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

[milktree]

I just got this from one of my reps:

I am writing to you today because we have previously exchanged correspondence about
legislation to ban "bump stocks" and similar devices that increase a firearm's rate
of discharge to imitate an automatic weapon.

I want to alert you to an opportunity for public input on the differing House and
Senate versions passed last week. (The text of each version is provided at the end
of this email.) Senator Michael O. Moore will lead an informational hearing so
members of the public and stakeholders may weigh in. Information gained during the
hearing will be shared with legislators serving on the supplemental budget
conference committee who are charged with addressing the different language adopted
by the House and Senate. The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow (Wednesday, October
18) at 10:30am in Hearing Room 222 at the Massachusetts State House, 24 Beacon
Street, Boston. This hearing is open to the public.

In addition, written comments may be submitted via e-mail to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Hard copies may be
faxed to (617) 722-1066 or mailed to the address below:

The Honorable Michael O. Moore, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
State House, Room 109B
Boston, MA 02133

I will continue to advocate for the more narrowly focused language in the Senate
bill, rather than the broader ban proposed by the House. (See language of both
versions at the end of this email.)

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts on this legislation.

Best,

Cindy

Cindy F. Friedman
State Senator, 4th Middlesex District
Proudly serving Arlington, Billerica, Burlington, Woburn, & parts of Lexington
(pcts. 1,2, & 4-7)
State House, Room 413D
Boston, MA 02133
617.722.1432 (p)
www.cindyfriedman.org

 

[milktree]

And here's the current language(s)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANGUAGE ADOPTED & PASSED BY MASSACHUSETTS SENATE

An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2017 to provide for
supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other
activities and projects


AMENDMENT #5

SECTION X: 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 include bump stocks and trigger cranks."

SECTION Y. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the general laws as appearing
in the 2016 official edition, is hereby amended in line 100 by
inserting the following new definitions:-

"Bump stock" any device for a semiautomatic firearm that increases the
rate of fire achievable with such firearm by using energy from the
recoil of the firearm to generate a reciprocating action that
facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.

"Trigger Crank" any device to be attached to a semi-automatic firearm
that repeatedly activates the trigger of the firearm through the use
of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion, but does
not include any firearm initially designed and manufactured to fire
through the use of a crank or lever.

SECTION Z. The executive office of public safety and security shall
notify any individual licensed under chapter 140 of changes made under
section X and the effective date of those changes. The executive
office shall also notify manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger
cranks of changes made under section X and the effective date of those
changes.

SECTION XX. Section X shall take effect 90 days after the passage of
this act; but it shall be unlawful to purchase, sell, or offer for
sale a bump stock or trigger crank in violation of chapter 140 of the
General Laws after the effective date of this act.

LANGUAGE ADOPTED & PASSED BY MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

An Act making appropriations for the fiscal year 2017 to provide for
supplementing certain existing appropriations and for certain other
activities and projects

AMENDMENT #1

"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.

 

[HKdrummer]

And here's the current language(s)

So are they saying if you have a machine gun license, you are "allowed" to own these devices?

 

[endus]

At least the senate is trying to actually target bump stocks in their bill to outlaw bump stocks.

 

[milktree]

So are they saying if you have a machine gun license, you are "allowed" to own these devices?

Yes.

They're not saying that if you have a bump stock you can get a MG licence though.

 

[JayMcB]

What I got from Tarr's office after my email there:


