House votes to knock $60 off gun license fee

Is there a dentist somewhere in this forum??? Help, my jaw is stuck to the floor!

Alas, I will have to eat my words calling GOAL impotent and too little too late and send in my $30 membership fee now...
 
Last edited:
Big_Red said:
Never thought I would see the day when something like this happened in MA. Although the skeptic in me keeps wondering...What's the catch?
Click to expand...

The catch? Guess you didn't read the fine print. The Deval slipped in a amendment in the wee hours of the morning requiring a "complete" set of 11 fingerprints to receive a license.
 
Damnit what happened im to young to get Alzheimers.
I know it runs in the family but i know i must have finally lost it.
Mass politicians actually siding with the gun owners rights in Massachusetts.
It just cant be .

Better call the doctor and tell him that ive gone off the deep end.

Seriously this is totally out of left field and i can only hope the Senate will follow up and pass this.

Keeps fingers crossed!!!!!
 
Jay G said:
And that, my friend, is EXACTLY the reaction they wanted.

We're happy because the UNCONSTITUTIONAL firearm permit fee is ONLY $100.

Doesn't that just kick you in the balls?
Click to expand...

We have a winner. If it was a CCW permit, the fee would technically be constitutional. But, it's an OWNER's permit, and therefore cannot be charged for.

Time to get the challenge up, folks.
 
LenS said:
But . . . usually if the House and Senate pass different versions of a bill, it goes to a Conference Committee to hash out the differences (this is where the Ch. 180 bill got totally re-written) and then gets voted on again in both chambers.

Not sure, given the short time on what they will do however.
Click to expand...

That was my impression -- that it then went to a conference committee where they hashed out the differences.
 
Jay G said:
And that, my friend, is EXACTLY the reaction they wanted.

We're happy because the UNCONSTITUTIONAL firearm permit fee is ONLY $100.

Doesn't that just kick you in the balls?
Click to expand...

True but lowering the cost kind of came out of nowhere. Originally it was raising it or leaving it. Lowering/eliminating the cost is the ultimate goal but that is going to take a lot more then a "shot in the dark" amendment in the house, probably a lawsuit. Don't get me wrong I am not happy with this just not as upset as I would have been if the cost was raised.

Massachusetts being Massachusetts...
 
It is unconstitutional

Jay G said:
And that, my friend, is EXACTLY the reaction they wanted.

We're happy because the UNCONSTITUTIONAL firearm permit fee is ONLY $100.

Doesn't that just kick you in the balls?
Click to expand...

Looking at Murdock and Heller reasonably.

A LTC to possess or open carry a weapon or firearm is unconsitutional. They can have their LTC, but it could constitutionally only apply to concealed carry. I can live with that. Honestly, I'd rather just open carry around Haavad (Harvard in Boston speak) and aggrivate all the libs. If they can "come out of the closet" then so should gunowners :)

GOAL needs to sue I'm tired of MA's crappy laws.

Also, the AWB can go too. "assault weapons" and high cap mags are in common use. These laws are doomed if people play their cards right.
 
The point was that it didn't come out of nowhere. George Peterson simply proposed an amendment that incorporated the GOAL bill's fee reduction into Coupe Devall's budget bill.
 
Update from the State House

Legislative Update - Action Alert

July 30, 2008


S.1401 "AN ACT prohibiting the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a state of emergency"


S.1401 has been passed by the Senate but still awaits action by the House. The bill needs to be acted on before midnight Thursday. GOAL members are urged to contact their local Representatives quickly and ask them to pass S.1401 "AN ACT prohibiting the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a state of emergency"

Governor's Fee Increase Proposal


Early Wednesday morning the Senate took up the Governor's supplemental budget proposal H.5022 . Unfortunately the bill was amended in committee to remove the language lowering the fees to $40 before reaching the Senate floor . However, the Governor's proposed increases were also removed. In the end the fees remain the same which is still a tremendous victory for lawful gun owners having sent a very strong message to the Governor.


House Resolution


The senate decided not to take part in the resolution offered by Rep. George Peterson recognizing the Heller decision and so it was offered as a House resolution only. The resolution was amended to remove the references to Article XVII of the Massachusetts Constitution because the U.S. Supreme Court didn't rule on that matter. After being amended, the House voted 115 - 40 to approve the resolution! A very strong showing for the recognition of the Second Amendment Ruling.
 
Thanks Jim. I guess we all have to push a little harder, make more phone calls and write more letters. We have a long way to go.

I know I'd really like to be able to have an unlocked gun in my nightstand at night.

Thanks for your efforts.
 
KMaurer said:
The point was that it didn't come out of nowhere. George Peterson simply proposed an amendment that incorporated the GOAL bill's fee reduction into Coupe Devall's budget bill.
Click to expand...

All I am saying is that nobody knew anything about it (except maybe the "inner circle").

Hopefully people like Rep. Peterson keep pushing for our freedoms.

Thanks Jim and GOAL for all the hard work on this.
 
Mikey said:
All I am saying is that nobody knew anything about it (except maybe the "inner circle").

Hopefully people like Rep. Peterson keep pushing for our freedoms.
Click to expand...

LOTS of us knew about the reduction proposal. It was "reported" here on NES many months ago. It just didn't go anywhere when GOAL proposed it.

Rep. Peterson is a staunch GOAL supporter. He attends the GOAL Banquet (at least back when we only held 1/year) and is a very down-to-earth guy to talk with. He also proves that you can't use "labels" (D) to determine who your enemies are, you actually need to know something about them and where they stand on your issues.
 
Thanks for the update GOAL... I made my phone call yesterday morning regarding these matters and hope it helped the cause.
 
LenS said:
LOTS of us knew about the reduction proposal. It was "reported" here on NES many months ago. It just didn't go anywhere when GOAL proposed it.

Rep. Peterson is a staunch GOAL supporter. He attends the GOAL Banquet (at least back when we only held 1/year) and is a very down-to-earth guy to talk with. He also proves that you can't use "labels" (D) to determine who your enemies are, you actually need to know something about them and where they stand on your issues.
Click to expand...

We all knew about the proposal many months ago, MOST if not all of us had no idea Rep. Peterson was going to file a similar amendment to the governor's bill. He did a great thing and I just wish we knew he was going to so people could have pushed it with their Senators. The bill by GOAL died many months ago and is a different matter then this.

Isn't Rep. Peterson a Republican?
 
M1911 said:
Yes, he is. He's a great guy. Very down to earth. I met him at a time for Sue Pope a couple years back. We had a great chat.
Click to expand...

Whoops, that's what I get for not checking each time before posting! [smile]

Got him mixed up with a few other Dems who attend the GOAL functions (George is there too, I know him on sight).

Legislators "look for an opportunity" to pull a rabbit out of the hat. This was George's. Ch. 180 was someone else's! It's not like he can lay out a plan that on day x-1 he's going to file such and such as an amendment.
 

Similar threads

Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
92
Reptile
Reptile
Washington Transfers Seized Firearms to Ukraine as House GOP Continues Opposition to More Funding
Replies
7
Views
140
Animal357
A
California Dems Push Bill Requiring Guns to Be Registered Annually, with a Fee
Replies
7
Views
310
bigbravehog
bigbravehog
Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: Democrat House Member Pushes ‘Zombie Gun’ Ban
Replies
10
Views
438
quinnjalan
quinnjalan
What not to do with your new gun.
Replies
28
Views
768
jct61765
jct61765
Back
Top Bottom