House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[Lank]

You're going to hate this:

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4376

download the PDF:

https://malegislature.gov/Document/Bill/188/House/H4376.pdf

and search for "prohibited person"

You'll get eleventy-seven references, some of which are definitions. Each of those definitions will have twenty-thirteen clauses, most of which get repeated somewhere.

"A determination of unsuitability shall be based on a preponderance of evidence that 705 there exists: (A) reliable, articulable, and credible information that the applicant has exhibited or 706 engaged in behavior to suggest the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety; or 707 (B) existing factors that suggest that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety".

That's nice and open ended. This behaivor seems consistent with the agressive driving habits of MA State Troopah's traveling down rt 2 EVERY DAY.

This will get abused. Think twice about internet post, hand jesture, or think real hard about telling the libtard principal at your kids school how much of a shithead you think she is.

This Will Get Abusedx10^10

- - - Updated - - -

+1 since it will be the COP job to prove why you need to be restricted and with someone who has an 100% clean record and has jumped through all the necessary hoops. very interested in how this does play out

What about though/mind crimes?

Where will this end?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Does that mean "lawful permanent residency in MA" or "... in the US"?

Does that exclude anyone on a work visa or student visa? I'm guessing that "tourist visa" is pretty clearly not permanent.

Is "permanent resident" a term of art that's understood?

Permanent resident is green card. Other aliens in the US lawfully (students, investors,work, etc.) are still prohibited in MA. (But if they live outside of Mass they can get a non-resident LTC.)

 

[30Mauser]

Permanent resident is green card. Other aliens in the US lawfully (students, investors,work, etc.) are still prohibited in MA. (But if they live outside of Mass they can get a non-resident LTC.)

Yep, nice to see Fletcher codified.

 

[milktree]

Permanent resident is green card. Other aliens in the US lawfully (students, investors,work, etc.) are still prohibited in MA. (But if they live outside of Mass they can get a non-resident LTC.)

Huh... so legal (non permanent) aliens who live outside MA have more rights in MA than if they lived in MA.

That's special.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Huh... so legal (non permanent) aliens who live outside MA have more rights in MA than if they lived in MA.

That's special.

Pretty much. It's always been that way.

 

[Coyote33]

So it passed, right? Did Deval sign it yet?

DID he sign it yet?

Stand by folks, by not stopping them, you have only further empowered them. They will be back for more, count on it! They will use the same lame verbage of "We are only looking for reasonable gun laws and compromise. Why they won't compromise on safety we don't understand."

We need to take back the term "GUN SAFETY" as our own.

Senator Timility really impressed me. For a non-gunowner... and a Massachusetts Democrat at that... he seemed to actually get it... i.e., the notion that the 2nd Amendment actually means something. I appreciate his efforts on our behalf and I'll be letting him know that.

Here's Democratic Massachusetts Senator Michael Moore, at the shoot he sponsored at our club:

I was told years ago when I was active in the Mass Sportsmen's Council. That it is easier the get a bill killed then to get one passed. So that being said, Sorry, but you folks are out of juice. This got its momentum with the 1998 gun law and it is not going to stop, For your sakes I wish it would, But it isn't.

I disagree somewhat. I think you are right about 1998 and momentum, but I think a new class of gun owners (younger, and with AR-15's, instead of older hunters with over/unders) is going to help take things back. Plus, a WHOLE LOT of people have just had ENOUGH now.

How many gun owners live in west part of mass or up north part of mass how many of them don't have internet , don't know about GOAL or COMMA2
you putting up numbers but nothing to go with them

so for starters how many people has GOAL reached out to that's not a member? of the members that GOAL has how many payed for a friend ? where is the most member of GOAL central,west,north,south , how does GOAL get new members ? I remember when I frist joined GOAL it was because a cowork told me about them I had my lic for about 15 years before I know GOAL was around

I thought GOAL was going to hire a club liaison and PR person. They need to get word out to people. They also need to befriend the police. You know, how the NRA does police competitions? If GOAL did that, then they could build some friendships, and get some more support. Then the police can start INCLUDING GOAL as part of their safety and informative talks.

I spoke with a few gun owners who had no idea this was going on. Head in the sand? Tuned out? Don't care? I don't know but to have an impact these folks need to be engaged.

This is where our side needs to work harder. Stay tuned.

