Has anyone, (outside GOAL of course), really read this bill? I'm on page 19 of 48 and I'm seeing areas that are difficult to support....Perhaps my feelings are preliminary and I need to reread, but is everyone really okay with this bill? Really?
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
IMPORTANT NOTICE for all gunowners House Bill H2259
- Thread starter henchmen77
- Start date
It's been a while, but I have - any specifics?
There was definitely some stuff in there that I brushed aside as the usual "no legislation is perfect", but on balance is far less imperfect than what we have...
P.S. MassMark, I know we'd all like to impeach everyone currently in office and start over, but the reality of today is that to pass, the laws must have answer for the Fudds and ninnies of this state. Simply stating the obvious SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, obviously isn't working...
Moreover if Heller is incorporated, many of these provisions will need to be revisited and refined further in our favor as a result.
Moreover if Heller is incorporated, many of these provisions will need to be revisited and refined further in our favor as a result.
Last edited:
I'm through it now and there are some areas that are not easy to just brush aside. It's late, so I'll have to print this out and go through it with a highlighter to get really specific, but preliminarily it seems to give some broad strokes to firearms definitions and if I read it right, screws people who build firearms, (i.e. buying blank frames and building into complete guns). I also see a separation of LEO's from the citizenry - making them exempt from obtaining an FID/LTC like the rest of us....I also see what seems to be a broad acceptance to seize firearms and or make it compulsory to turn in firearms. It also seems to paint a broad stroke on "prohibited persons". I'm also extremely bothered by GOAL's support of the transportation restrictions in your vehicle, (direct control). It leaves too much room for interpretation and does not seem to give me the freedom to carry a loaded weapon, say, in my glove box or console. There are some good things in there with regards to crime and punishment, defense of home etc, but as a whole, I'm not seeing this as a giant leap forward...I'm seeing it as something chock full of compromise and somewhat restrictive. Maybe I need to sleep on it.....
Keep in mind with everything that I say, that my personal opinion is that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" should be all that need be said. There should be required in every felony conviction a specific finding that this person's sentence includes the revocation of 2A rights (EXPLICITLY)...
Now on to the sausage making of legislation:
In short, being a LEO should require MORE stringent background check and as such if you don't qualify for a "shall issue" license you should not be a LEO...
See the logic here? It does make sense inasmuch as licensing non-felon adults at all makes sense... [sad2]
Also note the classification of this as a "CIVIL PENALTY" instead of a criminal one. So, no revocation of license and being hauled off to the pokey as a result of all the crude interpretation and poor knowledge of the law...
Mark, BELIEVE ME, this is not a law I would write... But, it might be a law that MA would pass which goes a long way to making things better...
Now on to the sausage making of legislation:
Specific section? Broadly, there seemed to be an attempt to incorporate Federal/ATF language here. I didn't notice anything on manufacturing, but neither state nor Federal Law is kind to that behavior despite its lack of true interstate nature if done for personal use.
In a "shall issue" state this is pretty pro-forma - if the only thing that stops you from getting an LTC/FID is the federal definition of "prohibited person" which requires due process and a judment by the courts, then this too would prevent you from being a LEO in most instances.MassMark said:
In short, being a LEO should require MORE stringent background check and as such if you don't qualify for a "shall issue" license you should not be a LEO...
See the logic here? It does make sense inasmuch as licensing non-felon adults at all makes sense... [sad2]
Keep in mind the "for cause" and other definitions in there - IANAL, but unless I missed something there, the language is intended to describe what happens when they get a court order - at which point it attempts to make the seizure a little more asset friendly. Sadly, it sets a much higher bar on the state than exists right now...MassMark said:
The definition in there VERY closely mirrors the Federal/BATFE definition - perhaps even "word-for-word" - it looks quite similar to the Form 4473 language at a glance.MassMark said:
The "direct control" comment, I thought, was relating to a loaded firearm only... I can't find the description of transportation restrictions of unloaded firearms at the moment... I look in a while...MassMark said:
Also note the classification of this as a "CIVIL PENALTY" instead of a criminal one. So, no revocation of license and being hauled off to the pokey as a result of all the crude interpretation and poor knowledge of the law...
Mark, BELIEVE ME, this is not a law I would write... But, it might be a law that MA would pass which goes a long way to making things better...
