House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[GlockJock]

No pepper spray legalization in this bill, at least not yet.

?? If you read this thread, even recent ones, it says it's in there, the legalization.... Now you're saying no?.. Anyone know for sure?... This bill has been, indeed, a "behemoth" in more ways than one!

The Pepper spray thing is important to some of us who have daughters, especially if FID "suitability" becomes law, for then a young woman, not just my kid, would have to hope that a CoP deems them "suitable" for an FID-only can of SELF-DEFENSE nutmeg - oops - pepper spray!

 

[Garden12]

?? If you read this thread, even recent ones, it says it's in there, the legalization.... Now you're saying no?.. Anyone know for sure?... This bill has been, indeed, a "behemoth" in more ways than one!

The Pepper spray thing is important to some of us who have daughters, especially if FID "suitability" becomes law, for then a young woman, not just my kid, would have to hope that a CoP deems them "suitable" for an FID-only can of SELF-DEFENSE nutmeg - oops - pepper spray!

This was one paragraph in a email from my state senator that he emailed to me:

"The bill removes pepper spray and mace from the Firearms Identification Card requirements for those ages 18 or older, but still requires persons between the ages of 15 and 18 to obtain a firearms identification card, with the permission of a parent or guardian, to possess pepper spray. The bill enhances penalties for those possessing firearms illegally."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Coyote33]

This was one paragraph in a email from my state senator that he emailed to me:

"The bill removes pepper spray and mace from the Firearms Identification Card requirements for those ages 18 or older, but still requires persons between the ages of 15 and 18 to obtain a firearms identification card, with the permission of a parent or guardian, to possess pepper spray. The bill enhances penalties for those possessing firearms illegally."

I don't know if it was here (I can't find it), but someone asked to see the language of the new bill, as amended. I still haven't seen it. That would provide a LOT of answers.

 

[LoginName]

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.

Shall issue FID's have been the law since 98.

I wonder how many examples they (or any CLEO's), can cite where they would have denied a person based on suitability if they had had that authority, and later on that person used a firearm in a violent crime?

 

[SMXBlackwood]

I received this from Senator John J. Mahoney in response to my email.
Hi Shawn,

Just last week my colleagues and I in the House passed An Act Relative to Reducing Gun Violence. I think this bill represents a fair and comprehensive approach to tackling the issue of gun violence in our state, while respecting the rights of lawful gun owners. Ultimately the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts was neutral on the bill and my colleague Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton)—a strong second amendment advocate—joined me in supporting the bill. The bill establishes a criminal firearms and trafficking unit within the State Police and improves information sharing amongst the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services and the courts, among other provisions. The bill also streamlines the renewal process for lawful gun owners like yourself (it eliminates the 90 day renewal process for FID cards). If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact my state house office at 617-722-2400.

Best,
John

 

[Waher]

They also read NES. Let's not get all cocky. (see my reply to Ferroprussiate in this post)

I wouldn't say it's time to be cocky. But they are clearly in damage control/concern mode. This bill did not proceed in the way that they intended. With the favorable media coverage and political climate, they assumed a slam dunk and are legitimately shocked to have to put up a fight.

 

[rwl1955]

Call your Rep. first thing in the morning. The bill will probably be renumbered when it gets back to the house, but they'll know what you're talking about.

********
I emailed my Rep.Dennis Rosa and asked to to support the bill.

 

[Artie]

My thank you letter to Senator Timilty

Dear Senator Timilty,

I wanted to thank you for your time and effort on Bill S.2265, An Act Relative to the reduction of gun violence, especially your vote on Amendment 63.1, Unsuitability Determination. I also want to thank you for taking the time to speak with licensed collectors of Curio & Relic (C&R) firearms so that Amendment 30, Federally Licensed Collectors, which you sponsored, was worded properly.

With the legislation now returning to the House for a concurrence vote, I will be contacting my Representative, Steven Howitt, to support the legislation that you and 28 other Senators worked so hard to pass.

Thanks again for your time and effort

Respectfully,
Artie
Seekonk Resident

 

[Artie]

My letter to Representative Howitt who is a GOAL member, an NRA Member and Wampanoag Rod and Gun Club member

Dear Representative Howitt,

I am writing you today to respectfully request that you positively support Bill S.2265 when it comes up for a concurrence vote in the House.

Like you, I am a concerned citizen, a law abiding gun owner and a 2nd amendment rights supporter that understands the need for curbing gun violence. I am satisfied that the Senate’s adopted version of the bill from the House, H4278, is a positive step forward to accomplishing this.

I encourage you to support this bill and thank you again for your time and effort.

Respectfully,
Artie
Seekonk Resident

 

[rlee]

I don't know if it was here (I can't find it), but someone asked to see the language of the new bill, as amended. I still haven't seen it. That would provide a LOT of answers.

