IMPORTANT NOTICE for all gunowners House Bill H2259

I think if all the members of the committee would go apply for a LTC it would be a great learning experience. Or at least if they all went to a range and met the licensed Mass. constituents. By the way Cekim you and most of the people who spoke did a great job. GOAL showed they are our best bet for changing the existing law!
 
Yazz said:
I think if all the members of the committee would go apply for a LTC it would be a great learning experience. Or at least if they all went to a range and met the licensed Mass. constituents. By the way Cekim you and most of the people who spoke did a great job. GOAL showed they are our best bet for changing the existing law!
Click to expand...
Thank you...

I know GOAL has taken some of them shooting, but it would be useful to have one of them get b-rammed... [laugh]
 
Well when the meeting was all over I asked Michael Costello if he would like to come to my range and try out my evil gun! He laughed and said he would think about it. I intend to follow up with him.
 
Well I got there about 20 minutes after the meeting had kicked off and stayed until the bitter end. The meeting content was well-covered by Mike, so thoughts...

1. Great to meet you Garandman! Half the people left near the end must have been NESers...we really do need to have a meet-up or nametags. Missed opportunities.

2. I know GOAL does a day at the range program for any and all interested legislators...can I propose that someone organize such a thing, however low-key for the staffers of the key players on this committee? It was painfully obvious, heck Costello outright admitted it at the end, the reps have no idea what the heck we're talking about half the time. They NEED to come to the range and meet some gun people, so they know what they're dealing with. But their staffers are the ones who are going to go through 2259 and the current laws and do the grunt work - we need to connect with them too.

3. To the gentlemen who printed out the Mass Gun Laws poster - BRILLIANT! I was watching the reps closely when these things were passed out and they were absolutely shocked when confronted with the massive amount of regulations all laid out in front of them. You could *see* the lightbulbs turning on.

4. Please limit your time. Some people were fantastically eloquent, but went on far too long. It dulls your message.

5. Avoid rambling or emotional appeals. Having not been to one of these hearings before, I admit I fell into the second part of this trap. The reps responded best to facts. Cold, hard stories with specifics. Someone explained about the terminology of collapsible stocks vs. adjustable stocks and this really seemed to hit home. They finally got that the AWB was about cosmetics, is ineffectual, and that they don't understand the gun laws.

6. I strongly support the calls to organize our testimony. If we map out the points to hammer away at and divide it up it would have a fantastic impact. 10 of us, each spending 3 minutes picking apart one aspect of the AWB for instance, would be much more powerful than the same 10 on their own, each trying to cover everything.

7. Come to the meetings! You can come in late and leave when needed. If you come late, look for a staffer up front and to one side - you can still sign up to talk! There were several of us who came in late and didn't know we could still sign up to speak until Costello mentioned it around 3pm.

8. The reps have no concept of due process. This was frankly disturbing. They want the chiefs to have full power to deny anyone because the chief thinks they're a bad guy, regardless of whether they've ever been convicted of anything. Hello due process....ever heard of innocent until proven guilty??? Scary. They need a civics lesson.


A good day for us on balance. Particularly telling was that the antis were either pro lobbyists or victims' families. They all cleared out well before the end. At the end of the day, the room was almost entirely Joe Citizen pro-2A types, who had taken all day off work to be there. That in and off itself should have sent a message to the committee.
 
NX1Z said:
Yes, I saw that. I believe the the supporter in question was actually none other than Boston Police Commisioner Edward Davis was it not?

Pretty sure it was.

/John
Click to expand...

If he looked like Snoopy, that was Davis. He doesn't impress me as the sharpest knife in the drawer.
 
Nicole said:
8. The reps have no concept of due process. This was frankly disturbing. They want the chiefs to have full power to deny anyone because the chief thinks they're a bad guy, regardless of whether they've ever been convicted of anything. Hello due process....ever heard of innocent until proven guilty??? Scary. They need a civics lesson.
Click to expand...
This became painfully obvious at the prior licensing hearing which is why it was my primary comment. Not sure it got through though...

I hope I was not included in the rambler or too long category.[laugh]

3 minutes just isn't enough to say what needs to be said. Good thought on the divide and conquer. There are some messages which need to be repeated and/or stated in a different way by different people, but I am sure I was not alone in trying to second guess what would be covered by others so that I could focus my comments.