Dear JayMcB:
I am in receipt of your auto generated email message relative to legislation to regulate so-called "bump stocks", and, while I always appreciate hearing from those committed to protecting the Second Amendment, I am deeply troubled by the contents of the message. The Senators you have sent this message to collectively have a longstanding and proven commitment to protecting the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and have no intention of wavering from that commitment now or in the future. Maintaining that commitment often requires pro-action.
That is the situation we are currently in. The horrendous mass shooting that occurred recently in Las Vegas has created an awareness of such devices as bump stocks and trigger cranks that will not and cannot be ignored , making legislative proposals to ban these devices inevitable. Thus, legislators have had a choice: pro-action to have a credible voice and influence in this situation, or silence and reaction that would marginalize our ability to positively impact the process and leave its destiny largely to the will of those who do not share our commitment to protecting the rights of law abiding gun owners. We chose pro-action.
The results of that choice have become clear over the last several days. The House of Representatives has advanced an amendment based on legislation filed by Representative Linsky that contains ban language so ambiguous and broad that it threatens the otherwise lawful possession of such firearms as those used by our police departments, those in sporting competitions, and others. Moreover, it would give broad authority for new regulations regarding the "maintenance..." of firearms in our Commonwealth, and we have all seen the potential for abuse of such regulatory authority.
An amendment adopted by the Senate yesterday stands in clear contrast to the approach driven by the Linsky bill. In the Senate, where action on this front was unavoidable, the discussion was centered around the legislation to which your message refers, initiated by both House and Senate Republicans and co-sponsored by members of both parties and in both chambers. Consequently, the amendment adopted unanimously by the Senate (38-0) chooses the path of bringing well-defined bump stocks and trigger cranks within the embrace of our existing machine gun licensing law, MGL Chapter 140. Thus it is a limited, focused and reasonable measure that protects the integrity of our current licensing laws and protects those who shoot in competitions, our police departments, and other law abiding gun owners that would be threatened by other approaches.
Absent the proactive choice made by the people you have written to, and others, no reasonable option such as the one passed by the Senate would be on the table. Clearly legislation in this area was, and is, going to happen. We could have stayed on the sidelines and conducted futile attempts to stop it, but we chose a path of responsible action that is proving to be effective. Our credible voice is being heard.
Your message specifically references Republicans, although protecting our constitutional rights is not a partisan issue. Republicans do not yet control the legislature, and must deal with being outnumbered every single day. We work to impact the process by being credible, responsible, and engaged. Refusing to participate in the legislative process around bump stocks would not serve those purposes, nor would taking the indefensible position of condoning the improper possession and use of bump stocks, a position even rejected by the National Rifle Association (see statement from the NRA below)
There still lies ahead substantial legislative process around this issue, and with it the potential for harm to Second Amendment rights. I hope that you will join us in working to protect those rights and in seeking to make a positive impact on that process.
Sincerely,

Bruce Tarr
State Senator
NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Issue Joint Statement
(FAIRFAX, VA) - The National Rifle Association today issued the following statement:
"In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence." (https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/)

My answer:

Ms. McCullough:



Thank you for taking the time to write an actual response. Your Democrat colleagues couldn't be bothered. When calling their offices as a constituent, I was literally told I was on the wrong side of history, and the 'will of the people' needed to be heard.



I know Senator Tarr is one of the good guys, and I also know his legislative language is less deleterious to the Constitution than that anti-Constitutional imbecile Linsky's.



Forgive me, but as a minority voter in the Commonwealth, I am frankly tired of compromising rights. The email I sent indicated that. I actually toned down the language of the auto-generated email.



I'm appalled by the process that was employed to do this Why was this appended to a budget bill? Why was it even allowed to go through this way? Where is the time for public hearings? Why isn't the Legislature doing something about out of control Medicaid spending, out of control taxation, out of control government growth, an MBTA transit system which has high deficits, the highest ridership costs in the country, and is ranked dead last - instead of grandstanding about a piece of plastic that has already been determined by the BATFE to be federally legal (at least for the time being).


This is a solution in search of a problem. Massachusetts, a state that already has draconian firearm laws for lawful owners, has fewer than 2% of the homicides conducted WITH A FIREARM done by rifles of any kind, and if you account for the number of them done by rifles for which a bump-fire stock could be fitted, it falls to under 1%. Less than 1%. If Stephen Paddock wanted to purchase modern sporting rifles in the Commonwealth, the non-Legislative creative re-interpretation by AG Healy from 7-20-16 would already make it impossible.



I know that perfect is the enemy of good in the legislative process, and I thank you and Senator Tarr's for efforts to limit further erosion of firearm rights. That doesn't mean you can call this a win. It isn't. And calling it a 'focused and reasonable' erosion doesn't change the fact that it's an erosion. It's just a smaller one.