Without NES, I wouldnt have joined GOAL or donated to Comm2A. Being a new gun owner, I only knew about NRA and that is because I needed to be a member to join my gun club. I know several people that aren't on NES and they knew nothing about the bill or what GOAL and Comm2A do for us. They got a license, bought a gun and stuffed it in a safe. I would take an uneducated guess that is the majority of Gun owners in MA. Might have been me if I didnt bump into NES during a search.

See two points above.

I didn't read the bill, but I interpreted the statements made here in the last page or three to mean that pre-1994 would become banned. Can anybody confirm or refute this interpretation?

Interested in the answer here.

I'm having trouble keeping track of all the changes too, can someone confirm/edit this list of changes to gun rights?
I'm deliberately omitting anything that is about mental health or suicide prevention that doesn't apply to 2nd amendment issues.
...
- penalties for improper storage increased dramatically.

I assume all the "can't sell more than four a year" is unchanged, since I haven't heard anything about it. is that right?
...

What's the deal with storage?

You might want to clarify this part too: "The original bill would have drastically increased penalties for improper firearms storage, we were successful in removing this language."

The penalties for improper storage were increased (I would say drastically.)



Subsection (b) is currently: "a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

Subsection (c) is currently: "a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

Subsection (d) is currently: "a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years, nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

This does not clarify it at all for me. It is hard to tell what is current law, what the changes are, and where.

This sounds like an EP argument. The problem there is, the very fact that you are in a different town under a different licensing authority with a different policy kills any EP argument. The two parties are not similarly situated. No EP violation. Don't feel bad, most lawyers don't understand that distinction, much less people who read the words of the constitution using their plain english meaning.

But somewhere along the way a judge and then a few more judges until the supreme court decided to narrowly scope the equal protection clause to be mostly meaningless. Oh yeah, those were judges looking to protect racist and discriminatory laws aimed at blacks. Shocked? I thought not.

OK, so I figured out what "EP" stands for by reading a little more. I still have no clue what the above is trying to tell me.

Does that mean "lawful permanent residency in MA" or "... in the US"?

Does that exclude anyone on a work visa or student visa? I'm guessing that "tourist visa" is pretty clearly not permanent.

Is "permanent resident" a term of art that's understood?

i"m with ya
Can anyone tell me what the definition of a prohibited person is in this law?

You're going to hate this:

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4376

download the PDF:

https://malegislature.gov/Document/Bill/188/House/H4376.pdf

and search for "prohibited person"

You'll get eleventy-seven references, some of which are definitions. Each of those definitions will have twenty-thirteen clauses, most of which get repeated somewhere.

In my proposal to the committee at one of the hearings, I suggested they put in the MA laws a "Table of Definitions", which can then be referenced by all the other laws, so this stuff does not have to be repeated, and it can be easily found and clearly spelled out. I might still have the language for that bill/amendment somewhere.

 

[GlockJock]

There's no legal liability whatsoever for the CoP for the actions of LTC or FID holders

Yep, but I didn't mean "legal responsibility" ....I meant "public (and voters, who elect Mayors, who have to fire their CoP when the heat gets turned up a little to high cuz CoP ran his mouth off about something or approved the FID for the wingnut who blasted a shopping mall...

Here in Moonbat central, the court of public opinion is often more harsh and unforgiving than the legal system. Even in NH where the chief spoke the "N" word a little too loudly to someone while at a breakfast....probably nothing illegal or any "liability" involved, yet he was done before he had finished digesting his waffles...

 

[Garys]

A lot is different than it was in 1998. A big part of that is the Internet, another is as you say a lot of gun owners have had enough. There wasn't a lot of activity from our side in 1998 and I'd guess that most gun owners didn't get the word about that bill until it was too late.

This time, starting in January 0f 2013, there was a lot better communication and a lot better reaction. People actually showed up at rallies, wrote and called legislators, called and emailed other gun owners.

We can't ever make the mistake of not watching the goings on in the State House.

I disagree somewhat. I think you are right about 1998 and momentum, but I think a new class of gun owners (younger, and with AR-15's, instead of older hunters with over/unders) is going to help take things back. Plus, a WHOLE LOT of people have just had ENOUGH now.

 

[oldsoldier29]

That's nice and orwellian.

