Linsky after bump stocks AND pre ban mags !!!!!!!!!

[EJFudd]

Wait, Tarr sponsored a bill. Against us? I thought he was on our side, or am I mistaken?

It was supposedly that "lesser of two evils" thing against mental case Linsky's bill because Linsky's bill was all about banning pre-ban magazines. In the post-Las Vegas anti-2A feeding frenzy, it was apparently the best we could hope for.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

I am happy to see that all LEO in MA are not exempt from this ill conceived bill!

They will be exempt if the EOPSS decrees they are!

That is kind of the point as I see it -- the legislature have not written a specific law pertaining to firearms, they have just handed a regulatory blank check over to the Secretary of Public Safety. Curently that is Daniel Bennett and even if you get a reasonably unobtrusive interpretation from his office today then tomorrow it could be someone else in that roll and the regulations could and most likely will change at that bureaucrats whim.

If they want to write a law then they should actually write a specific law, take advice from all parties and allow public hearings.
Instead what the legislature has done is abdicated their responsibility to bureaucrats, all for a "see we did something" photo-op and sound-bite.

SECTION ZZ. The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.

 

[amm5061]

They will be exempt if the EOPSS decrees they are!

That is kind of the point as I see it -- the legislature have not written a specific law pertaining to firearms, they have just handed a regulatory blank check over to the Secretary of Public Safety. Curently that is Daniel Bennett and even if you get a reasonably unobtrusive interpretation from his office today then tomorrow it could be someone else in that roll and the regulations could and most likely will change at that bureaucrats whim.

If they want to write a law then they should actually write a specific law, take advice from all parties and allow public hearings.
Instead what the legislature has done is abdicated their responsibility to bureaucrats, all for a "see we did something" photo-op and sound-bite.

And that's exactly how we ended up with the ridiculous AG regulations leading up to and including the healey ban. Anyone not outraged over this part of the legislation has not been paying attention to what has been going in in this state in the past 20 years.

 

[Noreaster]

Wait, Tarr sponsored a bill. Against us? I thought he was on our side, or am I mistaken?

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/SD2348/BillHistory

[h=2]An Act to prevent illegal possession of rapid fire firearms[/h] By Mr. Tarr, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. ) (subject to Joint Rule 12) of Bruce E. Tarr, Bradley H. Jones, Jr., Richard J. Ross, Donald F. Humason, Jr. and other members of the General Court for legislation to prevent illegal possession of rapid fire firearms. Public Safety and Homeland Security.

Section 1. Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the general laws as appearing in the 2016 official edition, is hereby amended in line 100 by inserting after the words “submachine gun” the following:-

The term machine gun shall also include any device commonly known as a “bumpstock” or “trigger crank” that is specifically designed to alter or has the effect of altering the performance of a firearm, rifle or shotgun to create or simulate or approximate the fire rate of a fully automatic weapon

 

[Bfatz]

 

[LuvDog]

My two reps suck... but I sent them emails anyway. I'll call their offices later today.

 

[Mark from MA]

From GOAL:
Thank you Repsresentatives Peter Durant, Donald Berthiaume of Spencer, and Nick Boldyga of Southwick. The only members of #MAHouse with the courage to protect our constitution and not vote for the amendment attached to the budget today.

My rep is Donnie Berthiaume. I'll send him a note of thanks for being one of the few that believes in peoples rights.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

The Senate Bill SD.2348 is the bill they are voting on today correct? I just want to make sure i have the right one when i call Sen. Montigny, although given his stance on wanting to give C.O.P. more discretion when it comes to granting LTC's and FIDs i feel like i may have a easier time convincing a brick wall that its really a flower.

 

[HuntMaine]

In typical Linsky Style, its not just a ban on Bumpstocks he wants a ban on any magazine or device that can hold over 10 rds. Also he doesnt just want a ban of them, he wants a removal of the grandfathering of 1994 and wants it to be illegal to even own them from what I heard in his interview.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

In typical Linsky Style, its not just a ban on Bumpstocks he wants a ban on any magazine or device that can hold over 10 rds. Also he doesnt just want a ban of them, he wants a removal of the grandfathering of 1994 and wants it to be illegal to even own them from what I heard in his interview.

that language was removed from the bill so we can breathe a bit easier for a time, although he did say he could revist it at a later time aka next shooting.

