Linsky's Amendment is back in play - Call your rep NOW!

[lowbuckbob]

Done

 

[EddieCoyle]

... for something like this, I don't foresee any of them going all out, burning the midnight oil in order to pass a more favorable amendment for gun owners.

This is where GOAL comes in. Jim Wallace has been at the Statehouse essentially full-time since this hæmorrhoid of an amendment flared up, educating, answering questions, and hammering home the reasons why the Linksy version is so bad. He's been working non-stop to see that this abortion is not included in the budget bill that hits Baker's desk.

Think of what Jim is doing as someone standing in front of an avalanche or tsunami, and he is doing it fearlessly. No other so-called gun rights groups have been anywhere near the Statehouse this week, which is the best possible place anybody can go to influence the vote. He has the direct ear of dozens of lawmakers, and the votes of 16000 GOAL members to back him up. I wish it was 160,000.

 

[iofneedle]

T, and the votes of 16000 GOAL members to back him up. I wish it was 160,000.

every fuking gun owner

 

[MassPete]

This is where GOAL comes in. Jim Wallace has been at the Statehouse essentially full-time since this hæmorrhoid of an amendment flared up, educating, answering questions, and hammering home the reasons why the Linksy version is so bad. He's been working non-stop to see that this abortion is not included in the budget bill that hits Baker's desk.

Think of what Jim is doing as someone standing in front of an avalanche or tsunami, and he is doing it fearlessly. No other so-called gun rights groups have been anywhere near the Statehouse this week, which is the best possible place anybody can go to influence the vote. He has the direct ear of dozens of lawmakers, and the votes of 16000 GOAL members to back him up. I wish it was 160,000.

And this is why I'm a Life NRA and GOAL member.

 

[bandaid bandit]

Working at getting my rep to the range either over the weekend or first thing next week. We've had some civil discussions over the issue, but I've never seen him vote in any way other than how he's told. Either way, couple of boxes of ammo is worth it for the chance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[headednorth]

Honest feedback, I would ask someone to proofread before sending. These are not "infringements on gun control", they are infringements on rights or ineffective gun control for the sake of appearance. Also, it's "legislators". Also, you will stand by, threatening is never a good tactic when trying to persuade. Again, we will sit here and take it if they decide to support it. maybe just copy and post the bulk of the original post.

let's put some thought and effort into our emails and calls and be as professional as possible.

Also should be a "maniac" with a gun rather than "manic".

 

[Noreaster]

the votes of 16000 GOAL members to back him up.

Why is this number so low? 16 thousand? We have a heck of a lot more than 16 gun owners in mass, don't we?

Can we get GOAL to to have a membership promotion. 10 Gift memberships for members to gift to non members (not used for renewals). GOAL wont make a ton of $$ but we could jack up that membership.

 

[Waher]

Why is this number so low? 16 thousand? We have a heck of a lot more than 16 gun owners in mass, don't we?

Because most gun owners are cheap. It's why tens of millions of people identify as NRA members when the paying membership is 6-7 million. Most people pay membership for a year and then claim they are members for life.

 

[Coyote33]

Because most gun owners are cheap. It's why tens of millions of people identify as NRA members when the paying membership is 6-7 million. Most people pay membership for a year and then claim they are members for life.

I wonder if the NRA will put out a last minute alert, or after a vote report.

 

[Noreaster]

WOW - looking for amendments now, but this has passed senate yesterday:

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H3979

Date	Branch	Action
10/26/2017	House	Reported from the committee on House Ways and Means
10/26/2017	House	Reported on a part of H3869
10/26/2017	House	Committee recommended ought to pass
10/26/2017	House	Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to the committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling
10/26/2017	House	Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next sitting
10/26/2017	House	Rules suspended
10/26/2017	House	Read second, ordered to a third reading, rules suspended, read third
10/26/2017	House	Passed to be engrossed
10/26/2017	Senate	Read
10/26/2017	Senate	Rules suspended
10/26/2017	Senate	Read second
10/26/2017	Senate	Amended (Spilka) by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in place thereof the text of S2194 - see Roll Call #224 [YEAS 28 to NAYS 8]
10/26/2017	Senate	Ordered to a third reading
10/26/2017	Senate	Read third (title changed) and passed to be engrossed

--- update ---
I cannot find what s2194 is and its contents are, however Tarr was one of the 8 who opposed it. Therefore i highly doubt it was his language on 2A matters.

This garbage is a done deal.

Here is the official wording:

241 SECTION 18. Chapter 140 of General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section
242 131Q, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following section:-
243 Section 131R. Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a
244 rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of
245 the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to
246 increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less
247 than 3 nor more than 20 years.

--------

511 SECTION 51. The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1,
512 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and
513 firearms consistent with the intent of this section.