Some "org" here could be helpful. Frankly, it would be a good problem to have multiple saying the same thing by accident through [laugh] that would mean attendance was good... We still need to do more on that front.
 
Yes cekim, you are included in the too long group. [grin]

though by no means the worst offender. That goes to the gentleman from Boston with the beard. 20 minutes...
 
cekim said:
This became painfully obvious at the prior licensing hearing which is why it was my primary comment. Not sure it got through though...
Click to expand...

Costello just doesn't get this. He needs to be brought back to square one and shown that either 1. he is inconsistently applying his basic principles or 2. his basic principles aren't actually compatible with US-style constitutional gov. I highly doubt this can be fixed in hearings. Frankly, his constant talk about 'pragmatism' indicates that he may not even understand the concept of basic principles. Some things are WRONG. Full stop. Compromise isn't always possible.

I hope I was not included in the rambler or too long category.[laugh]
Click to expand...

I wasn't introduced, so I can't be sure. [wink][laugh] j/k - based on your writing here I can't imagine you were guilty of what I was thinking of.

3 minutes just isn't enough to say what needs to be said. Good thought on the divide and conquer. There are some messages which need to be repeated and/or stated in a different way by different people, but I am sure I was not alone in trying to second guess what would be covered by others so that I could focus my comments.

Some "org" here could be helpful. Frankly, it would be a good problem to have multiple saying the same thing by accident through [laugh] that would mean attendance was good... We still need to do more on that front.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more on the time limit, and it was physically painful to avoid interjecting when people on the other side were giving out bad info. Maybe we can coax more people out with promises of an NES dinner? [laugh] Food does seem to get people to show up. Not nearly as well as shoots, but I don't see that being a viable option after a hearing. [wink]

On the organizing - I don't see any need to get particularly formal with the structure, I just think it would be most useful if ! 5 of us decided to attack one topic and split it roughly into different pieces and then signed up to speak one after the other. Overlap and repetition is good to a certain extent, but I'd love to see a concerted, 20-30 minute attack on one thing. We could really tear it to pieces that way.
 
garandman said:
That's Representative Anotnio Cabral from New Bedford. He is the one who brought in the mother and daughter of the saintly murdered strip club manager.....
Click to expand...

Doesn't surprise me, after all... New Bedford had more votes for Coakely in the last election. Even though gun licensing has eased up and more and more renewals are w/out restrictions, there are still plenty of antis here in the city.
 
Hey Terraformer I agree but even to day at the hearing someone said that the people of mass are so sanitized about guns that they freak out just seeing one. They are soooo blind and biased laughing at them now would just confuse them more. And that includes the Rep's as well. I lived in Texas for seven years. Imagine my pain.
 
My deepest thanks to all who attended, spoke, organized, and reported on today's hearing. I promise to make every attempt at attending the next event. Provided I have enough time to plan, I should be able to take that day off of work.

While I've only had a dog in this hunt for a relatively short time, I can't help but think we're really on to something here. Keep up the great work, everyone! See you at the next hearing!
 
upStomp said:
My deepest thanks to all who attended, spoke, organized, and reported on today's hearing. I promise to make every attempt at attending the next event. Provided I have enough time to plan, I should be able to take that day off of work.

While I've only had a dog in this hunt for a relatively short time, I can't help but think we're really on to something here. Keep up the great work, everyone! See you at the next hearing!
Click to expand...

I totally agree and rep points for all those that went.

I really wish I could have gone and I really want to attend the next one.
 
Yazz said:
Hey Terraformer I agree but even to day at the hearing someone said that the people of mass are so sanitized about guns that they freak out just seeing one. They are soooo blind and biased laughing at them now would just confuse them more. And that includes the Rep's as well. I lived in Texas for seven years. Imagine my pain.
Click to expand...

I had never hear him say it before, but Jim called it "an immature relationship with guns" I was rolling inside.
 
I was there today from 10am till the bitter end, and met some people from NES. I'm sorry i couldn't stick around at the end, but i needed to catch my train back home (i barely made it as it was).