All police departments do this. It's part of the CAD system. When an officer is sent on a call, it's logged. The officer then writes a report that is attached to the log, if the call warranted one. Most departments in the us use this system, to my knowledge.

 

[milktree]

What's the deal with storage?

This does not clarify it at all for me. It is hard to tell what is current law, what the changes are, and where.

Chap. 140 Sec. 131L changes: (storage violations)

(b) [low capacity handgun, rifle, or shotgun]
old: fine $500 -$ 5,000 and/or jail up to 1 year
new: fine $1,000 - $7,500 and/or jail up to 1.5 years

(b) [large capacity or machine gun]
old: fine $1,000 - $10,000 and/or 1-10 years in jail
new: fine $2,000 - $15,000 and/or 1.5 - 12 years in jail

(c) [ low capacity rifle or shotgun, access by 18 years or younger ]
old: fine $1,000 - $10,000 and/or 1-10 years in jail
new: fine $2,500 - $15,000 and/or 1.5-12 years in jail

(d) [ high capacity rifle, shotgun, or machinegun, access by 18 years or younger]
old: fine $5,000 - $10,000 and/or 2.5-10 years in jail
new: fine $10,000 - $20,000 and/or 4-15 years in jail


So, from a practical standpoint it doesn't change *that* much; you're still a Federally Prohibited Person for a violation of (c) or (d) and the second clause of (b), and you're still not from the first clause of (b),, but the penalties have gone way up in terms of money and jail time.

It goes from "bad" to "more bad"

 

[Coyote33]

The first one says "up to", the rest do not. Is that in the law, or did you miss it?

As we all know, THIS is where "selective enforcement" comes into play.

Selective enforcement is where EVERYTHING comes into play, and why we have what is called a "grey area". The other thing is exemptions. Between now and January, I want to find all the police exemptions in the gun laws, and write up language to put in a bill removing those exemptions. Then we will see who is on our side. Anybody "IN"?

 

[milktree]

The first one says "up to", the rest do not. Is that in the law, or did you miss it?

I looked at the legislation and the current law:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131L

vs.

https://malegislature.gov/Document/Bill/188/House/H4376.pdf (line 1,195 or page 35)

"up to" is readable shorthand for "not more than", or "zero to..."

I wanted to make it readable and understandable, not quote the garbage they wrote.

 

[Coyote33]

So only the first one has the "up to"?

 

[milktree]

So only the first one has the "up to"?

I honestly don't know what you're asking.

Are you making a distinction between "zero to one years" and "zero to 364 days" ?

The language they use is "not more than...", but I can't see the difference between "not more than" and "up to"

 

[MA_Shooter]

Are you making a distinction between "zero to one years" and "zero to 364 days" ?

The language they use is "not more than...", but I can't see the difference between "not more than" and "up to"

Either way, it doesn't affect the criminals, only people trying to abide by the law who ultimately get hosed.

 

[Coyote33]

I honestly don't know what you're asking.

Are you making a distinction between "zero to one years" and "zero to 364 days" ?

The language they use is "not more than...", but I can't see the difference between "not more than" and "up to"

You gave an (a)(b)(c)(d). You only showed the "up to" on (a).

I just wanted to know if that was the only one with the "up to", or if you somehow typo'd it out of the others.

 

[milktree]

You gave an (a)(b)(c)(d). You only showed the "up to" on (a).

I just wanted to know if that was the only one with the "up to", or if you somehow typo'd it out of the others.

Huh? Is English your first language?

What do you think "1.5-12 years" means?

To me that means "at least one and a half years, up to 12 years"

Or perhaps "not less than 1½ years nor more than 12 years" is better. (the actual language)

To me they're all the same.


I didn't quote the law or legislation because the wording is deliberately precise/complex in a way that makes it hard to understand.
So I translated it to common usage English. I don't see where the confusion is.

Oh, there's no (a), (b) is there twice because it has two sections; one for low capacity, one for high capacity and machineguns.

