisan.

Meaning, after the way he praised George Peterson for making things come together in unity, he'd have to have serious balls not to. Even then, he might not have a choice, I think the only Reps that are eligible are the ones who voted in favor of the bill to begin with.

Peterson was the sole R who did vote in favor.
 
Last edited:
Had a frank email exchange with my rep, who made it clear that FID suitability was the bargaining chip that paid for us winning on every other point.

It's highly likely that we'll end up with either FID suitability or no bill this session. The former is favorable to the latter for reasons previously discussed.
 
mattyw said:
This. Call your reps. Tell them you don't approve of the Senate taking their bill and sneaking in a favor to police that does nothing but clearly treat us as an inferior class of constituents.

Make sure you also say you support the FID amendment. Remember, the house approved FID suitability and the Senate removed it
Click to expand...

They snuck it in by trading for suitability.

I thought someone mentioned how parts of this went against some recent rulings. Anyone know? If so,how can we push that issue with them?
 
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...

I asked this point blank to Boston police commissioner Davis at one of the hearings, and he agreed with me completely.
 
oldsoldier29 said:
Unrealistic. We all knew a bill will come out. What scraps? This bill works FOR us. Honestly, it gets rather tiring to explain to people that setting an expectation that we would win back all our rights while fighting an extremely anti gun bill is tilting at windmills. If you honestly thought this was a loss, feel free to stop supporting those who went to bat to keep legislation from being passed that negatively affects us. And, if you didn't support them in the first place-then, this was never your fight.
Click to expand...

"Us" huh, well then Thank you my Lord for speaking for " Us " You have no clue who your speaking to or what I do so don't make assumptions to which you have no clue about. You remind me of the Liberal Dopes who take a comment and twist it to your personal opinion and then label it as just by adding in assumptions. Don't you ever think for one moment you speak for me in any way shape or form! your not smart enough trust me.

Now wipe your nose I think a Piece of Doleo's ass still remains where he was sitting.
 
30Mauser said:
Had a frank email exchange with my rep, who made it clear that FID suitability was the bargaining chip that paid for us winning on every other point.

It's highly likely that we'll end up with either FID suitability or no bill this session. The former is favorable to the latter for reasons previously discussed.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm confused and/or suspicious about... why the **** do they want that particular aspect so badly?

It solves nothing related to firearms crime/violence, and they know it.

It's unconstitutional and in direct conflict with DC v. Heller, and is wide open to a legal challenge, and they know it.

So why push it when they could have just as easily pushed harder for something less complicated, and more appealing to the masses like a CA or NY style AWB/magazine ban?
 
30Mauser said:
Had a frank email exchange with my rep, who made it clear that FID suitability was the bargaining chip that paid for us winning on every other point.

It's highly likely that we'll end up with either FID suitability or no bill this session. The former is favorable to the latter for reasons previously discussed.
Click to expand...

Remind him they got UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS in the bill. It's a bigger headline for their voters and they don't want to be on record voting against mental health increases and increased penalties and UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS because any opponent will be sure to use it against them.
 
LoginName said:
He might also want to get it over and done the **** with, and under his present circumstance, could be likely.

Besides... if it goes to a conference committee, it has to be bi-partisan.

Meaning, after the way he praised George Peterson for making things come together in unity, he'd have to have serious balls not to. Even then, he might not have a choice, I think the only Reps that are eligible are the ones who voted in favor of the bill to begin with.

Peterson was the sole R who did vote in favor.
Click to expand...

If that's true what you're saying that the committee has to be bipartisan, and to be on it, a legislator would've have had to vote in favor of the original bill. I wonder if that was pure strategy on Peterson's part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Garden12 said:
If that's true what you're saying that the committee has to be bipartisan, and to be on it, a legislator would've have had to vote in favor of the original bill. I wonder if that was pure strategy on Peterson's part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The committee has to be bi-partisan... that's something that can't be bypassed or ignored...