There were a lot of great testimonies today Nicole, the taller gentlemen talking about "adjustable stocks", obviously Jim from GOAL, and i'm sure i'm missing some others. This was my first hearing, and i plan to attend more if possible. some parts i loved, like Sen. Brewer stating it doesn't matter what laws are on the books, criminals do whatever they want anyways, the stack of letters provided to the committee, and when senator brewer asked how many licensed individuals are involved in gun crimes. Some of the other testimony made me scratch my head. I really felt bad for the family of the person that was killed, but i think their aim is a little misdirected. IMHO a 30-06 could have achieved the same results. also to the part why would anyone want more than 10 rnds... because my thumb get sore/tired from loading mags all day... [smile]

I wouldn't be against organizing something. i went today with no intentions to provide testimony, but signed up around 3 and was one of the last ones to go (younger guy in a suit talking about Worcester). I really wished i had prepared something in advance now, but i said what i feel i needed to say. The guy that talked for 20 minutes lost the whole committee, which was too bad because he had some good points. you could see they were all glazed over after 5 minutes. anyone see the young male on the left side practically falling asleep???

I also got lost when they all started calling all the other bills, because i had no idea what the bill was about unless the mentioned it.

it was nice to have meet some of the NES members (GrendelKhan and WayneWong). Terraformer, where you in a black pinstripe shirt?
 
Hey Daddysuperfly
Thanks for showing up. I was there but did not speak. I sat middle right last row. you did well and you are right. We need to show up every time. There are a lot of people who are new to NES, GOAL and NRA members who are very concerned and just need a little support and encouragement to get on their heels and speak up. I think more than one of the Reps there are at home tonight reading the actual gun laws and scratching their heads!!!!
 
thanks Yazz. hopefully as others have mentioned we can all schedule a meet after a hearing. it would be nice to meet everyone and discuss the days event.

As far as new members are concerned, I recently joined myself and was dragging my feet about joining GOAL. After seeing what they are trying to accomplish, i urge everyone to become a member. I'm kind of ashamed i waited this long.
 
KEY LAWMAKERS WARM TO BIPARTISAN BILL OVERHAULING GUN LAWS

By Gintautas Dumcius
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 27, 2010…..No individual under the age of 18 would be allowed to handle a fully automatic firearm, even with a parent’s permission, under legislation overhauling the state’s gun laws that lawmakers considered Wednesday.

The bill, filed by Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton), includes a provision allowing individuals over the age of 18 to temporarily hold or fire a machine gun at a gun show. But they must do so in the presence of an individual licensed to handle machine guns, according to Peterson.

Peterson said he included the provision in a broader firearms bill, in part, to address concerns aired after a 2008 incident at a Westfield gun club, where an 8-year-old boy was killed while he was handling a machine gun.

The current law is “ambiguous” on the handling of automatic firearms, Peterson said after testifying before Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. “Clearly, the boy was not old enough, physically able to control the firearm,” he said. “Unfortunately, we can’t regulate common sense, or bad decisions by parents. This is one way that will address the age limit.”

An attempt to simplify the state’s gun laws, the bill (H 2259) includes a raft of other provisions, reducing four firearm licenses to one and establishing 13 categories that prevent people from owning a gun. The bill, which lists nine Democratic backers and seven Republicans, drew support from both chairs of Public Safety Committee.

The categories include a person indicted of a crime punishable by up to a year in jail, a person convicted of a violent crime or tagged with a restraining order, a fugitive from justice, an undocumented immigrant, or a person who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship.

The bill also centralizes gun licensing authority in the Executive Office of Public Safety, with local police chiefs acting as “licensing agents.”

“We have close to 351 different licensing standards across the state,” Peterson said, referring to local police chiefs who currently have the ability to issue gun licenses. “This clears up that ambiguity and makes the licensing procedure clear-cut.”

Sen. James Timilty (D-Walpole), the Senate chair of the Public Safety Committee, called it a “great bill” and said he hoped to see “passage in some form this year.”

“There should be one standard for applying for what is a constitutional right,” Timilty said.

Rep. Michael Costello, the House chair and former assistant district attorney, pledged to work with Peterson on the bill but said he had concerns about taking authority away from local police chiefs, since “nobody is closer on the ground.”

Costello (D-Newburyport) added: “I like the idea of focusing on a prohibited class.”

Lauren Hyer, executive director of Stop Handgun Violence, said she is still reviewing the bill, but took issue with one component: She said the licensing authority should stay with police chiefs.

“It should be in the hands of the communities,” she said. “They know the people in the communities.”

She added that Massachusetts has among the lowest firearm fatality rates in the nation. “Our [present] gun laws have worked out,” she said.

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, said the bill is the “top priority, period” for his group.