Last questions: Is your language going to 'grandfather' existing stocks, or is this an actual confiscation, AKA, we have retroactively banned property that was previously legally owned according to both state and federal law? Also, since the pieces of plastic (stocks) are not dated by the manufacturers or serialized for registration,(since you intend to apply the Machine Gun license rules) how is this even going to be enforced?



Again, thank you for trying to be a voice of reason in a trying time.

Good luck with your efforts.

Regards,

Jay McB

 

[Horrible]

What I got from Tarr's office after my email there:


Dear JayMcB:
I am in receipt of your auto generated email message relative to legislation to regulate so-called "bump stocks", and, while I always appreciate hearing from those committed to protecting the Second Amendment, I am deeply troubled by the contents of the message. The Senators you have sent this message to collectively have a longstanding and proven commitment to protecting the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and have no intention of wavering from that commitment now or in the future. Maintaining that commitment often requires pro-action.
That is the situation we are currently in. The horrendous mass shooting that occurred recently in Las Vegas has created an awareness of such devices as bump stocks and trigger cranks that will not and cannot be ignored , making legislative proposals to ban these devices inevitable. Thus, legislators have had a choice: pro-action to have a credible voice and influence in this situation, or silence and reaction that would marginalize our ability to positively impact the process and leave its destiny largely to the will of those who do not share our commitment to protecting the rights of law abiding gun owners. We chose pro-action.
The results of that choice have become clear over the last several days. The House of Representatives has advanced an amendment based on legislation filed by Representative Linsky that contains ban language so ambiguous and broad that it threatens the otherwise lawful possession of such firearms as those used by our police departments, those in sporting competitions, and others. Moreover, it would give broad authority for new regulations regarding the "maintenance..." of firearms in our Commonwealth, and we have all seen the potential for abuse of such regulatory authority.
An amendment adopted by the Senate yesterday stands in clear contrast to the approach driven by the Linsky bill. In the Senate, where action on this front was unavoidable, the discussion was centered around the legislation to which your message refers, initiated by both House and Senate Republicans and co-sponsored by members of both parties and in both chambers. Consequently, the amendment adopted unanimously by the Senate (38-0) chooses the path of bringing well-defined bump stocks and trigger cranks within the embrace of our existing machine gun licensing law, MGL Chapter 140. Thus it is a limited, focused and reasonable measure that protects the integrity of our current licensing laws and protects those who shoot in competitions, our police departments, and other law abiding gun owners that would be threatened by other approaches.
Absent the proactive choice made by the people you have written to, and others, no reasonable option such as the one passed by the Senate would be on the table. Clearly legislation in this area was, and is, going to happen. We could have stayed on the sidelines and conducted futile attempts to stop it, but we chose a path of responsible action that is proving to be effective. Our credible voice is being heard.
Your message specifically references Republicans, although protecting our constitutional rights is not a partisan issue. Republicans do not yet control the legislature, and must deal with being outnumbered every single day. We work to impact the process by being credible, responsible, and engaged. Refusing to participate in the legislative process around bump stocks would not serve those purposes, nor would taking the indefensible position of condoning the improper possession and use of bump stocks, a position even rejected by the National Rifle Association (see statement from the NRA below)
There still lies ahead substantial legislative process around this issue, and with it the potential for harm to Second Amendment rights. I hope that you will join us in working to protect those rights and in seeking to make a positive impact on that process.
Sincerely,

Bruce Tarr
State Senator
NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Issue Joint Statement
(FAIRFAX, VA) - The National Rifle Association today issued the following statement:
"In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence." (https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/)

My answer:

Ms. McCullough:



Thank you for taking the time to write an actual response. Your Democrat colleagues couldn't be bothered. When calling their offices as a constituent, I was literally told I was on the wrong side of history, and the 'will of the people' needed to be heard.



I know Senator Tarr is one of the good guys, and I also know his legislative language is less deleterious to the Constitution than that anti-Constitutional imbecile Linsky's.



Forgive me, but as a minority voter in the Commonwealth, I am frankly tired of compromising rights. The email I sent indicated that. I actually toned down the language of the auto-generated email.