Section 20 of S.2265 addresses the defense-spray.

 

[yanici]

My letter to Representative Howitt who is a GOAL member, an NRA Member and Wampanoag Rod and Gun Club member

Dear Representative Howitt,

I am writing you today to respectfully request that you positively support Bill S.2265 when it comes up for a concurrence vote in the House.

Like you, I am a concerned citizen, a law abiding gun owner and a 2nd amendment rights supporter that understands the need for curbing gun violence. I am satisfied that the Senate’s adopted version of the bill from the House, H4278, is a positive step forward to accomplishing this.

I encourage you to support this bill and thank you again for your time and effort.

Respectfully,
Artie
Seekonk Resident

Nice letter. Be a good template to use.

 

[Artie]

Nice letter. Be a good template to use.

If it makes it easier for others to contact their Reps, please use it as a template. Although Howitt is a strong suppprter of ours, and I noted that in the letter, I am afraid other reps arent. Good luck

 

[Hardwired]

bringing Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

What exactly does this mean and what does "compliance" for Mass entail?
How could the state be previously non-compliant....

 

[oldsoldier29]

What exactly does this mean and what does "compliance" for Mass entail?
How could the state be previously non-compliant....

Most states report crimes to the nics data base automatically. MA doesn't. It's voluntary. By being NICS compliant, this actually opens us up to reciprocity with other states. We are only 1 of a few (I think 4) that don't submit to NICS. On our end, it means nothing.

 

[mbullism]

...By being NICS compliant, this actually opens us up to reciprocity with other states. We are only 1 of a few (I think 4) that don't submit to NICS. On our end, it means nothing.

MA has a longstanding and widespread penchant for NON reciprocity on a lot of things... from boat and atv registration, to I'm sure firearms permits and beyond. Shame too, bcuz so many states are reciprocal with any state which is reciprocal in return on a lot of things...

"We're" just dicks...

 

[doctorbossman]

My letter to my Senator DiDomenico, (will be sent to my Representative as well)

Dear Senator DiDomenico,


I am a resident of Cambridge, an ophthalmic and oculoplastic reconstructive surgeon; I hold a Master's Degree in Public Health.

I am thoroughly disappointed that you voted against the amended S.2265. Your action prove to me that you are not interested in the goal of decreasing gun violence but rather that you are interested in decreasing gun rights for your constituents.

The amended S.2265...
-creates a firearms trafficking division
-provides for the creation of gun safety public service announcements
-brings Massachusetts in line with the 46 other states which report to NICS
-provides for improved school active shooter training/resources
-protects the privacy and constitutional rights of those non-dangerous citizens seeking mental health services'
-brings Massachusetts in line with the 49 other states which allow their citizens to carry OC/pepper spray

This bill is a win-win for gun-rights activists and gun-safety proponents. It is only a loss for gun-control/gun-grabbers. You have pronounced yourself as the latter. Are you honest with yourself about that?

 

[yanici]

Hope you guys will take the time to call your Reps too. The calls work even better tha emails.

 

[oldsoldier29]

MA has a longstanding and widespread penchant for NON reciprocity on a lot of things... from boat and atv registration, to I'm sure firearms permits and beyond. Shame too, bcuz so many states are reciprocal with any state which is reciprocal in return on a lot of things...

"We're" just dicks...

Agreed, but, from what I remember, the reason they weren't NICS compliant-from the ones in charge then-was that they wouldn't have to recognize out of state licenses. With the compliance, their only argument is that they refuse to recognize another state because, for lack of a better phrase, they refuse to recognize 2a rights as individual rights.

 

[jefftk]

Most states report crimes to the nics data base automatically. MA doesn't. It's voluntary. By being NICS compliant, this actually opens us up to reciprocity with other states. We are only 1 of a few (I think 4) that don't submit to NICS. On our end, it means nothing.

If this bill passes and MA becomes NICS compliant, does anyone know if an MA LTC will become valid in NH?
Who makes that determination? Does NH have a statutory definition for what is required, or does the state police, or governor decide?

 

[pinballguy]

I emailed Jim Dwyer today at his personal email account, he replied stating that the original bill was a joke and that "they" heard from thousands of us. He said he was shocked as to how many changes were actually made to the House bill( he also mentioned that it is an election year). He said that George Peterson was a personal friend and I got the impression that he will try and step up once Jim retires in regards to looking out for us.

I guess we will see what the next few days bring

 

[JayMcB]

My rep has been emailed, as has the douchenozzle eldridge.

Will follow up with AM call(s).

Fingers crossed.