It is amazing how fast Legislative bodies can move when it comes to restricting rights. The Safe ACT was passed in what 3 days? This bill passed the house yesterday, will pass the Senate today, and that joke Baker will prob sign it tonite or tomorrow.

 

[Gillham]

So my Senator cosponsored the bill - I don't think reaching out to her or sitting in her office will do much good. [sad2]

 

[JJ4]

A few key points:

Linsky's amendment to a budget bill passed the house already. Linksy's language is (a) too vague, and (b) creates some ambiguous regulation authority for the future. The danger here is that the vague language can EASILY be re-interpreted by a future AG to screw people over.

Tarr's bill is VERY specific. Tarr's bill would essentially make bump stocks fall under the same regulation as machine guns as far as MA is concerned.

In my personal opinion, it would be much more effective to call your senator and say something like:
"While I don't support either of these approaches regarding bump-stocks, assuming one of them is going to pass I'm asking you to please support the specific language in Sen. Tarr's bill (SD.2348) and not the vague language from Representative Linsky's amendment to the house budget".


As mentioned before, ex post facto does not come in to play so please don't hurt your case by mentioning it. Neither approach criminalizes behavior that occurred in the past and was legal at the time. Both approaches only criminalize future behavior for after the bill comes into effect.

 

[Horrible]

A few key points:

Linsky's amendment to a budget bill passed the house already. Linksy's language is (a) too vague, and (b) creates some ambiguous regulation authority for the future. The danger here is that the vague language can EASILY be re-interpreted by a future AG to screw people over.

Tarr's bill is VERY specific. Tarr's bill would essentially make bump stocks fall under the same regulation as machine guns as far as MA is concerned.

In my personal opinion, it would be much more effective to call your senator and say something like:
"While I don't support either of these approaches regarding bump-stocks, assuming one of them is going to pass I'm asking you to please support the specific language in Sen. Tarr's bill and not the vague language from Representative Linsky's amendment to the house budget".


As mentioned before, ex post facto does not come in to play so please don't hurt your case by mentioning it. Neither approach criminalizes behavior that occurred in the past and was legal at the time. Both approaches only criminalize future behavior for after the bill comes into effect.

Is Section ZZ that gives the Sec of Public Safety open season to create any regulations under the sun in Tarr's bill? Or is it just a clean bump stock ban?

What are they voting on today?

I ****ing hate these surprise rush bills! This state sucks!

 

[JJ4]

Is Section ZZ that gives the Sec of Public Safety open season to create any regulations under the sun in Tarr's bill? Or is it just a clean bump stock ban?

What are they voting on today?

I ****ing hate these surprise rush bills! This state sucks!

If it is in fact SD 2348, this is the FULL text:

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/SD2348/BillHistory

Section 1. Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the general laws as appearing in the 2016 official edition, is hereby amended in line 100 by inserting after the words “submachine gun” the following:-
The term machine gun shall also include any device commonly known as a “bumpstock” or “trigger crank” that is specifically designed to alter or has the effect of altering the performance of a firearm, rifle or shotgun to create or simulate or approximate the fire rate of a fully automatic weapon

 

[n1oty]

A few key points:

Linsky's amendment to a budget bill passed the house already. Linksy's language is (a) too vague, and (b) creates some ambiguous regulation authority for the future. The danger here is that the vague language can EASILY be re-interpreted by a future AG to screw people over.

Tarr's bill is VERY specific. Tarr's bill would essentially make bump stocks fall under the same regulation as machine guns as far as MA is concerned.

In my personal opinion, it would be much more effective to call your senator and say something like:
"While I don't support either of these approaches regarding bump-stocks, assuming one of them is going to pass I'm asking you to please support the specific language in Sen. Tarr's bill (SD.2348) and not the vague language from Representative Linsky's amendment to the house budget".


As mentioned before, ex post facto does not come in to play so please don't hurt your case by mentioning it. Neither approach criminalizes behavior that occurred in the past and was legal at the time. Both approaches only criminalize future behavior for after the bill comes into effect.

Regardless. There is a "taking" without compensation of property here. That is something that IS specifically unconstitutional and needs to be addressed.