 

[Coyote33]

Chap. 140 Sec. 131L changes: (storage violations)

(b) [low capacity handgun, rifle, or shotgun]
old: fine $500 -$ 5,000 and/or jail up to 1 year
new: fine $1,000 - $7,500 and/or jail up to 1.5 years

(b) [large capacity or machine gun]
old: fine $1,000 - $10,000 and/or 1-10 years in jail
new: fine $2,000 - $15,000 and/or 1.5 - 12 years in jail

(c) [ low capacity rifle or shotgun, access by 18 years or younger ]
old: fine $1,000 - $10,000 and/or 1-10 years in jail
new: fine $2,500 - $15,000 and/or 1.5-12 years in jail

(d) [ high capacity rifle, shotgun, or machinegun, access by 18 years or younger]
old: fine $5,000 - $10,000 and/or 2.5-10 years in jail
new: fine $10,000 - $20,000 and/or 4-15 years in jail


So, from a practical standpoint it doesn't change *that* much; you're still a Federally Prohibited Person for a violation of (c) or (d) and the second clause of (b), and you're still not from the first clause of (b),, but the penalties have gone way up in terms of money and jail time.

It goes from "bad" to "more bad"

I only see it in ONE place. That implies there could be NO time in jail, only for that first item (a).

 

[milktree]

I only see it in ONE place. That implies there could be NO time in jail, only for that first item (a).

Yes, that's exactly correct. zero to one year now, zero to 1.5 years under the new law.

 

[Coyote33]

But only for that one section. I just wanted to make sure. Usually, those things carry through all the different ones. Thank you.

 

[amb]

There aren't any Massachusetts laws preventing that, but I suspect there are a ton more Federal laws and ATF regulations that make it *way* harder than your note suggests.

This isn't exactly that, but I've done personal importations on an ATF form 6 and it wasn't any kind of big deal, it just took a while for the paperwork to come back. That was for hardware that qualified as "sporting arms"; not sure the average C&R gun would qualify, but best to grind through the regs yourself since it's less-than-straightforward:

http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms...import-firearms-ammunition-and-implements-war

 

[Palladin]

http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_26271680/legislators-approve-changes-gun-laws

 

[dixidawg]

Not a chance. Ambassador Patrick on deck. I'm guessing it won't be Ireland though. Where do you suppose he'd like to travel? That's the one.

Supreme Court Justice Patrick.

 

[LoginName]

http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_26271680/legislators-approve-changes-gun-laws

Looks like Patrick got his ass handed to him on this one...

HEROIN (H 4001): The House (151-1) and Senate (35-5) overrode Gov. Deval Patrick's veto of an increase from 20 to 30 years in the maximum sentence for trafficking between 18 and 99 grams of heroin.

 

[soloman02]

Can someone explain or point me to an article that explains the bad stuff in this bill?

GOAL's press release doesn't actually mention anything "bad" about the bill...

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

I don't have time to read the last 400+ posts to figure out what the bad things are. Is there a TLDR version somewhere?

 

[jefftk]

Can someone explain or point me to an article that explains the bad stuff in this bill?

GOAL's press release doesn't actually mention anything "bad" about the bill...

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

I don't have time to read the last 400+ posts to figure out what the bad things are. Is there a TLDR version somewhere?

Off the top of my head:
Police now have the ability to deny FID cards (although there is some semblance/facade of oversight/due process)
Increased penalties for having a gun on school grounds, and - I think - increased penalties for safe storage violations.
Some bullshit about having to affirm that you have not lost any firearms on renewal (might not be bad, but certainly can't be good)
New private transfer web portal - will do away with paper forms (bad), TBD whether better or worse than e-fa10.

 

[exo]

New private transfer web portal - will do away with paper forms (bad), TBD whether better or worse than e-fa10.

Worse, because even with eFA-10 the seller still has 7 days to report the sale, which can help work around lack of internet issues.

With this bill, reporting is required immediately prior to or at the point of sale.

 

[mbullism]

Worse, because even with eFA-10 the seller still has 7 days to report the sale, which can help work around lack of internet issues.

With this bill, reporting is required immediately prior to or at the point of sale.

Instead of recording the transaction, it's more akin to asking for permission- .

frankly, the devil in the details will be how smoothly the system runs (imo)... if a legal transaction between two legally licensed parties gets gummed up because the web portal runs like the health care portal, things will get interesting.

.02

 

[Mike S]

Worse, because even with eFA-10 the seller still has 7 days to report the sale, which can help work around lack of internet issues.

With this bill, reporting is required immediately prior to or at the point of sale.

how are they going to know if the info is input a week later?

 

[Bill Katt]

Has this been signed by the midget yet?