I'm appalled by the process that was employed to do this Why was this appended to a budget bill? Why was it even allowed to go through this way? Where is the time for public hearings? Why isn't the Legislature doing something about out of control Medicaid spending, out of control taxation, out of control government growth, an MBTA transit system which has high deficits, the highest ridership costs in the country, and is ranked dead last - instead of grandstanding about a piece of plastic that has already been determined by the BATFE to be federally legal (at least for the time being).


This is a solution in search of a problem. Massachusetts, a state that already has draconian firearm laws for lawful owners, has fewer than 2% of the homicides conducted WITH A FIREARM done by rifles of any kind, and if you account for the number of them done by rifles for which a bump-fire stock could be fitted, it falls to under 1%. Less than 1%. If Stephen Paddock wanted to purchase modern sporting rifles in the Commonwealth, the non-Legislative creative re-interpretation by AG Healy from 7-20-16 would already make it impossible.



I know that perfect is the enemy of good in the legislative process, and I thank you and Senator Tarr's for efforts to limit further erosion of firearm rights. That doesn't mean you can call this a win. It isn't. And calling it a 'focused and reasonable' erosion doesn't change the fact that it's an erosion. It's just a smaller one.



Last questions: Is your language going to 'grandfather' existing stocks, or is this an actual confiscation, AKA, we have retroactively banned property that was previously legally owned according to both state and federal law? Also, since the pieces of plastic (stocks) are not dated by the manufacturers or serialized for registration,(since you intend to apply the Machine Gun license rules) how is this even going to be enforced?



Again, thank you for trying to be a voice of reason in a trying time.

Good luck with your efforts.

Regards,

Jay McB

Got the same email today. My response was similar.

 

[Horrible]

And here's the current language(s)

What the House passed is infuriating.

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.

 

[Dadstoys]

Well the NRA is in favor of it.
Couldn't have seen that horseshit coming.
FU Wayne.

 

[W.E.C]

That section zz looks like a parts ban to me.

So now we get a “Massachusetts Machine Gun”.

this state is a true commie joke

 

[rchap36]

As I said before if we keep it just about guns we lose!
We must get people to understand it's about your right's , the same right's that Rosa Park risked her life for the same rights the Martin died protecting

 

[EC1]

politicians in MA are a pain in the ass, but the cause is really the voters who allow these jerks to continue to lord over them. Boston and environs may be the home to "magnificent" universities, but they are home of sheep.

 

[GM-GUY]

During a Nazi-esc roundup they would get on the trains singing give peace a chance. During a societal collapse they will be first on the spit.

 

[headednorth]

As I said before if we keep it just about guns we lose!
We must get people to understand it's about your right's , the same right's that Rosa Park risked her life for the same rights the Martin died protecting

Good luck with that dude. I dont know of a single non-gunowner that thinks of gun owning as a right. The average person in MA doesnt really even know what a right is. They probably think its something that the government lets you do. Tomorrow they might not let you do it anymore. Oh well...

If anything, they see it as a dangerous hobby that theyre mostly ok with other people doing as long as it isnt anywhere around them. You might as well tell them you enjoy juggling sticks of dynamite in the woods and that its their right to dynamite juggle along with you.

 

[Apathesis]

Virtually all reps rated A by GOAL voted for the ban.

What the **** GOAL? Your lukewarm initial response to the bill didn't even pick a damn side.

Now we got Shaunna O'Connell's husband saying she voted for it because 'It was going to pass anyway.'

Only THREE reps voted against this bill, and they are all Republicans. The rest of the Republicans are clearly full of it and their ratings by GOAL need to be reevaluated. Ditto for ALL of the Democrats who voted against it who are highly rated, of which there are many.

 

[Boris]

Good luck with that dude. I dont know of a single non-gunowner that thinks of gun owning as a right. The average person in MA doesnt really even know what a right is. They probably think its something that the government lets you do. Tomorrow they might not let you do it anymore. Oh well...

If anything, they see it as a dangerous hobby that theyre mostly ok with other people doing as long as it isnt anywhere around them. You might as well tell them you enjoy juggling sticks of dynamite in the woods and that its their right to dynamite juggle along with you.

that is indeed a big problem, especially in urban areas where people think that beef grows on trees and is picked by Jesusi.

 

[Boris]

Virtually all reps rated A by GOAL voted for the ban.

