House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[Billsail]

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)

Your Rep must have meant "will not", instead of "can not"??

 

[yanici]

Did you call your Rep. today to ask him to support S2265 when it comes back to the House?

Why not?

 

[Jbarila]

Emailed and called Rep to ask him to support S2265 as is.

 

[mbullism]

At work and dont have time to fully vet... I believe S2265 as amended is now S2284.... It shows on the bill search function of the malegislature.gov as a senate amendment to H4285... an amendment replacing the full text of 4285...

 

[oldsoldier29]

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.

Thanks for the clarification

 

[Mike S]

At work and dont have time to fully vet... I believe S2265 as amended is now S2284.... It shows on the bill search function of the malegislature.gov as a senate amendment to H4285... an amendment replacing the full text of 4285...

Here's the link: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2284

 

[terraformer]

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.

Keep slapping lipstick on this piggy. Here is the new statute.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer [STRIKE=.]for purposes of law enforcement[/STRIKE]; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.

This statute has always made cops a higher class above the rest of us, just now more so than ever. They receive special privileges as a matter of employment, and not even restricted by a minimum time limit like LEOSA. Ownership and purchase are irrelevant to this discussion. They can build or buy out of state the rifles they want and not a word can be said. Possession rights trump any restriction on purchase and ownership that one wants to read into the statute. Saying otherwise is splitting hairs. If you can possess it, you can purchase, own or build it. Whether someone can sell it is a different question, but this gives cops purchase, ownership and build rights.

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.

Suspect class is not the only way to carry an EP claim. If you identify a fundamental right as implicated, some form of elevated scrutiny applies. This is why the SJC has been narrowly scoping the 2A right, so they can avoid having to pull back layers of the onion and look foolish in the process when there is little justifying the distinction or worse, that justification is a pack of lies. In order to avoid exposing the fraud and lies, the best option is to scope out of the right that which they don't want to be touched by it. This allows them the fait accompli of being right all of the time.

 

[daveshrews]

I called and left messages on Friday evening.
I emailed them this morning.
I will call again and try to actually speak to someone in their offices in a few minutes. Thanks for the info mbullism; I'll now refer to the new bill as S.2284.

I also contacted my gun owner friends and asked them to call. We have to keep the pressure on folks.

 

[JJ4]

I've seen at least 2 representatives reference that the bill will go to conference committee to hammer out the differences.

Is this even going to come up for a concurrence vote in the house for sure? Or is it straight to committee?

 

[daveshrews]

I just spoke to the assistant in Rep. Garballey's office, and he said the bill is "definitely on Garballey's radar" but he was unaware of it coming back to the House at this time. Does anyone know when it will be assigned a H.xxxx number, or what the timeline is for the reps to see the amended bill? He was very interested but has apparently not seen anything yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike S]

I've seen at least 2 representatives reference that the bill will go to conference committee to hammer out the differences.

Is this even going to come up for a concurrence vote in the house for sure? Or is it straight to committee?

It will get voted on, the house will either vote to send it to committee (disagree) or for it (in agreement) with the senate (concurrence)

- - - Updated - - -

I just spoke to the assistant in Rep. Garballey's office, and he said the bill is "definitely on Garballey's radar" but he was unaware of it coming back to the House at this time. Does anyone know when it will be assigned a H.xxxx number, or what the timeline is for the reps to see the amended bill? He was very interested but has apparently not seen anything yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They gave it a new "S" number for some reason, it's now S.2284, see a few posts above ^^^

 

[LoginName]

I've seen at least 2 representatives reference that the bill will go to conference committee to hammer out the differences.

Is this even going to come up for a concurrence vote in the house for sure? Or is it straight to committee?

According to the rules...

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 committees report recommending the compromise bill is not subject to amendment.