 

[Noreaster]

My last ditch effort (i gave up on any hope of a regulation not passing):

Hello Senator Barrett,


I will state that my intent here is not to talk anyone out of banning the bump-fire stocks. However i have great concern about the wording used in the amendment that was passed by the house. I do not think anyone knows the important details and are creating laws that will not function correctly or worse will cost tax payers money when the unclear laws are brought to court.



Just to make sure I'm on the same page, here are some existing legal definitions:


https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121



''Machine gun'', a weapon of any description, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged by one continuous activation of the trigger, including a submachine gun.


''Semiautomatic'', capable of utilizing a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and requiring a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.



A bump-fire stock does not make a semiautomatic firearm function like a machine gun. The device just assists the operator in depressing the trigger faster. A semiautomatic firearm will always have a rate of discharge of 1 per a trigger pull. Anything more than 1 is a machine gun. That language is clear.


Now lets look at the content of the as passed language from the house:

Amendment #1, as changed to H3951
Automatic Weapons​

Mr. Linsky of Natick moves to amend the bill by adding the following three sections:
“SECTION XX: Chapter 140 of General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 131Q, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following section:-
Section 131R. Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.
SECTION YY. Section XX shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.”
SECTION ZZ. The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.

For the 131R part:
This is very vague, how do you establish a rate of discharge of a semiautomatic firearm? Anything greater than 1 is a machine gun. Therefore we can argue that the bill does not ban a bump-fire stock because the rate of discharge is still 1.

Assuming we have a way to "fabricate" what a rate of discharge is on a semiautomatic:
What are the limits? Say for instance that a competitor modifies his/her firearm with an aftermarket trigger that has a shorter reset, shorter pull and an adjustable over-travel. This new trigger allows for a quicker follow up shots while maintaining accuracy in timed events. This does not however, simulate a machinegun, which i think we can agree is the spirit of the regulation. The way the statute is written - that trigger is in violation.



For the section ZZ part:
Please - do not allow that to pass. This creates another scenario where personal preferences will be dictated as law and result in court proceedings. These cases cost the tax payers money. The legislature needs to pass laws that are clear and concise - not something that allows for variations based on personal preference. I believe we can both agree that the legislature in Mass does not consist of many shooting sports competitors, there is a lack of firearm knowledge that leads to poorly written law and poor decisions by individuals that are designated to make decisions (ex. how the AG declares a firearm does not have a chamber loaded indicator when it in fact does)



It is my belief that the bill by Bruce Tarr ( SD.2348 ) is much more effective without the burden of inadvertent consequences such as, but not limited to costing the tax payers of massachusetts.


Please take these comments into consideration as you represent me today. If you would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to reach out to me.


Thanks,
Jason

Sudbury, Ma

xxx.xxx.xxxx

 

[Jason Flare]

Regardless. There is a "taking" without compensation of property here. That is something that IS specifically unconstitutional and needs to be addressed.

This. The behavior that it criminalizes is "possession."

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Well considering that it's very likely going to pass (at gunpoint) then what is the legal strategy to challenge this new law? Or is there even one? It's funny because if a conservative politician pushed a law about baking a gay wedding cake, liberals would be in court before the ink was even dry. Yet when it comes to gun rights, gun rights groups take years to make their minds up. Remind me again of why I should give any money to gun rights groups in this state?

 

[Jason Flare]

Well considering that it's very likely going to pass (at gunpoint) then what is the legal strategy to challenge this new law? Or is there even one? It's funny because if a conservative politician pushed a law about baking a gay wedding cake, liberals would be in court before the ink was even dry. Yet when it comes to gun rights, gun rights groups take years to make their minds up. Remind me again of why I should give any money to gun rights groups in this state?

Gun rights groups will be the bad guys for supporting the Constitution in the form of evil bumpstocks.

Everything is a win here for the Progressives.

 

[Alchemist17]

I have heard from my representative, and FWIW:

1) Section ZZ was added to deny the AG the right to interpret these laws. They didn't want Miss Maura interpreting these laws.

2) They were considering this in contrast to Linsky's stand-alone bill, which also went after pre-ban mags and had no 180 day grace period.


Not that I think those justify supporting this monstrosity, but figured I'd put it out there.

 

[not new guy]

So this is the current language?

Mr. Linsky of Natick moves to amend the bill by adding the following three sections:

“SECTION XX: Chapter 140 of General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 131Q, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following section:-

Section 131R. Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.