CRSIII
NES Member
Mark, I tried to read this and my head started spinning. (but this happens when i try to understand Doonsbury comics)
Please post your opinions on this bill as you form them.
Please post your opinions on this bill as you form them.
Mark:
So, it retains the idea that LOADED firearms must be under your direct control.
BTW, this is a question I have - I see no reference to RESIDENTS transportation requires. It mentioned non-residents need to be in a trunk or locked container, but says nothing about residents. Is that specified somewhere else? Or - GASP! is it not regulated?![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
So, it retains the idea that LOADED firearms must be under your direct control.
BTW, this is a question I have - I see no reference to RESIDENTS transportation requires. It mentioned non-residents need to be in a trunk or locked container, but says nothing about residents. Is that specified somewhere else? Or - GASP! is it not regulated?
Last edited:
Thanks Cekim - glad you can offer some perspective and Carl - I'm with you, my head is spinning...
Just throwing things out here...It defines firearm as a frame...This then by default would seem to make it then difficult for "ABC Guns", to import frames and build complete guns - especially in light of the fact that this bill did not take on EOPS, (I realize it was not intended to, but perhaps should have). The direct control needs to be redefined. I consider direct control being within reach of my gun, (glove box, center console, holster, messenger bag, etc...) I also don't see how this clears things up much for hunters carrying their firearm on a public way...Like I said, it's late, I'm tired and I need to reread this, but I'm not digging what I've soaked in thus far. Some absolute great points - especially when it comes to getting tougher on real criminals, but it seems to not go far enough in removing some of the convoluted language in this mess of a state...
Just throwing things out here...It defines firearm as a frame...This then by default would seem to make it then difficult for "ABC Guns", to import frames and build complete guns - especially in light of the fact that this bill did not take on EOPS, (I realize it was not intended to, but perhaps should have). The direct control needs to be redefined. I consider direct control being within reach of my gun, (glove box, center console, holster, messenger bag, etc...) I also don't see how this clears things up much for hunters carrying their firearm on a public way...Like I said, it's late, I'm tired and I need to reread this, but I'm not digging what I've soaked in thus far. Some absolute great points - especially when it comes to getting tougher on real criminals, but it seems to not go far enough in removing some of the convoluted language in this mess of a state...
Mark, see page 47 Section 37, it makes it more clear the intention WRT to confiscation:
Revocation requires that you become a "prohibited person" which is now defined very close to the Federal definition (as shown on page 5
Revocation requires that you become a "prohibited person" which is now defined very close to the Federal definition (as shown on page 5
Sadly, this bill reads like Goodnight Moon compared to most legislation which looks like:
"Remove the third word from the second paragraph and replace it with the following phrase: "boy, this doesn't seem anywhere near as evil and oppressive as it would if they had to spell it out in the bill""
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
But it's never easy... That's the way they like it and the only way to fix that is stop electing the ones who like it this way
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Definitely does little-to-nothing to EOPS - that is a "regulatory" issue that will have to be settled either in the courts as a violation of interstate commerce or with future legislation. Keep in mind again that the definition of a "gun" as the "receiver" is inline with the Federal view of things...MassMark said:
This is a GREAT point to bring up at the hearing. We need to tell them to support this, but we certainly can add our commentary as we are far more experts on guns and gun ownership than ANYONE on that panel...MassMark said:
To my mind the message they need to hear is:
1. We don't trust our government because it has labeled us all criminals (we don't trust you, because you don't trust us).
2. This does nothing to fight crime - the criminals don't put up with this garbage - stop wasting money on this non-sense and track the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens.
3. REMOVE THE AMBIGUITY so we don't need a lawyer to prevent us from comitting 10 felonies before we even tie our shoes in the morning.
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
I REALLY like what I see on pages 9/10:
That's like a breath of fresh air, no confusion with classes of licenses or anything, no need for a chart saying what's legal and what isn't on Tuesdays for some people...It definitely seems much more streamlined and straightforward (dare I say "honest"?).
I like what I see on page 19, allowing confiscated guns to go to any FFL, and allowing them to be auctioned, not stolen and sold by a "bonded warehouse." Same with crime guns (page 41) that can be legally posessed and aren't stolen. Also, when auctioned the money would go to the state, which could be helpful in correcting budget issues (some, not all).
I'm thrilled with the non-resident requirements too! Page 21, shall issue FID for $40, same as regular residents of Mass.!