Step 12.Bill Enacted and Sent to Governor
A vote to enact by both legislative branches results in passage of the bill, with the newly-created Act sent to the governor. The governor has the authority to: sign the bill into law; allow the unsigned bill to become law; veto the legislation; or send the bill back to the Legislature with recommended amendments. A veto by the governor can be overridden with a two-thirds vote in both legislative branches.

https://malegislature.gov/Engage/HowIdeaBecomesLawText

And from GOAL's website...

Going forward, the legislation will return to the House for a concurrence vote. (Basically they will have to agree with the Senate vote and amendments and vote to reflect that agreement).

If the house disagrees and votes to reflect that they don't like the bill (concurrence is rejected), a bi-partisan conference committee of three members from each branch is appointed to craft a new 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.

http://www.goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html

I've read the same ambiguous comments/quotes myself... the bill going before the conference committee, but omitting the concurrence vote part.

Could be misquoting, poorly informed person or bending the rules (wouldn't be the first time they've done it).

 

[daveshrews]

Andddd just spoke to Mike at GOAL. He says that S.2284 is the correct current number (even though it will be in the House for a vote), and they are expecting a vote on Wednesday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LoginName]

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.

<sarcasm>Obviously the correct approach would have been to consult Ron Glidden for his opinion.</sarcasm>

 

[Mike S]

Andddd just spoke to Mike at GOAL. He says that S.2284 is the correct current number (even though it will be in the House for a vote), and they are expecting a vote on Wednesday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Expecting but have not confirmed.

- - - Updated - - -

According to the rules...



https://malegislature.gov/Engage/HowIdeaBecomesLawText

And from GOAL's website...



http://www.goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html

I've read the same ambiguous comments/quotes myself... the bill going before the conference committee, but omitting the concurrence vote part.

Could be misquoting, poorly informed person or bending the rules (wouldn't be the first time they've done it).

See my post above, it will get voted on, they vote on where it goes, if it winds up in committee it's by vote. Conference committee is where the majority of bills go to die and has been the graveyard of many pro 2A bills over the last 15+ years.

 

[Squire]

OP updated with link to new house bill.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2284

 

[JJ4]

Going to Facebook with some language to try to get some more people calling in to support concurrence:

The MA Senate has passed a bill that makes progress toward strengthening and reforming MA firearms laws. This bill ensures background checks have been performed for every firearms transaction, ensures that MA is compliant with the national background check system, offers resources to address serious mental health issues, supports making schools and communities safer, removes licensing requirements for pepper spray, and addresses some of the worst problems in current firearms licensing laws.
The amended senate version of the bill is S.2284. It now goes back to the MA House of Representatives for a concurrence vote.
Please call your state rep and tell them to SUPPORT concurrence vote on S.2284.
Find your legislator here: https://malegislature.gov/People/Search

Text of the bill: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2284

 

[The5thDentist]

Just called. Left a message on Ms. Campbell's voicemail urging concurrence vote. Let's call that call #1.

 

[rep308]

I exchanged emails with my State Rep and he stated that the police chiefs and stop handgun violence will be protesting taking the rifle authority away from the chiefs tomorrow, Tuesday the 22nd.

Seems like a good time to call to thank and encourage our supporters

 

[P-14]

Sent another e-mail to my Rep on the updated bill number and will call tomorrow.

 

[exo]

I exchanged emails with my State Rep and he stated that the police chiefs and stop handgun violence will be protesting taking the rifle authority away from the chiefs tomorrow, Tuesday the 22nd.

Seems like a good time to call to thank and encourage our supporters

I would disagree with how that is phrased... discretionary issuance of FIDs was removed from the bill, but the chief's today do not have that discretion.

 

[Rekonn]

I exchanged emails with my State Rep and he stated that the police chiefs and stop handgun violence will be protesting taking the rifle authority away from the chiefs tomorrow, Tuesday the 22nd.

Seems like a good time to call to thank and encourage our supporters

Does anyone know what time they will be protesting?

Btw, called Garballey's office today, went straight to voicemail, left message. Emailed again too.

 

[Horrible]

I exchanged emails with my State Rep and he stated that the police chiefs and stop handgun violence will be protesting taking the rifle authority away from the chiefs tomorrow, Tuesday the 22nd.