 

[oldsoldier29]

If this bill passes and MA becomes NICS compliant, does anyone know if an MA LTC will become valid in NH?
Who makes that determination? Does NH have a statutory definition for what is required, or does the state police, or governor decide?

No. It has to be accepted by both states. It's an Avenue to reciprocity. It doesn't, unfortunately, happen automatically

 

[OfficerObie59]

So with Amendment 17, could I take the civil service exam, get hired with a local PD as an auxiliary or part timer to direct traffic, and badda bing badda boom new black rifle with fancy trimmings?

Can't be that simple.

Or just throw your sheriff $200 in campaign donations and get deputized. Look at it as tax stamp, but with less paperwork than an NFA toy.

 

[OfficerObie59]

On Amendment #17:

I realize the lack of credibility the following will carry, but here goes.

This whole issue started back in the Spring of 2011 when Ron Glidden authored an article in MCOPA's magazine arguing that the "for law enforcement purposes" language in MGL 140/131M prevents officers from using AWB restricted items, including large capacity magazines, except when on duty; further, in his view, practicing (which many officers could stand to do more of) was not an LE purpose. While I have some disagreement with that legal interpretation given how the ATF previously interpreted it under the federal ban, I think his advice was meant as a warning to chiefs to follow the law strictly to be safe. Additionally, prior to the article, chiefs had been providing letters to some officers to purchase for private AWB items, similar to non-AG Approved Handguns. Glidden also took this practice on as unlawful, and in the end, I think he was legally correct on that view, given the law exempts possession only--not buying, selling, or owning an AWB.

What followed was a bit of shitstorm, as within a few months, EOPSS sent every MA dealer a warning to abide by what was essentially an reincorporation of Glidden's opinion as it's own. The problem became that no one knew what to make of all that, and it descended into all sorts of legal conjecture by liability-weary chiefs, with some departments advising officers they couldn't take home duty weapon magazines or carry their issued weapons off-duty. (I also think this statute is overridden by MGL 41/98, but that's my view.)

The purpose of Amendment 17 is to add some clarity to this foolishness, not to give LEO's free reign to strap on whatever they want to a personally-owned AR. Frankly, I think they did this for a lack of time and imagination, and it's seen as a quick fix by legislators to avoid more specific but complicated language given the short timeline they're under. With that said, the law still wouldn't permit private ownership--merely possession.

I think that's the distinction that would be made in any case challenging the AWB on an Animal Farm argument: all gun owners vs. on-duty law enforcement--provided it even gets that far. I don't see what legal theory one could raise to even argue that point. Which is why #17 will do noting to help repeal the AWB.

While I agree that "special protections" for animals more equal is morally repugnant, I say leave it in there. It would seem to up some potential avenues around an equal protection challenge.

Not really. That's not quite how the equal protection clause works. Non-LE gun owners are not a suspect class. At least, not legally.

 

[Garys]

The decision to recognize a MA LTC will have to be made in NH. Which won't do it because MA refuses to recognize any other states licenses or permits. Every state that does recognize a MA LTC has done so unilaterally. No New England state recognizes any other New England states licenses or permits. Except of course VT which doesn't require a permit or license for residents or non residents.

On another note, anyone who thinks that killing this bill is a "win" for us is dreaming. It's an election year and even though most of the incumbents will win, they don't want a noisy group (us) raising uncomfortable issues. They also don't want to allow the antis to accuse them of doing nothing to address gun violence. By passing this bill, they can tell both sides that they got some of what they wanted.

History of the MA legislature tells us that the January after an election is when most of the mischief happens. Having two years before they have to face re election allows them to do pretty much what they want. There will be a new Senate President and he or she can decide they want a totally different law. Who knows what DeLeo will be doing in January and even if he is gone (very unlikely) there is no way to know that the next Speaker won't decide that he or she wants a totally different law.

By passing something now, the current legislature can say they did something and there won't be any serious pressure to start all over again in January.

With or without FID suitability, this is the best law we are going to get. Even if Patrick vetoes it, it will be quickly and easily over ridden and will become law.

We stand to gain a lot by supporting this bill now and lose a lot by succeeding in killing it.

If this bill passes and MA becomes NICS compliant, does anyone know if an MA LTC will become valid in NH?
Who makes that determination? Does NH have a statutory definition for what is required, or does the state police, or governor decide?

 

[oldsoldier29]

On Amendment #17:

I realize the lack of credibility the following will carry, but here goes.