End of page 48 makes a "stand your ground" type law, which simply removes the burden of proof of lawful self defense from the individual IMO, a very good thing.
MassMark, refer to the end of page 26/beginning of 27, carrying a loaded gun on a public way won't apply to hunters.
I didn't think it could get this good. It's far from perfect IMO, but this would remove many of the ugly burdens faced by Mass. gun owners as things stand today.
That's like a breath of fresh air, no confusion with classes of licenses or anything, no need for a chart saying what's legal and what isn't on Tuesdays for some people...It definitely seems much more streamlined and straightforward (dare I say "honest"?).
I like what I see on page 19, allowing confiscated guns to go to any FFL, and allowing them to be auctioned, not stolen and sold by a "bonded warehouse." Same with crime guns (page 41) that can be legally posessed and aren't stolen. Also, when auctioned the money would go to the state, which could be helpful in correcting budget issues (some, not all).
I'm thrilled with the non-resident requirements too! Page 21, shall issue FID for $40, same as regular residents of Mass.!
End of page 48 makes a "stand your ground" type law, which simply removes the burden of proof of lawful self defense from the individual IMO, a very good thing.
MassMark, refer to the end of page 26/beginning of 27, carrying a loaded gun on a public way won't apply to hunters.
I didn't think it could get this good. It's far from perfect IMO, but this would remove many of the ugly burdens faced by Mass. gun owners as things stand today.
Last edited:
I think this is easily the most important part. What we need to stress to legislators is that this isn't allowing scary criminals easier access to guns, it's not REMOVING the power of law, it's simply making the laws easier for cops and citizens to understand, while still penalizing criminals.
Again, I don't think it's ideal, but this is without a doubt a giant step forward. I'll be following this closely.
***ETA***
Keep in mind, this would also probably eliminate half of the "sticky" threads in the Mass. Laws section of the forum.
I read it about 3 weeks ago. What areas do you have issues with? I think it is a lot better than the laws in place now.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Face it Mark, you're just an extremist.
So, I was in North Shore Firearms and they have stuff up all around the shop advising customers all about 2259. Good to see the shops supporting us.
So, I was in North Shore Firearms and they have stuff up all around the shop advising customers all about 2259. Good to see the shops supporting us.
I'd like to see a side by side comparison of what we had in 1978 and now, and take the best of both of them. Then take out the worst. Then clarify what is left. There REALLY needs to be a single table of definitions, to be referred to in the rest of the laws. I've read parts of this new proposal, and it is not quite that, but also not that bad. I have a couple things I submitted to my rep as well as discussions on implementing some existing language which is not quite there yet.
Now they need to work on the police departments and police chiefs, and the clubs. The clubs are the ones who need to get stimulated to vote. The police are the ones who stand by the politicians and influence everyone else's vote.
Now they need to work on the police departments and police chiefs, and the clubs. The clubs are the ones who need to get stimulated to vote. The police are the ones who stand by the politicians and influence everyone else's vote.
While I agree with you on the clubs (and can see that working well), I doubt you're going to see (m)any police chiefs on board with this, or any other pro-gun measure. Most police chiefs are owned by the politicians who appointed them.
Oh, and this thought just occurred to me. I'm live out of state now, but when I lived in Mass. I called my local reps in support of 2259. Even though I've moved out of state, the non-resident portions of the law still affect me, and I'd like to show my support. Does anyone know who I can call, if anyone? I really want to see this pass.
P-14
NES Member
Bump.
It is time for a quote from Animal House to rally the troops (because of the lackluster response to attending):
Bluto:" What the f*ck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're gonna let it be the worst. "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my a** from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this!"
Who's coming who already hasn't posted in this tread?
It is time for a quote from Animal House to rally the troops (because of the lackluster response to attending):
Bluto:" What the f*ck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're gonna let it be the worst. "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my a** from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this!"
Who's coming who already hasn't posted in this tread?
I can't make it...but I am mailing my letter out tomorrow in support AND hitting the phones all day! I advise everybody to AT LEAST do one or the other! I'm getting ready to move out of this god-forsaken state, and if it comes to that, then I guess it'd be a way of saying "fine, you win..I'm gone"...and I REALLY hope it doesn't have to come to that as I've lived here over half my life
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 6,022
- Likes
- 757
About how long will people generally be there for?
