-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
How will the new gun laws effect LEO's if passed??
- Thread starter mtsfitness
- Start date
Knob Creek
NES Member
I had heard that there was a effort to effort to exempt current and retired LEO's from limits on magazine capacity. But not sure if it was included in this bill or elsewhere.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
As usual, the legislature trying to make some more equal than others.
In God We Trust
NES Member
The more people that are exempt from a law by statute let's you know how crappy the law is.
If cops were not exempt, the union and chiefs would not support it. Don't blame the cops, blame the legislature.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
Umm, I did.
Pretty sure that justifies blaming the cops too.
In God We Trust
NES Member
Yeah you may be correct
I am sure the cops are def.pushing the issue.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
No doubt, but it's the legislature that is the biggest problem child in MA. Every one of them needs to be replaced and most should be in prison.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
I'm willing to bet that at least 95% of cops have no clue that this was even in the bill.
Knob Creek
NES Member
Well the Leo's are clearly firearm experts. They carry guns so the must be the expert authority. They drive cars so they must be Professional Nascar drivers. And they use computers so they must be programers. They frequent Dunkin Donuts so they must Culinary Chefs. They use radios so they must be Ham Radio licensed. And so forth....
Understand that the average cop isn't a gun person, could care less and would honestly prefer not to have to carry one. Most are happy to give them back when they hang it up. And they won't spend a dime out of their own pocket for ammo (to practice or carry additional) or mags to ensure that they don't ever run out if they were to get into a firefight.
The only LEOs who really will benefit from this (whether we like it or not) are those cops that are gun people, belong to gun clubs, carry off-duty (very, very tiny percentage in MA), carry extra mags and ammo (bought at their own expense) with them on duty at all times (just in case), etc. The cops that are active on forums such as this will benefit. 6 to 12 months from now I could go up to all but 3 officers in my department and mention this law and I KNOW that it will be the first time they would have ever heard about it.
MA chiefs do a lot to dissuade their troops from carrying off-duty, impair their ability to comply with LEOSA and some rarely (if ever) issue LEOSA-compliant retired IDs. MCOPA lobbied hard AGAINST LEOSA, so if anyone thinks that those same dinosaurs want this special privilege for their officers (who in general they don't give a damn about), think again. I don't know where this modification of the bill started, but I'm sure that it wasn't MCOPA based on their past actions.
mtsfitness
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 227
- Likes
- 42
LenS
Looking over the Bill it says that Amendment 17 was "adopted" and states "SECTION _. Section 131M of chapter 140 of the 2012 official edition of the General Laws is hereby amended, in line 12, by striking out the words:- 'for purposes of law enforcement'"
Which would change the current text...
Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, 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, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; 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.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Looking over the Bill it says that Amendment 17 was "adopted" and states "SECTION _. Section 131M of chapter 140 of the 2012 official edition of the General Laws is hereby amended, in line 12, by striking out the words:- 'for purposes of law enforcement'"
Which would change the current text...
Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, 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, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; 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.
Am I understanding that correctly?
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Here is my two cents. Under the current opinion that most-but not all folks have-the police have a favorable opinion. But that opinion is creeping toward negative. You can see it with the de-funding of the Quinn bill and the push to use flag men for construction work instead of police.
This happened because people became educated about the crazy salaries they were making and saw the police sleeping, talking on their phone, or just not really doing too much at construction sites. Once people really see the truth, that's when change happens. One of the things that has really been putting the spotlight on police is camera/video phones. It's a real concern for them since you can't argue with video. Mass does not allow audio recording without permission but video without sound in a public place is allowed. This is the key to changing people's perceptions of the police department both good and bad. Plenty of examples on youtube.
This happened because people became educated about the crazy salaries they were making and saw the police sleeping, talking on their phone, or just not really doing too much at construction sites. Once people really see the truth, that's when change happens. One of the things that has really been putting the spotlight on police is camera/video phones. It's a real concern for them since you can't argue with video. Mass does not allow audio recording without permission but video without sound in a public place is allowed. This is the key to changing people's perceptions of the police department both good and bad. Plenty of examples on youtube.
mpd61
NES Member
Isn't the first part a good thing? A group of persons authorized/trained + self-motivated to be more proficient with weapons?
Agreed that MassChiefs loathe to do the right thing regarding off-duty carry. Ron Glidden has spread that evil spell quite well....
Ron Glidden is a coward.
Sincerely,
Derek Hoskins
I'm not hard to find Ron. I know how much you hate people calling you out for the coward you are and not being able to find them.