This whole issue started back in the Spring of 2011 when Ron Glidden authored an article in MCOPA's magazine arguing that the "for law enforcement purposes" language in MGL 140/131M prevents officers from using AWB restricted items, including large capacity magazines, except when on duty; further, in his view, practicing (which many officers could stand to do more of) was not an LE purpose. While I have some disagreement with that legal interpretation given how the ATF previously interpreted it under the federal ban, I think his advice was meant as a warning to chiefs to follow the law strictly to be safe. Additionally, prior to the article, chiefs had been providing letters to some officers to purchase for private AWB items, similar to non-AG Approved Handguns. Glidden also took this practice on as unlawful, and in the end, I think he was legally correct on that view, given the law exempts possession only--not buying, selling, or owning an AWB.

What followed was a bit of shitstorm, as within a few months, EOPSS sent every MA dealer a warning to abide by what was essentially an reincorporation of Glidden's opinion as it's own. The problem became that no one knew what to make of all that, and it descended into all sorts of legal conjecture by liability-weary chiefs, with some departments advising officers they couldn't take home duty weapon magazines or carry their issued weapons off-duty. (I also think this statute is overridden by MGL 41/98, but that's my view.)

The purpose of Amendment 17 is to add some clarity to this foolishness, not to give LEO's free reign to strap on whatever they want to a personally-owned AR. Frankly, I think they did this for a lack of time and imagination, and it's seen as a quick fix by legislators to avoid more specific but complicated language given the short timeline they're under. With that said, the law still wouldn't permit private ownership--merely possession.

I think that's the distinction that would be made in any case challenging the AWB on an Animal Farm argument: all gun owners vs. on-duty law enforcement--provided it even gets that far. I don't see what legal theory one could raise to even argue that point. Which is why #17 will do noting to help repeal the AWB.



Not really. That's not quite how the equal protection clause works. Non-LE gun owners are not a suspect class. At least, not legally.

It was explained to me-and mind you, this was via text-that exempt firearms, provided an officer kept up quals, was allowed to carry duty firearms into retirement. Failure to maintain, they cannot. Several police officers, or, more accurately, dealers, will allow purchases of certain firearms civilians cannot own. I've personally seen this. Now, I don't think it's malicious, or an intent to break the law-i think it's that the law is so muddled and convoluted no one truly understands it. Therein lies the issue. An officer, outside of duty hours, doesn't respond to calls. And, as most officers don't live in the towns they work in, their powers are somewhat limited, I'd they aren't within their jurisdiction (I understand there are exceptions, unsure what they are). bottom line is, there's no LEGAL reason for an officer to own firearms that are banned for the rest of us. If they are issue, and allowed to be taken home, that's one thing. Outright buying for their own personal use, is a separate issue entirely. That's where I think the weakness lies in the law. Mind you, I'm not a police officer. I do work as a police dispatcher though, and hear about the confusion quite often.

 

[milktree]

So with Amendment 17, could I take the civil service exam, get hired with a local PD as an auxiliary or part timer to direct traffic, and badda bing badda boom new black rifle with fancy trimmings?

Can't be that simple.

Or just throw your sheriff $200 in campaign donations and get deputized. Look at it as tax stamp, but with less paperwork than an NFA toy.

Wait... seriously? Not the $200 part, but get deputized for a year and you can have anything?

EDIT: Nevermind, I should have read the next post before responding.

 

[rickinma]

Got an interesting reply from my rep
" Will have to wait and see what comes out of conference committee because house passed our bill first we cannot concur with theirs. "
(I had asked him to concur with s.2265 based on the goal email)

 

[OfficerObie59]

Wait... seriously? Not the $200 part, but get deputized for a year and you can have anything?

EDIT: Nevermind, I should have read the next post before responding.

Yeah, sorry...that was heavily cloaked sarcasm.

 

[OfficerObie59]

It was explained to me-and mind you, this was via text-that exempt firearms, provided an officer kept up quals, was allowed to carry duty firearms into retirement. Failure to maintain, they cannot. Several police officers, or, more accurately, dealers, will allow purchases of certain firearms civilians cannot own. I've personally seen this. Now, I don't think it's malicious, or an intent to break the law-i think it's that the law is so muddled and convoluted no one truly understands it. Therein lies the issue. An officer, outside of duty hours, doesn't respond to calls. And, as most officers don't live in the towns they work in, their powers are somewhat limited, I'd they aren't within their jurisdiction (I understand there are exceptions, unsure what they are). bottom line is, there's no LEGAL reason for an officer to own firearms that are banned for the rest of us. If they are issue, and allowed to be taken home, that's one thing. Outright buying for their own personal use, is a separate issue entirely. That's where I think the weakness lies in the law. Mind you, I'm not a police officer. I do work as a police dispatcher though, and hear about the confusion quite often.

I think you're confusing a number of issues here--the retiree exemption the the AWB and the non-approved AG handgun purchase exemption, along with the retiree carry allowance of LEOSA. Moreover, as I see it, I don't see Amendment #17 opening anything up to ownership or purchase, as I stated in the post.