I think the language surrounding location does not apply to CCW. Just like the firing within 500 ft. of a dwelling does not apply if you are defending yourself.
-
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
I think the language surrounding location does not apply to CCW. Just like the firing within 500 ft. of a dwelling does not apply if you are defending yourself.
radioman
NES Member
IMHO---The bill requiring insurance on our pistols will end firearms ownership in Ma. No company will write such a policy nor will an average citizen, if such policy is available, be able to afford it. The registration called of rin the same bill is another issue.
All I really want to know is where was all the hullabaloo with regards to those bills up for hearing today besides 2259?...I think folks were too busy wrapped up in a 2259-licking festival to take a look at what was also on the table. For my part - this has been yet another wake-up call...I need to really pay attention to what's happening out there and keep better track of this legislation...Some of this stuff - if passed, would not only make 2259 moot, but make it pretty much impossible to the average person to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights in Massachusetts. I think before we get too wrapped up in a legal defense fund that will be drained in 1 denial case, we should think to redirect those funds to challenging the state on this crap directly.....
got in the room about 11:30am. saw the end of testimony for one of the reps. police are now testifying for bill to allow police to retain firearms in court. Gobi testified in support of 2259. more updates as they come.
This bill is very scarry. Perhaps they are finally going to get that end run which will deny our right to carry.
Haven't read all 37 pages so forgive me if I am repeating something already mentioned -
As written this bill had a terrible definition of "non-resident", defining it as "any person being a citizen of the United States whose legal residence is outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", thereby depriving lawful residents of the United States who have the right to own firearms (such as myself and every other green card holder) from possessing firearms/ammo for hunting in, target shooting in, or even just lawfully traveling through the Commonwealth.
It would be much better to have used a definition similar to that used in other parts of MA code such as:
"The word "non-resident'' shall mean any natural person who is not a resident or inhabitant." (Chap. 62 Section 1)
"Non-resident'', any person whose legal residence is not within the commonwealth. (Chap 90 Sec 1)
As written this bill had a terrible definition of "non-resident", defining it as "any person being a citizen of the United States whose legal residence is outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", thereby depriving lawful residents of the United States who have the right to own firearms (such as myself and every other green card holder) from possessing firearms/ammo for hunting in, target shooting in, or even just lawfully traveling through the Commonwealth.
It would be much better to have used a definition similar to that used in other parts of MA code such as:
"The word "non-resident'' shall mean any natural person who is not a resident or inhabitant." (Chap. 62 Section 1)
"Non-resident'', any person whose legal residence is not within the commonwealth. (Chap 90 Sec 1)
Your Picard avatar says it all. Every time I think we may be making progress towards more reasonable gun laws in this state, something like this comes up. Then I have that same look as Picard.
Yes, we do need to pay closer attention to the other pieces of legislation as well as any proposed regulatory changes. I think GOAL does a good job of getting the word out when any dangerous bill is on the move.
Not to down play the seriousness of keeping an eye on ALL gun related legislation, but keep in mind that many of these bills get filed year after year by legislators that want to please their local base constituency (ex: Cambridge) but who know that the very same bill has no chance of passing. It's the old "well don't blame ME, I tried!" routine. Also, following Scott Brown's victory I would be very surprised to see the legislature pass any legislation that could be considered controversial between now and the end of this two year session. The last thing they want to do is piss people off any more than they already have.
I'm not trying to say everything is fine and don't worry, just putting things into the larger context.
But it seems like your proposed change could allow illegal aliens and those with VISAs
Yeah, the avatar seemed so appropriate in so many ways.
I didn't see the full list for today's hearing until about 10pm last night when I got an email from Four Seasons. I actually had a hard time falling asleep.
Wish I could have gone. Tried popping a few pain killers, but even just sitting in the driver's seat was very painful, so I had to pass. I will definitely be there for the next one.
I'm not sure about non-MA resident non-citizens, but the issue of different treatment of non-citizen residents has been mentioned before. My understanding is, the other aspects of H2259 are much more important, and it is not worth jeopardizing the chance of success by adding an additional, albeit desirable, change in the law regarding non-citizens. I am currently investigating the possibility of a legal challenge to achieve equal treatment of non-citizen residents.
I'm very sympathetic to that position. On the other hand, there is a well established precedent for protecting the fundamental rights of legal residents, and certainly permanent residents, to the same level as citizens, based on the the 14th amendment.
Why? Do non-citizens not have the right to defend themselves?
Need updates
Yeah, most of those additions are nothing short of insanity. Micro-stamping? G.P.bloodyS.??? I sent out e-mails to everyone on the public safety board urging them that we do not need any more of these ridiculous restrictions and to use common sense when observing this legislation. I told them we need an overhaul of the system, we need constitutional gun reform. Anyways, I hope to god all that bad stuff is thrown out and H2259 is passed!