SECTION YY. Section XX shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.”

SECTION ZZ. The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.

ZZ denies the AG the right to interpret the law... by giving that right to the SoPS?

 

[Noreaster]

If it is in fact SD 2348, this is the FULL text:

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/SD2348/BillHistory

That is a senate version.

However H.3951 is the house bill that was passed and is being sent to the senate. The linskey crap is an amendment to H.3951
The house can either:
- pass as presented - then goes to the gubberner
- alter it with admendments

If it alters it, it goes back to the houe, the house can either:
- Pass it as amended by senate - then goes to the gubberner
- Send to committee (or somethign like that) to work out differences.

 

[Horrible]

I have heard from my representative, and FWIW:

1) Section ZZ was added to deny the AG the right to interpret these laws. They didn't want Miss Maura interpreting these laws.

2) They were considering this in contrast to Linsky's stand-alone bill, which also went after pre-ban mags and had no 180 day grace period.


Not that I think those justify supporting this monstrosity, but figured I'd put it out there.

So, Section ZZ was added to PREVENT a tyrant, like Maura, from taking on unilateral lawmaking? It seems like they have just given that power over to some other tyrant? Or am I missing something?

Reads to me like Section ZZ is the WORST part of this pile of crap that will do nothing to stop anyone from mass killings!!

 

[Noreaster]

I have heard from my representative, and FWIW:
1) Section ZZ was added to deny the AG the right to interpret these laws. They didn't want Miss Maura interpreting these laws.
2) They were considering this in contrast to Linsky's stand-alone bill, which also went after pre-ban mags and had no 180 day grace period.
Not that I think those justify supporting this monstrosity, but figured I'd put it out there.

Interesting.
I have heard squat from my rep, carmine just displayed ignorance, barrett has had no response.

 

[Noreaster]

So, Section ZZ was added to PREVENT a tyrant, like Maura, from taking on unilateral lawmaking? It seems like they have just given that power over to some other tyrant? Or am I missing something?

Reads to me like Section ZZ is the WORST part of this pile of crap that will do nothing to stop anyone from mass killings!!

Basically,
However i would argue it is a side effect of unclear language in the bill resulting in variable definitions, so a bandaid was already necessary.

 

[not new guy]

Reposting so it's on this page too:

Mr. Linsky of Natick moves to amend the bill by adding the following three sections:

“SECTION XX: Chapter 140 of General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 131Q, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following section:-

Section 131R. Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.

SECTION YY. Section XX shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.”

SECTION ZZ. The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.

At least 180 days will give MA bumpstock owners a little time to see where this shakes out on the national level.

 

[W.E.C]

I have heard from my representative, and FWIW:

1) Section ZZ was added to deny the AG the right to interpret these laws. They didn't want Miss Maura interpreting these laws.

2) They were considering this in contrast to Linsky's stand-alone bill, which also went after pre-ban mags and had no 180 day grace period.


Not that I think those justify supporting this monstrosity, but figured I'd put it out there.

Thats worse, you don’t think the underling at s.o.p.s doesn’t get the Harvey Weinstein treatment from the A.G.?

who is your rep ? Cream? Or Linsky?

 

[not new guy]

So who is the Secretary of Public Safety? Who do they report to? What's their track record on gun stuff? These are the EOPS list folks, right?

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agencies/office-of-secretary/secretary-of-public-safety-and-security.html

Daniel Bennett was appointed Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in January 2015 by Governor Charles Baker. As Public Safety Secretary, he has oversight of $1.1 billion public safety budget and the secretariat’s 13 agencies, boards and commissions with their 9,500 state employees. Bennett is charged with providing strategic leadership including policy development which aides in crime prevention ensuring the safety of all residents and visitors in the Commonwealth. All EOPSS agencies fall within four categories: law enforcement, criminal justice, forensic sciences and homeland security.

He's a Baker appointee. We'll be fine.

 

[W.E.C]

Reposting so it's on this page too:


At least 180 days will give MA bumpstock owners a little time to see where this shakes out on the national level.

So you can choose a new state to move to?

 

[not new guy]

So you can choose a new state to move to?

To better inform the keep/bury/sell/move/etc. decision. I can imagine possible legislative outcomes at the national level that result in a spike in the value of preban ones.