Step 11.Amendments Produce Conflicting Versions
If the bill is amended by the second branch, it will have to be returned to the first branch for a concurrence vote. If concurrence is rejected, a bi-partisan conference committee of three members from each branch is appointed to craft a compromise bill that will be sent to both legislative branches for a final vote. The conference committee’s report recommending the compromise bill is not subject to amendment.
Click to expand...

https://malegislature.gov/Engage/HowIdeaBecomesLawText


Could have been strategy or just the way politics are conducted, or both.

Politics part... Peterson might have sold his soul to the devil and said 'look, change this, change that, eliminate this and I'll vote in favor of the final bill'.

Once the deal is sealed... he really can't go back on his word, especially since he knows the bill could have easily passed 'as is' anyways.

Strategy part... if it gets kicked back to a conference committee, he knew (either by seniority or his yes vote), he would be on it.
 
Reading step 11 in that quote from LoginName, I think the "bipartisan" refers to members from both bodies, not from both political parties.
 
Harkes2k said:
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.
Click to expand...

oldsoldier29 said:
Add eldridge to that list. And any of the other 10 that voted against us.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

MA candidates coming up this election

Massachusetts Pro Liberty Candidates

Candidate looking for input on 2A



Ferroprussiate said:
The antis have a script and know they are losing.
Click to expand...

They also read NES. Let's not get all cocky.


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...

I generally agree with everything you say. However, the 2A is not about hunting. However however, we can let them think that. (see my reply to Ferroprussiate in this post)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
pdm said:
So 2 and 1 from each chamber? Oh yeah, that'll be done even-handedly.
Click to expand...

Linsky (D), Naughton (D), Peterson (R) from the House.

Creem (D), Eldridge (D), Tarr (R) from the Senate.

Other predictions if it even gets that far?
 
LoginName said:
This is what I'm confused and/or suspicious about... why the **** do they want that particular aspect so badly?

It solves nothing related to firearms crime/violence, and they know it.

It's unconstitutional and in direct conflict with DC v. Heller, and is wide open to a legal challenge, and they know it.

So why push it when they could have just as easily pushed harder for something less complicated, and more appealing to the masses like a CA or NY style AWB/magazine ban?
Click to expand...

At the gun violence pandering tours Linsky went around proclaiming that chiefs are complaining that they have known dangerous people in their towns that they were forced to give FID cards to because they had no discretion. That is the narrative they have built.
 
Bfatz said:
"Us" huh, well then Thank you my Lord for speaking for " Us " You have no clue who your speaking to or what I do so don't make assumptions to which you have no clue about. You remind me of the Liberal Dopes who take a comment and twist it to your personal opinion and then label it as just by adding in assumptions. Don't you ever think for one moment you speak for me in any way shape or form! your not smart enough trust me.

Now wipe your nose I think a Piece of Doleo's ass still remains where he was sitting.
Click to expand...
Molon labe right? How'd that work out?
 
Coyote33 said:
MA candidates coming up this election

Massachusetts Pro Liberty Candidates

Candidate looking for input on 2A





They also read NES. Let's not get all cocky.




I generally agree with everything you say. However, the 2A is not about hunting. However however, we can let them think that. (see my reply to Ferroprussiate in this post)
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, FID suitability hurts those classes of people specifically. And, tugging at heartstrings us their game-we get to use their tactics :). The outcome is the same, either way.
 
pdm said:
So 2 and 1 from each chamber? Oh yeah, that'll be done even-handedly.
Click to expand...
The catch is, from what I gather, there had to be 100% agreement. Peterson, it would appear, played the long game. Provided he sticks by his word, he can abstain and stall, if they try that.
 
Bfatz said:
"Us" huh, well then Thank you my Lord for speaking for " Us " You have no clue who your speaking to or what I do so don't make assumptions to which you have no clue about. You remind me of the Liberal Dopes who take a comment and twist it to your personal opinion and then label it as just by adding in assumptions. Don't you ever think for one moment you speak for me in any way shape or form! your not smart enough trust me.

Now wipe your nose I think a Piece of Doleo's ass still remains where he was sitting.
Click to expand...

Please explain how throwing away a minor win, or really a pretty large win legislatively, is a good idea. Or maybe the original bill should have stayed?

You don't get it, do you? This state by representation and popular opinion will NEVER be true to 2A without being forced by litigation.

I don't understand how you can possibly think that it would be better to keep our current law than to legalize pepper spray for adults, get rid of LTC expirations so long as a renewal was applied for, and possibly change by large margin how many licenses are restricted.

What, you think we should only accept "See 2A" as the entirety of our gun laws and scoff at anything less? While I share your sentiment there is the reality of the situation you either don't understand or have some inability to take into account. That will not and cannot happen in Massachusetts. We literally turned the SAFE act 2.0 into a pretty decent (by MA standards) win for us.... yet you would prefer the current laws. Just ****in move then bro, cause the MA legislature will NEVER see it your way, they must be forced by the courts. Period.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
LoginName said:
Linsky (D), Naughton (D), Peterson (R) from the House.

Creem (D), Eldridge (D), Tarr (R) from the Senate.

Other predictions if it even gets that far?
Click to expand...

I'd take Mike Moore from the Senate. (amendment 6 and also on PSHS Committee)


jefftk said:
At the gun violence pandering tours Linsky went around proclaiming that chiefs are complaining that they have known dangerous people in their towns that they were forced to give FID cards to because they had no discretion. That is the narrative they have built.
Click to expand...

I thought it would work well as this: Do away with Class B (done). Make all LTC's shall issue, with a checkbox for "Hold for further review", which will allow limited circumstances for this sort of thing. It would have to be specific, in writing, and have a hearing and chance at appeal; otherwise, shall issue after a period of time (30 days). I think that would make the chiefs happy, but we would need to have some well defined criteria boxing it in.


crazymjb said:
...I don't understand how you can possibly think that it would be better to keep our current law than to legalize pepper spray for adults, get rid of LTC expirations so long as a renewal was applied for, and possibly change by large margin how many licenses are restricted....
Click to expand...

No pepper spray legalization in this bill, at least not yet.
 
LoginName said:
This is what I'm confused and/or suspicious about... why the **** do they want that particular aspect so badly?

It solves nothing related to firearms crime/violence, and they know it.

It's unconstitutional and in direct conflict with DC v. Heller, and is wide open to a legal challenge, and they know it.

So why push it when they could have just as easily pushed harder for something less complicated, and more appealing to the masses like a CA or NY style AWB/magazine ban?
Click to expand...

Because they're morons?
 
Coyote33 said:
They snuck it in by trading for suitability.

I thought someone mentioned how parts of this went against some recent rulings. Anyone know? If so,how can we push that issue with them?
Click to expand...
The "is an alien" disqualifier was in the original bill, but that was fixed to add " that is not a legal permanent resident ". Fletcher v Haas is the case that made that change needed.
 
OK, folks. It's show time again. Let's not loose sight that we need to call our Reps first thing tomorrow morning and tell them to vote to concur on this bill. Email too.

Let's not get bogged down in detail. We did good. This bill needs to go through without going to a conference committee.
 
yanici said:
OK, folks. It's show time again. Let's not loose sight that we need to call our Reps first thing tomorrow morning and tell them to vote to concur on this bill. Email too.

Let's not get bogged down in detail. We did good. This bill needs to go through without going to a conference committee.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Start making those calls to your reps tomorrow!
 
crazymjb said:
Please explain how throwing away a minor win, or really a pretty large win legislatively, is a good idea. Or maybe the original bill should have stayed?

You don't get it, do you? This state by representation and popular opinion will NEVER be true to 2A without being forced by litigation.

I don't understand how you can possibly think that it would be better to keep our current law than to legalize pepper spray for adults, get rid of LTC expirations so long as a renewal was applied for, and possibly change by large margin how many licenses are restricted.

What, you think we should only accept "See 2A" as the entirety of our gun laws and scoff at anything less? While I share your sentiment there is the reality of the situation you either don't understand or have some inability to take into account. That will not and cannot happen in Massachusetts. We literally turned the SAFE act 2.0 into a pretty decent (by MA standards) win for us.... yet you would prefer the current laws. Just ****in move then bro, cause the MA legislature will NEVER see it your way, they must be forced by the courts. Period.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...

This +1
 
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