Seems like a good time to call to thank and encourage our supporters

Let me get this straight Stop HANDGUN Violence is protesting a change to a bill that doesn't affect HANDGUNS?!?!

Maybe they need to change their name?

I guess logic was never their strongsuit, anyway.

 

[jefftk]

Let me get this straight Stop HANDGUN Violence is protesting a change to a bill that doesn't affect HANDGUNS?!?!

Maybe they need to change their name?

I guess logic was never their strongsuit, anyway.

Yeah, they should just change their name or make a new group every year like Bloomberg does. That has proven to be successful for him.

 

[Mike S]

Let me get this straight Stop HANDGUN Violence is protesting a change to a bill that doesn't affect HANDGUNS?!?!

Maybe they need to change their name?

I guess logic was never their strongsuit, anyway.

They've made it very clear that they're far more interested in restricting freedom than they are in public safety.

Here's an update from State House News:

POLICE CHIEFS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACTIVISTS TO RALLY OVER GUN BILL
To show support for a measure stricken from gun legislation that cleared the Senate last week, police chiefs plan to rally outside the State House Tuesday with members of the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Jane Doe Inc. and Stop Handgun Violence. Former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis plans to join police at the rally, according to organizers, who say police chiefs will express their support for a measure that cleared the House and gives chiefs more discretion to deny rifle permits. Sen. James Timilty, a Walpole Democrat who carried the bill in the Senate and chairs the Legislature’s Public Safety Committee, said last week he supported removing the provision from the Senate bill. "This was something that I felt very strongly about," Timilty told reporters, stating that the amended bill would "reflect the constitution." Under current law, local licensing authorities must give people who pass a background check a firearms identification card. Police chiefs, however, have the discretion to issue a license to carry a handgun. The House bill proposed to extend the same discretion for handguns to firearm identification cards for rifles and shotguns. The Senate voted 28-10 on Thursday for a Sen. Michael Moore amendment to remove that section of the bill, while retaining the ability of police chiefs to deny FID cards if the applicant fits into a category on the prohibited persons list, such as someone convicted of a felony. The overall bill cleared the Senate on a voice vote, and is now likely destined for a conference committee. With ten days remaining for formal sessions, the House met for 12 minutes Monday and adjourned until Tuesday without naming gun bill negotiators. - M. Norton/SHNS

 

[Friday]

And folks wonder why NES is perceived as anti-cop?

 

[oldsoldier29]

So, how many FID holders have been convicted of gun crimes? 0? Less than a dozen? One doesn't correlate with the other, necessarily. Or, at all.

 

[delgrifith]

And folks wonder why NES is perceived as anti-cop?

Anti COP is understandable. How many moonbat mayors are forcing their Chiefs to attend this event.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goodzilla]

They've made it very clear that they're far more interested in restricting freedom than they are in public safety.

Here's an update from State House News:

POLICE CHIEFS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACTIVISTS TO RALLY OVER GUN BILL
To show support for a measure stricken from gun legislation that cleared the Senate last week, police chiefs plan to rally outside the State House Tuesday with members of the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Jane Doe Inc. and Stop Handgun Violence. Former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis plans to join police at the rally, according to organizers, who say police chiefs will express their support for a measure that cleared the House and gives chiefs more discretion to deny rifle permits.

Momentum seems to be swinging to moonbats on this one, with the press in full support.

My top three counter protest signs would be:
- "Tyrants Among Us"
- "Your Oath: Protect and Defend the Constitution, remember?"
- "FID Suitability = Will sue your town and YOU personally"

 

[rogues]

I sent my Rep a link to the FBI's 2010 crime statistics that showed in 2010 there was one Massachusetts homicide with a shotgun and there were zero with a rifle. The fact that there were 65 "unknown" to me said was more of an issue of police follow-up and investigation of gun crime. that they were unable to categorize the type of firearm used says they didn't try. Basically licensed FID card holders are not committing crimes.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls