House votes to knock $60 off gun license fee

The Heller decision potentially opens up MA to lawsuits for charging for a Constitutional freedom - and the politicians will be stuck with a HUGE problem if the anti state income question passes.
Click to expand...

No they won't. They will simply vote to put the income tax back in place, and not a single one of them will be voted out as a result. Just look at what happened with the rollback of the so-called temporary tax, or the referendum based repeal of the seat belt law.
 
This is awesome news!!!!

Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre is my representive and I've contacted him several times with great response. In my amazement a Democtrat that is hugely pro-gun but is a great reason why I'm an Independent. If a Democrat or a Republican is Pro-gun then they will most likely get my vote. Too bad we didn't have more pro-gun politicians on our side.
 
http://www.telegram.com/article/20080730/NEWS/807300516/1116

Fees cut for gun licenses

Gov.’s bid to raise them is rejected

By John J. Monahan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]


BOSTON— The House last night shot down the governor’s proposal to raise gun licensing fees from $100 to $250, and then went one step further, voting to slash the license fees to $40.

State Rep. George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton, an avid sportsman, moved to roll back the state fee for gun licenses and Firearm Identification Cards after Democrats agreed not to go along with Gov. Deval L. Patrick’s proposal to raise them.

Mr. Peterson said his idea was to roll the gun license fees back to the 2001 level, before Gov. Mitt Romney and the Legislature raised them to $100 during the 2002 state fiscal crisis.


The fees are charged every six years for renewal of those licenses and FID cards.

“Raising it to $250 was a backdoor way to drive people from their ability to own firearms,” Mr. Peterson said of his view of the proposed increase.

He said for a couple with two children who also enjoy shooting sports, the governor’s proposed fee could have cost the household $1,000 for license renewals. “In some cases it could drive people to give up their right to have firearms,” Mr. Peterson said. He said the $40 fee more appropriately reflects the cost of issuing the licenses.

The rollback, however, has a ways to go to be put in place.

It will be sent to the Senate as part of a supplemental spending bill and if it survives there, would go to the governor’s desk. “I don’t know whether the governor would veto this or not,” Mr. Peterson said.

For his part, he said he was happy to see the House knock down the proposed increase and he took a shot at getting them to cut the fee.

“I took the chance we might be able to convince a few more people that it would be the right thing to do and it worked,” Mr. Peterson said of the 97-57 vote in favor of reducing the fees.

As a member of the minority party, he said, “There are very few times I get wins on recorded votes in the House. I feel very good.”


Pay attention to this moron in the Comments section:

In my usual 'contrarian' role on these forums, I have to ask the questions. Do we really want to do all we can do to make gun ownership more affordable and to make guns easier to obtain? Isn't there already enough gun violence on the streets of our cities and towns without further 'incentives' to purchase guns and gun licenses?

Yeah, I know, the right to bear arms and guns don't kill, people kill, etc., etc.

The second amendment reads 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In the context of a 'well regulated Militia,' I am thinking that our forefathers didn't figure that the citizens of the country would be using the vast proliferation of everything from hand guns to assault weapons to wreak havoc and mayhem on fellow citizens.

I didn't support raising the license fee from $100 to $250 as yet another 'revenue enhancement' opportunity, but what is the rationale for rolling it back to 2001 levels ($40). Is Massachusetts going to be the Wal-Mart of firearms? I'd rather see gas prices rolled back to 2001 levels.

-Wingtips
Click to expand...
 
LenS said:
Well, the catch is that the Senate has to agree . . . then the Gov has to sign it into law.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether this passes or not...this is a victory for gun owners. The mere fact that this won on any level is signs of possible change. With more and more gun owners, and more and more court decisions favoring firearms ownership, I have some faith we can eventually see some change. All we need to do is to vote some good candidates into office, instead of that bozo Deval.
 
I think that there are a number of factors at work here. Many House members are really PO'ed that any controversial bills have been filed this close to an election. They much prefer to have stuff like this come up early in the first year of the new session. That way, they can spend the next year or so doing favors and hoping that the electorate forgets the stuff (like killing a death penalty bill, raising taxes, giving themselves raises) that pissed them off.

Also, I get the feeling that the Governor isn't the most popular person in the General Court and that some House members (maybe even the speaker) aren't adverse to poking him in the eye with a sharp stick.

Either way, I hope this does pass both House and that Deval is forced to sign it!

Jim, I don't know that there is a line item veto in MA.
 
This simply demonstrates that it doesn't matter who the governor is, the legislature will oppose him/her just on principle.
 
Garys said:
I think that there are a number of factors at work here. Many House members are really PO'ed that any controversial bills have been filed this close to an election. They much prefer to have stuff like this come up early in the first year of the new session. That way, they can spend the next year or so doing favors and hoping that the electorate forgets the stuff (like killing a death penalty bill, raising taxes, giving themselves raises) that pissed them off.

Also, I get the feeling that the Governor isn't the most popular person in the General Court and that some House members (maybe even the speaker) aren't adverse to poking him in the eye with a sharp stick.

Either way, I hope this does pass both House and that Deval is forced to sign it!

Jim, I don't know that there is a line item veto in MA.
Click to expand...

Also, I think all of our phone calls about the fee increase have helped convince the representatives that the Governor's proposal would cost them votes in the fall.

Massachusetts does have a line item veto. Whether or not it applies to this legislation is not clear to me.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
No they won't. They will simply vote to put the income tax back in place, and not a single one of them will be voted out as a result. Just look at what happened with the rollback of the so-called temporary tax, or the referendum based repeal of the seat belt law.
Click to expand...

I believe you are probably correct in that assessment - but there will still be fallout if they decide to do that. If MA residents vote for getting rid of the income tax - and the govt. disregards it , people will add that straw to the camels' back and decide whether or not it is enough to finally say what MrTwigg is saying : "f*** this - I am leaving this state". With the budget problems this state has - this dumbass govt. cannot afford to lose any more people who actually have jobs and pay taxes - which would be exactly the kind of people who would vote against the income tax.

If the politicians decide to completely disregard a ballot question like that it also makes it completely obvious that they do not obey the voter. While you and I already know this - there are a lot of people still living under the delusion that politicians DO respond to the will of the voter. Anything that throws a monkey wrench into those people's distorted view of reality is a good thing in my opinion.


[ Rock ] - MA Govt. + liberals - [ hard place ]
 
calsdad said:
I think this is fallout from two things - the upcoming referendum on the income tax in MA - and the Heller decision.

The Heller decision potentially opens up MA to lawsuits for charging for a Constitutional freedom - and the politicians will be stuck with a HUGE problem if the anti state income question passes.

Keep ratcheting up the pressure on these jokers - it looks like it actually works.
Click to expand...

Bingo! I was thinking exactly the same thing when I heard the news.

It also goes to prove that great minds think alike. [laugh]
 
The senate still needs to approve.... but based on the senate usually being easier to pass thing then the house... i think i will.

Now, if Mr. patrick vetos it a number of things can happen.

- we all contact our reps again and ask them to override the governor.
- they override hima and basically tell him to get bent.
- it simply dies and fails... but at the very least, we will not see a fee increase and thus no change. Not a total victory... but a battle won.

I'm still just happy that it seems that we may actually have a chance to make some head way here.
 
If i am correct, didn't the scotus rule back in the 40's that a "right" may not be licensed and chartged a fee? I beleive someone posted that here in another thread.

Well, if that's true, then we have a good chance of eliminating the licensing and any fees associated with firearms once it gets applied to the states.
 
calsdad said:
If the politicians decide to completely disregard a ballot question like that it also makes it completely obvious that they do not obey the voter. While you and I already know this - there are a lot of people still living under the delusion that politicians DO respond to the will of the voter. Anything that throws a monkey wrench into those people's distorted view of reality is a good thing in my opinion.


[ Rock ] - MA Govt. + liberals - [ hard place ]
Click to expand...

Well stated. I'll repeat what I have said before: incumbent politicians only really understand two things:

1) Not getting re-elected
2) No money to fritter away

Maybe, just maybe, people will start to realize that our state government is broken.

I'll keep my fingers crossed...except for my trigger finger. [wink]
 

Similar threads

Gunbroker 1% "Compliance Fee"
Replies
29
Views
730
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
33
Views
771
40 Creedmoor fan
4
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
113
Reptile
Reptile
Washington Transfers Seized Firearms to Ukraine as House GOP Continues Opposition to More Funding
Replies
7
Views
161
Animal357
A
California Dems Push Bill Requiring Guns to Be Registered Annually, with a Fee
Replies
7
Views
350
bigbravehog
bigbravehog
Back
Top Bottom