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***
It's been a while, but I have - any specifics?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?
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...
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.screws people who build firearms, (i.e. buying blank frames and building into complete guns).
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:I also see a separation of LEO's from the citizenry - making them exempt from obtaining an FID/LTC like the rest of us....
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:I also see what seems to be a broad acceptance to seize firearms and or make it compulsory to turn in firearms.
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:It also seems to paint a broad stroke on "prohibited persons".
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:I'm also extremely bothered by GOAL's support of the transportation restrictions in your vehicle, (direct control).
Section 127: No person carrying a LOADED firearm ... unless under direct control
Section 12E. Prohibiting the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms.
No government official or any person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts shall order the confiscation of, or otherwise cause the confiscation of, any
lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearm.
No law enforcement officer, person acting as a law enforcement officer, or other public
official shall confiscate or attempt to confiscate any lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearm.
...
Nothing in this section shall prohibit the confiscation of firearms from any person who;
(a) Has been placed under arrest;
(b) Who is the subject of a protection order issued under Chapter 209A;
(c) Has had their Firearm Identification Card revoked or suspended; or
(d) Who is or has become a prohibited person.
“Prohibited Person”, any person who:
(1) is under indictment in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year;
(2) has been convicted of a crime of violence;
(3) has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year that is not a crime of violence for which a committed term of imprisonment has
been served after sentencing has been carried out;
(4) has been convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than
two years that is not a crime of violence for which a committed term of imprisonment
has been served after sentencing has been carried out;
(5) is a fugitive from justice;
(6) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(7) has been adjudicated as a mental defective;
(8) has been involuntarily committed to any mental institution;
(9) is an illegal alien;
(10) has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
(11) has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
(12) is currently subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking,
or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; no such order that
has expired for which there was no conviction of a violation of such order shall
considered a disqualifier; or
(13) has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, as defined in 18
Sadly, this bill reads like Goodnight Moon compared to most legislation which looks like:Thanks Cekim - glad you can offer some perspective and Carl - I'm with you, my head is spinning...
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: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,
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:The direct control needs to be redefined.
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.
(9) A firearm identification card shall be valid for all lawful purposes subject to the
following age based restrictions:
(a) A firearm identification card holder aged 15 through 17 shall be entitled to
borrow, possess, carry, or transport any rifle or shotgun;
(b) A firearm identification card holder aged 18 through 20 shall be entitled to
purchase, own, rent, lease, borrow, possess, carry, transfer or transport any rifle or
shotgun;
(c) A firearm identification card holder aged 21 and over shall be entitled to
purchase, own, rent, lease, borrow, possess, transport, carry, transfer or carry
concealed any firearm;
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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.
HR2259 - “Firearm”, any weapon which will, or is designed to, or may readily be converted to, expel a
projectile by the action of a propellant; or the frame of any such weapon. Such term does not
include an antique firearm. This term shall be meant to include a rifle, shotgun or handgun
HR2259 - “Crime of Violence”, shall mean any convictions listed within this definition that: (i) has as
an element the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force or a deadly weapon against
the person of another; (ii) is home invasion, extortion, arson or kidnapping; (iii) involves the use
of explosives; or (iv) otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to
another.
(1) any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year for which a
committed term of imprisonment has been served after sentencing has been carried
out;
(2) any misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years for which a
committed term of imprisonment has been served after sentencing has been carried
out; or
(3) any act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or possession of a deadly weapon
that resulted in the bodily harm of another and would be punishable by imprisonment
for more than one year for such term if committed by an adult.
HR2259 - (17) A cardholder shall notify, in writing, the Firearms Record Bureau of any change of
address. Such notification shall be made by certified mail accompanied with a five dollar fee
within 30 days of its occurrence. Upon receipt of the notification and fee, the Firearms Record
Bureau shall send the card holder a new card reflecting the reported change of address. A
cardholder who fails to complete such notification shall be fined not more than $100.
HR2259 - Section 125. (a) Upon revocation or suspension of a firearm identification card, or of any
machine gun license, the person whose card was so revoked or suspended shall without delay
deliver or surrender to the local licensing agent, all firearms, machine guns and ammunition
which he then possesses.
(b) Upon denial of an application for a firearm identification card, or of any machine gun
license, the person whose application was so denied shall without delay deliver or surrender to
the local licensing agent, all firearms, machine guns and ammunition which he then possesses.
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).That's a good thing?
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: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?
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: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?
Mark... "CONVICTION"Loss of 2A rights over a non-physical threat and/or a misdemeanor seems like a huge leap forward into a pile of broken glass....
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?