Yeah, most of those additions are nothing short of insanity. Micro-stamping? G.P.bloodyS.??? I sent out e-mails to everyone on the public safety board urging them that we do not need any more of these ridiculous restrictions and to use common sense when observing this legislation. I told them we need an overhaul of the system, we need constitutional gun reform. Anyways, I hope to god all that bad stuff is thrown out and H2259 is passed!
yanici
NES Member
Just got an email reply back from (D)Rep. Jim Miceli, one of the good guys even though he's a Dem. Here it is:
******************************************************************************************
Dear John,
Representative Miceli has received and read your email. He was unable to attend the hearing on “An Act Relative to Civil Rights and Public Safety “due to another commitment.
The Representative would like you to know that he is a sponsor on this legislation.
Thank you for your time and concern,
Nancy Cadigan
Administrative Assistant
State Representative James R. Miceli
19th Middlesex District
Wilmington/Tewksbury
phone 617-722-2460
fax 617-722-2353
******************************************************************************************
Dear John,
Representative Miceli has received and read your email. He was unable to attend the hearing on “An Act Relative to Civil Rights and Public Safety “due to another commitment.
The Representative would like you to know that he is a sponsor on this legislation.
Thank you for your time and concern,
Nancy Cadigan
Administrative Assistant
State Representative James R. Miceli
19th Middlesex District
Wilmington/Tewksbury
phone 617-722-2460
fax 617-722-2353
Well, I hope he's only a sponsor of 2259 and hunting on Sundays. That was about it for intelligent legislation...
I just got back from it. Spent about 3 hours in there and had to leave just after Jim from GOAL finished speaking about 2259. It was a really interesting experience overall. Got to hear a lot of support and opposition to each bill on the table. All except the bill that would allow LEO's to remain armed when entering courthouses. There was pretty much a unanimous support for that.
There were two bills that actually make me audibly chuckle. One regarding "armor piercing ammunition" and one regarding "automatic weapons". Then there was one sob story about a kid who was killed in New Bedford a few years ago with an AR-15. It was your typical "these guns are meant for war and should not be in the hands of civilians." The story resonated, but the message fell flat.
There was a lot of talk from some Anti's about how armor piercing ammunition can pass completely through a vehicle, and questions as to why people NEED more than 10 rounds in their rifle. Some lady didn't seem to understand that she was preaching against the "power" of an assault rifle when any deer rifle is capable of firing a MORE powerful round.
Someone else still had the stones to suggest they have never heard of a situation when an "assault rifle" was used in home defense.
One other thing resonated well with me. Jim from GOAL has an incredible command of his audience when speaking. Very powerful voice, very articulate, very well thought out. Excellent public speaker. Also, I really wanted to go up and hug Senator Brewer. What an amazing person. Quote from him (paraphrased) - "Show me a kid interested in shooting sports and I'll show you a kid who isn't into drugs." He also throughly shot down a supporter of the microstamping bill.
There were two bills that actually make me audibly chuckle. One regarding "armor piercing ammunition" and one regarding "automatic weapons". Then there was one sob story about a kid who was killed in New Bedford a few years ago with an AR-15. It was your typical "these guns are meant for war and should not be in the hands of civilians." The story resonated, but the message fell flat.
There was a lot of talk from some Anti's about how armor piercing ammunition can pass completely through a vehicle, and questions as to why people NEED more than 10 rounds in their rifle. Some lady didn't seem to understand that she was preaching against the "power" of an assault rifle when any deer rifle is capable of firing a MORE powerful round.
Someone else still had the stones to suggest they have never heard of a situation when an "assault rifle" was used in home defense.
One other thing resonated well with me. Jim from GOAL has an incredible command of his audience when speaking. Very powerful voice, very articulate, very well thought out. Excellent public speaker. Also, I really wanted to go up and hug Senator Brewer. What an amazing person. Quote from him (paraphrased) - "Show me a kid interested in shooting sports and I'll show you a kid who isn't into drugs." He also throughly shot down a supporter of the microstamping bill.
CMF is correct. Based upon two other cases it should be fairly easy to reverse the provision for discrimination against resident aliens that is in current law and in H2259. Generally the only civil right not extended to non-citizens is the right to vote.
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
Thanks for taking out the time of your day Larry Legend... I wish I could have been there in support.
I appreciate the quick rundown on your day there. I have been waiting to hear something on the matter.
I appreciate the quick rundown on your day there. I have been waiting to hear something on the matter.
Another fun moment. There was part of a bill that would have required the electronic recording and reporting of all ammunition sales. Sen. Brewer asked a supporter of the bill something to the tune of "and what about people who make thier own ammunition. How would you require them to conform to this law."
There was some awkward fidgeting and the supporter said something to the tune of "reloaders would not be required to follow this bill".
There was some awkward fidgeting and the supporter said something to the tune of "reloaders would not be required to follow this bill".
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 9,033
- Likes
- 5,519
Was he that older gentleman on the left (the chairman of the committee?) seemed quite sympathetic, especially when he commented after the Police commissioner's speech about microstamping and ammunition registration, that "the kind of guys who commit shootings don't give a damn about these laws anyway"!
Last edited by a moderator:
Yup. That was him.
Similar threads