Sincerely,
Derek Hoskins
I'm not hard to find Ron. I know how much you hate people calling you out for the coward you are and not being able to find them.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 443
- Likes
- 49
QFT 100%. I had a conversation with a co-worker a couple years ago and started talking about AR-15's, long story short he didn't even know MA had an assault weapons ban.
In God We Trust
NES Member
I'm curious about this also. Was this in the final draft and did it get passed through?
Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk
mtsfitness
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 227
- Likes
- 42
I do not know... The only mention of it in the information I read was of it being "adopted". I have asked this question in a few different areas and have not received a definite answer... If I dont get an answer I guess I will have to wait until the bill is signed and see if the text of the law on the states website reflects the change.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
Incorrect.
Surreptitious recording is unlawful. Permission is not required if both parties know they are being recorded.
The distinction is an important one.
In God We Trust
NES Member
Sorry I can't link threads from my kindle. However in the GOAL thread someone had posted the revised law. The line "for the purpose of law enforcement" was removed in regard to carrying high cap mags off duty.
Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk
In God We Trust
NES Member
I know but it appears that this was the final language as it stands?
From DCJIS letter to MA gun dealersEFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY:
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/dcjis/
1. Massachusetts firearms dealers are required to perform criminal offender record information (CORI) checks prior to hiring any person who has “direct and unmonitored” contact with firearms to determine the suitability of the employee. Further, dealers must run a CORI check on all current employees by no later than February 16, 2015.
To obtain CORI checks, the licensee must first register as an employer on the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) iCORI system. To register, go to https://icori.chs.state.ma.us and follow the instructions. A fee of $25 dollars will be charged for each name submitted for a CORI check.
Important: after you have registered in iCORI, you must call the DCJIS Legal Unit at 617.660.4760 to obtain the proper CORI access level, as provided by H4376.
2. Firearms license no longer needed for most individuals to purchase and possess pepper/self-defense spray.
Firearms dealers may sell self-defense sprays to any person age 18 or over, unless otherwise disqualified. A firearms identification (FID) card or license to carry firearms (LTC) is not required for purchase. However, dealers should verify age with a valid form
Individuals between the ages of 15 and 18 must still have a valid firearms identification (FID) card to purchase self-defense spray.
Except for verifying age, a dealer is not required to determine whether or not a purchaser is disqualified from possessing self-defense spray. However, a licensee must not sell to any individual that he/she knows to be disqualified. There is no crime, other than selling to a minor without a proper FID card, if a dealer sells self-defense spray to a disqualified individual.
3. Law enforcement officers are now exempt from the assault weapon and large capacity feeding device ban.
Active law enforcement officers may now purchase assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices. Firearms sold must still appear on the Approved Firearms Roster, and officers must present proof of employment.
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/dcjis/
1. Massachusetts firearms dealers are required to perform criminal offender record information (CORI) checks prior to hiring any person who has “direct and unmonitored” contact with firearms to determine the suitability of the employee. Further, dealers must run a CORI check on all current employees by no later than February 16, 2015.
To obtain CORI checks, the licensee must first register as an employer on the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) iCORI system. To register, go to https://icori.chs.state.ma.us and follow the instructions. A fee of $25 dollars will be charged for each name submitted for a CORI check.
Important: after you have registered in iCORI, you must call the DCJIS Legal Unit at 617.660.4760 to obtain the proper CORI access level, as provided by H4376.
2. Firearms license no longer needed for most individuals to purchase and possess pepper/self-defense spray.
Firearms dealers may sell self-defense sprays to any person age 18 or over, unless otherwise disqualified. A firearms identification (FID) card or license to carry firearms (LTC) is not required for purchase. However, dealers should verify age with a valid form
Individuals between the ages of 15 and 18 must still have a valid firearms identification (FID) card to purchase self-defense spray.
Except for verifying age, a dealer is not required to determine whether or not a purchaser is disqualified from possessing self-defense spray. However, a licensee must not sell to any individual that he/she knows to be disqualified. There is no crime, other than selling to a minor without a proper FID card, if a dealer sells self-defense spray to a disqualified individual.
3. Law enforcement officers are now exempt from the assault weapon and large capacity feeding device ban.
Active law enforcement officers may now purchase assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices. Firearms sold must still appear on the Approved Firearms Roster, and officers must present proof of employment.
So, are you saying it is OK to record video AND audio, as long as you tell them first? I thought they had to agree to it.
A step. Now to allow the rest of us to do the same. Then, to peel back away the rest of the stupid AW laws.
See Glik v. Cuniffe on recording Audio and video of public officials in public areas
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe. At least in MA
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe. At least in MA
Last edited:
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