I still maintain that this wording doesn't actually ban anything since a semiautomatic rifle will only have a discharge rate of 1 and anything greater than 1 is a machine gun. At least by MGL definitions.

 

[Horrible]

Case study for the MA Legislature:

Bump Stock Ban Fails in Deep-Blue Illinois

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/26/bump-stock-ban-fails-deep-blue-illinois/

But Moylan’s ban was met with opposition from members of both parties who viewed it as too broad. It was voted down by a vote of 54 to 48. State Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Smithton) said, “I don’t view this as a bump stock ban, I view this as a ban on 40 to 50 percent of the guns in the state.”

A competing bump stock ban was put forward by Republicans; it deals with bump stocks but does not contain the additional language impacting Tannerite and other firearm accessories.

 

[Horrible]

WOW - looking for amendments now, but this has passed senate yesterday:

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H3979

Date	Branch	Action
10/26/2017	House	Reported from the committee on House Ways and Means
10/26/2017	House	Reported on a part of H3869
10/26/2017	House	Committee recommended ought to pass
10/26/2017	House	Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to the committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling
10/26/2017	House	Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next sitting
10/26/2017	House	Rules suspended
10/26/2017	House	Read second, ordered to a third reading, rules suspended, read third
10/26/2017	House	Passed to be engrossed
10/26/2017	Senate	Read
10/26/2017	Senate	Rules suspended
10/26/2017	Senate	Read second
10/26/2017	Senate	Amended (Spilka) by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in place thereof the text of S2194 - see Roll Call #224 [YEAS 28 to NAYS 8]
10/26/2017	Senate	Ordered to a third reading
10/26/2017	Senate	Read third (title changed) and passed to be engrossed

--- update ---
I cannot find what s2194 is and its contents are, however Tarr was one of the 8 who opposed it. Therefore i highly doubt it was his language on 2A matters.

This garbage is a done deal.

Here is the official wording:


I still maintain that this wording doesn't actually ban anything since a semiautomatic rifle will only have a discharge rate of 1 and anything greater than 1 is a machine gun. At least by MGL definitions.

But you know how it will be 'interpreted'. Hell, Lines 511 - 513 could be interpreted that EOPS can now make regulations (lawrs) on how I clean my firearms!! THIS IS REALLY ****ING BAD!!

 

[Noreaster]

But you know how it will be 'interpreted'. Hell, Lines 511 - 513 could be interpreted that EOPS can now make regulations (lawrs) on how I clean my firearms!! THIS IS REALLY ****ING BAD!!

AG is the interpretation party you really need to worry about.

This state is a lost cause.

 

[dennism]

So this passed? WTF

 

[EddieCoyle]

So this passed? WTF

Not yet.

 

[slipknot]

Honest feedback, I would ask someone to proofread before sending. These are not "infringements on gun control", they are infringements on rights or ineffective gun control for the sake of appearance. Also, it's "legislators". Also, you will stand by, threatening is never a good tactic when trying to persuade. Again, we will sit here and take it if they decide to support it. maybe just copy and post the bulk of the original post.

let's put some thought and effort into our emails and calls and be as professional as possible.

thanks, I did remove part of do your job. I also said of not on gun control but I understand. My bad on spelling.


I called Pacheco's office also but I expect as usual he will do zero

 

[dennism]

Not yet.

I must be confused, I thought the senate passed the bill with the houses language last night?

 

[Noreaster]

I must be confused, I thought the senate passed the bill with the houses language last night?

The senate passed with an alteration, so the house needs to engross it with the newer language. Then it will be enacted and given to the governor to sign.
If the senate did not alter it with whatever language S2194 provides, it would have been enacted last night.

The question is what does S2194 do and how bad does the house not want it. My educated guess (based on Tarr voting against the S2194 wording) is this fly's right through as soon as house has a session. The have till Tuesday to get it on bakers desk. Looks like there is an informal session today, so expect action on this matter.

This is where the alteration happened:

10/26/2017	Senate	Amended (Spilka) by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in place thereof the text of S2194 - see Roll Call #224 [YEAS 28 to NAYS 8]
10/26/2017	Senate	Ordered to a third reading
10/26/2017	Senate	Read third (title changed) and passed to be engrossed

 

[Noreaster]

Oh WTF.
Ok, i need some help with this one.
S.2194 is alive - It has the Tarr language on the bump-stock situation.
However, i am not clear if H.3979 is the current language and they just took a part of 2194 (and not the part we are interested in), or ??????

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/S2194/BillHistory

 

[kevin9]

I'm glad (for small values of glad) that the Tarr wording appears to be back in play; still, we'll have to see what comes out of committee.

I'm still confused/annoyed at how this passed the House in informal session. As I understand it passage of a bill in informal session must be unanimous "If any member objects to a matter, the matter is not approved at that time.". Why was there not a single objection in the House? The first time around there were 3 objections, what happened to them this time?