I am not sure I can take a full day off, but if this is something I can try and sneak out for in the middle of the day then I may be able to make it (If not on a project)
I am not sure I can take a full day off, but if this is something I can try and sneak out for in the middle of the day then I may be able to make it (If not on a project)
G
GOAL C.M.
Underwhere, it's impossible to predict, it could take 15 minutes and we might be out of there at 11:15, or we could be there all day.
OK.. attempt two.
I will be there. Would be nice if GOAL would please bring some buttons for purchase for those of us who don't have one, like me. I will attempt to write something so I can get up and speak.
See you there!
I will be there. Would be nice if GOAL would please bring some buttons for purchase for those of us who don't have one, like me. I will attempt to write something so I can get up and speak.
See you there!
That's a good thing?
I think this is where folks who build, buy, or transfer frames - especially for firearms listed on the EOPS as prohibited - that were once available in frame form, may have a problem...I could be wrong, but can someone point out where I am?
Some of this amazes me...What amazes me more, is that an organization that is charged with advocating for 2nd Amendment rights would sponsor this...So some thug confronts Joe Schmoe on the street and he says: "If you don't get the hell away from me, I'm going to kick your ass"....Thug calls cops, presses charges, charges stick, bye, bye guns...I could be wrong here, but can someone point out where I am?
Though I see an improvement over local LEO notification, why would GOAL sponsor legislation that continues to classify law abiding gun owners in the same class as Level III sex offenders? Why should I have to notify anyone, anywhere if I choose to move? I am a reluctant, but duly licensed citizen - why then, should I have to restrict my freedom to move about as freely and anonymously as I see fit? I could be wrong here, but could someone show me where I am?
So much for keeping your guns safe and sound with a friend eh? Seriously, how is this benefiting my 2nd Amendment rights? I could be wrong, but can someone please show me where I am?
I have more, but my head is spinning, so this is a start...Please spare me: "It's better than what we have now"... It's a stroke-fest with no happy ending....There are some excellent points in this bill, but the compromises - the compromises.....
Given that we are talking about MA law at this point, it is NOT going to get any better than Federal law - so yes. The Federal definition at least provides a higher threshold for being a "prohibited person". Most of which requires due process and a ruling by the courts. By contrast, MA has explicitly stated that it can use "charged and uncharged behavior". Not only that but there is case law showing MA can even use entirely legal (and constitutionally protected) behavior (invoking your 5th amendment rights).
So, yes, its a step forward... (a giant leap actually).
Notice the word "conviction" here - that is critically important. This means that you must have been convicted by a jury of your peers of one of these offenses.MassMark said:
Again, huge leap forward. Right now, all that need be done is the accusation and your LTC and suitability are gone. If you protest, the standard for evidence... Well, I stop there, there is no standard for evidence. They can use "charged and uncharged behavior" and the burden of proof is on you.
I agree with you here... We will not pass any law without this at this point and time, but I agree... (which is of course why GOAL left it in there - it's called throwing them a bone... )MassMark said:
Mark, as I said, we must take the first step and get "shall issue". As it stands, we literally have a gun owner population afraid (and rightfully so) to speak out for their rights for fear of losing their LTC.
If this bill did nothing else other than make this a "shall issue" state subject to the Federal prohibited person standard, it would be a worthy step forward.
Mark... "CONVICTION"
As it stands, they can literally bring in hearsay to revoke your LTC...
They revoke, you appeal, you get a hearing. In that hearing the CLEO comes in and says "this guy I know told me that you said you were going to kick his ass".
You respond "prove it". They respond - "I don't need to: and the judge rules in their favor...
So, yes, it is an unqualified leap forward that now the DA has to bring charges and prove to a jury that you committed a crime with those elements. That DA will be subject to stringent evidenciary standards and your lawyer will rip him/her to shreds if she tries to bring in the same evidence that would be used today (successfully) to revoke your LTC.
As I said a couple of pages back - you don't need to argue with me that the conversation should stop at SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, but you aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with 3-4 decades of social creep toward a socialist nanny state where "the police will protect me"...
I encourage you to come and yell at them and ask why the hell we are being treated like level 3 sex offenders?
Yeah, I get the conviction part. Does not change the fact that it's a conviction for a NON-VIOLENT crime...And GOAL supports it...Who exactly do I yell at for a bill that continues to support gun owners being treated like Level III sex offenders, (only on a more fluffy level)?
Similar threads