“This is a starting point. The system we have now is not working,” and is focusing on lawful gun owners instead of illegal gun owners, he said. “The laws have to be clear about who is a criminal and how they should be prosecuted.”

Wallace pointed to one provision in the bill establishing a special unit within the State Police focusing on criminal firearms and trafficking. “We’ll have one entity in the state that is investigating those cases,” he said.

-END-
1/27/2010

Serving the working press since 1910

http://www.statehousenews.com
 
STATE CAPITOL BRIEFS – WEDNESDAY, JAN. 27, 2010

BILL HIGHLIGHTS ISSUE OF GUNS IN COURTHOUSES

Law enforcement groups representing State Police, animal rescue, environmental and college campus officers are pushing lawmakers to overturn a trial court weapons policy that limits who is allowed to enter courthouses with weapons while on duty. But trial court officials say they're trying to make the courts "as gun-free as possible." In a November 2009 memorandum, the trial court’s director of security disallowed a number of officers to enter the courtroom with weapons, including campus police, environmental police, harbormasters, constables, police officers on personal business and municipal and housing police. Officials from the State Police Association of Massachusetts, the Animal Rescue League of Boston and the Massachusetts Environmental Police Officers Association on Wednesday urged lawmakers on the Joint Public Safety Committee to pass a bill (S 921) that permits any law enforcement officer on official business to carry weapons as authorized by the authority they are representing. “Whether an individual is a State Police officer, municipal officer, environmental police officer, or campus police officer, he or she is trained at a law enforcement academy in the use and safeguarding of a firearm,” said Rick Brown, president of the State Police Association of Massachusetts. “There is no rational reason to exclude certain groups if they have the same training and safeguard protocols. Further, requiring law enforcement personnel to disarm in the courts may actually present more of a public safety risk.” Dave Loos, president of the Massachusetts Environmental Police Officers Association, said trial court officials have been “unwilling” to amend the policy, forcing officers to seek legislative relief. The list of officers who are able to be armed in a courthouse includes the State Police, local police, deputy sheriffs, transit police, Department of Corrections and Department of Youth Services transportation teams and federal law enforcement agencies. The chairs of the Public Safety Committee both panned the court’s rule, with Rep. Michael Costello (D-Newburyport) calling it an “unfair edict” and Sen. James Timilty (D-Walpole) saying, “It’s not the best public policy.” The bill was filed by Sen. Stephen Brewer, the vice chair of the Public Safety Committee. A Nov. 18, 2009 interoffice memorandum from trial court director of security Thomas J. Connolly to regional assistant directors of security and chief court officers lists groups allowed and not allowed to enter courthouses with weapons. Connolly’s memo, which he writes was ‘based on our meeting last week,” did not shed light on the rationale behind the distinctions between the groups. An afternoon call to a Trial Court spokeswoman was not immediately returned. In an emailed statement, Trial Court spokeswoman Joan Kenney defended the policy. “The Trial Court security policy seeks to maintain a safe environment for everyone in the courthouses by minimizing the number of guns allowed inside court facilities,” she said. “Court Officers on duty employed by the Trial Court are not authorized to carry guns in courthouses. The State Police and local police within a particular court’s jurisdiction are allowed to possess guns inside courthouses when they are on official business because they are trained to respond to court emergencies and occasionally assist court officers in difficult situations. Keeping the courthouses as gun-free as possible is the goal of the Trial Court Security Department in an effort to keep employees and the public safe.”
 
I've been passing out Massgunlawreform.com pamphlets at work now for months. I've probably given out in the area of 40-60 total.
I am by no means a expert with the law, and I have little to no grasp of how these laws will get passed. I am, however, exposed to a large amount of shooters every week and often talk about this bill.
I kindly ask that someone here on NES can make some cliff notes and important points that i can remember and pass on to fellow MA gun owners.
-What should we expect with this bill?
-What are the possible changes (if any)
-What are its chances of passing?
-What is the time frame that it would be passed in?
 
I walked away from the hearing with a lot more respect for the co-chairs than what I went in with. I felt that they listened intently and responded appropriately to comments from both sides. If their actions are consistent with their words, we should see some significant changes and improvements. I'm going to follow up with letters and calls in an appropriate and constructive manner over the coming months.
 

Similar threads

Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
92
Reptile
Reptile
Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Nebraska lawmakers pass bill that would allow smaller school districts to arm staff members
Replies
0
Views
49
Reptile
Reptile
House Republicans sell us out
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Back
Top Bottom