What the **** GOAL? Your lukewarm initial response to the bill didn't even pick a damn side.

Now we got Shaunna O'Connell's husband saying she voted for it because 'It was going to pass anyway.'

Only THREE reps voted against this bill, and they are all Republicans. The rest of the Republicans are clearly full of it and their ratings by GOAL need to be reevaluated. Ditto for ALL of the Democrats who voted against it who are highly rated, of which there are many.

I am still trying to figure out how to channel my anger. I perfectly understand the stand of the "republicans" who claim that since Democrats were going to rape you, they simply extended some lube and stepped aside.

The highly rated politicians are rated on the MA scale, i.e. they suck as politicians, as leaders and are useless as oppose to being D-malicious.

I still want to get Faker the **** out. Ds use the fact that Rs support this shit, so it's somehow right and justified, yeah, no public input at 11th hour, but "pro 2a advocates" supported us, so that's totally OK.

 

[Mike S]

Just saw a report from State House News that the same budget featuring the amendment to ban bump stocks also features an amendment to make it easier for people with a criminal history to get jobs at MA casinos. You really can't make it up.

 

[Palladin]

Just saw a report from State House News that the same budget featuring the amendment to ban bump stocks also features an amendment to make it easier for people with a criminal history to get jobs at MA casinos. You really can't make it up.

only in MA.....or maybe CA

 

[drumenigma]

Just saw a report from State House News that the same budget featuring the amendment to ban bump stocks also features an amendment to make it easier for people with a criminal history to get jobs at MA casinos. You really can't make it up.

Because the first person I would trust around oodles of money is a person with a criminal history - Mass Logic

 

[Uzi2]

Populate the fence!!!!!

 

[Jason Flare]

So, do I own a machine gun yet?

 

[Reptile]

Mass. Senate holds public hearing on bump stock ban, but no one shows up

After the Massachusetts Legislature sped restrictions on bump stocks, a tool to increase the firing rate of guns, through the legislative process, senators opened the issue up to a public hearing.

No members of the public showed up.

"I was not going to ask most of our people to take a day off and come to the Statehouse to talk about something that already happened," said Jim Wallace, executive director of Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts.

Bump stocks gained national notoriety after the man who killed 58 people and injured hundreds at a Las Vegas concert used a bump stock to turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic one. Automatic guns are illegal. The federal government and some states are now considering banning bump stocks.

In Massachusetts, the Senate and House passed different versions of bump stock restrictions as part of a budget bill.

The Senate language would classify bump stocks and trigger cranks the same way as machine guns. A trigger crank is another mechanism to speed up a gun's ability to fire. This would allow someone to get the device only after obtaining a particular type of license. For example, a gun collector or a firearm instructor who trains police officers could get one.

Continues...

http://www.masslive.com/politics/in...olds_hearing_on_gun_bi.html#incart_river_home

 

[Uzi2]

No members of the public showed up.

 

[milktree]

Just saw a report from State House News that the same budget featuring the amendment to ban bump stocks also features an amendment to make it easier for people with a criminal history to get jobs at MA casinos. You really can't make it up.

Wait... I thought our official position was, "you should be free if you're not in prison"

Is that not true anymore?

"criminal history" is bullshit.

 

[Boris]

Wait... I thought our official position was, "you should be free if you're not in prison"

Is that not true anymore?

"criminal history" is bullshit.

it's not so much about stance on criminal history as a display of two faced politicians: lets anal probe and MG certify anyone who wants a bump stock, but as long they are our relatives, no one need to check on their past to get casino jobs.

 

[JayMcB]

No members of the public showed up.

As Wallace said, why testify against a done deal? Why show up?

 

[EddieCoyle]

As Wallace said, why testify against a done deal? Why show up?

Yup. I'm glad that nobody showed up and validated their sham of a hearing. It's like a Soviet show trial.

 

[LoginName]

Yup. I'm glad that nobody showed up and validated their sham of a hearing. It's like a Soviet show trial.

 

[oppressed]

Assuming a chief would grant a machine gun license, would 90 days be enough time to apply for a C&R and a green card to even try to comply with the new law before the ban?