Every single Representative needs to hear of our displeasure, regardless of how "2A friendly" they claim or appear to be, and not a one of them should get a good rating from GOAL hereafter.

 

[VTski4x4]

So it didn't pass, but they aren't amending it with Tarr's language? I'm starting to get confuzzled

How TF could it pass before, get amended with Tarr's language because the Senate agreed that Linsky's wording was crap - they create a new bill with Linsky's old language, and the Senate now says "ok, fine, no problems here." This is insanity!

 

[Noreaster]

So it didn't pass, but they aren't amending it with Tarr's language? I'm starting to get confuzzled

How TF could it pass before, get amended with Tarr's language because the Senate agreed that Linsky's wording was crap - they create a new bill with Linsky's old language, and the Senate now says "ok, fine, no problems here." This is insanity!

This is why politicians are not normal people. Normal people would be screaming WTF is wrong with all of you!

 

[Horrible]

So it didn't pass, but they aren't amending it with Tarr's language? I'm starting to get confuzzled

How TF could it pass before, get amended with Tarr's language because the Senate agreed that Linsky's wording was crap - they create a new bill with Linsky's old language, and the Senate now says "ok, fine, no problems here." This is insanity!

Gun Control in of itself is insanity. See Einstein's definition.

 

[Mike S]

Keep hammering on the Linsky language.

DeLeo really tipped his hand with his shenanigans yesterday and there's currently more than a little animosity between the house and senate regarding these bills. It's going to come down to which version gets passed and we need to do everything we can to ensure it's not Linsky's version.

We should know who is going to be on the conference committee later today and we will need to heat up their phones once we do.

 

[Alchemist17]

Oh WTF.
Ok, i need some help with this one.
S.2194 is alive - It has the Tarr language on the bump-stock situation.
However, i am not clear if H.3979 is the current language and they just took a part of 2194 (and not the part we are interested in), or ??????

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/S2194/BillHistory

My read is that this is basically an "F-you" to the house. The house re-passed basically the same bill after the Senate amended and sent the re-passed bill to the Senate, and the Senate said "we accept your bill, except we remove all of your language and replace it with our own". Or it could be just how they're dealing with the procedural snafu, who knows. But my reading is after the "emergency" enacting clause and all, senate text replaces house text. Time will tell.

I really hate this "emergency" crap ... an emergency is a foreign invasion, natural disaster, or the like. Inability to deliver a budget with enough time for proper debate and discussion isn't an emergency, it's poor planning. Out in the real world, people get fired for things like that.

 

[MAJoe]

I really hate this "emergency" crap ... an emergency is a foreign invasion, natural disaster, or the like. Inability to deliver a budget with enough time for proper debate and discussion isn't an emergency, it's poor planning. Out in the real world, people get fired for things like that.

Or they become a successful politician in Connecticut.

 

[Noreaster]

Actually, it looks like S.2194 is the amended language.

Bump and trigger crank are defined, then they are categorized as machine guns.

This part is interesting:

from 2194

250 SECTION 21. Paragraph (o) of section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is
251 hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- Clauses (i) and (ii) of this paragraph shall
252 not apply to bump stocks and trigger cranks as defined in section 121.

from MGL Chapter 140, Section 131:

(o) No person shall be issued a license to carry or possess a machine gun in the commonwealth, except that a licensing authority or the colonel of state police may issue a machine gun license to:
(i) a firearm instructor certified by the municipal police training committee for the sole purpose of firearm instruction to police personnel;
(ii) a bona fide collector of firearms upon application or upon application for renewal of such license.

So i am not clear what the intent there is. Its either you cannot use the "i have a bump stock, so i need a machine gun license" excuse OR its stating that a machine gun license does not allow you to posses a bump stock.
I think is the no excuse part, but these people suck at writing clear laws.

 

[Mike S]

Here's the full text of Tarr's amendment included on the senate version of the bill.

I hope everyone recognizes at this point that we are down to two options, A. Linsky's version or B. Tarr's version.

SECTION 18. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “gun”, in line 100, the following words:- ; provided, however, that “machine gun” shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks

SECTION 19. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the definition of “Assault weapon” the following definition:- “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.

SECTION 20. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended inserting after the definition of “Shotgun” the following definition:- “Trigger crank”, any device to be attached to a semiautomatic 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; provided, however, that “trigger crank” shall not include any firearm initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever.

SECTION 21. Paragraph (o) of section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- Clauses (i) and (ii) of this paragraph shall apply to bump stocks and trigger cranks as defined in section 121.

SECTION 53. The executive office of public safety and security shall notify individuals
496 licensed under chapter 140 of the General Laws of the changes to laws made in sections 18 to 21, inclusive, of this act and the effective date of those changes. The executive office shall also notify manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger cranks of the changes made under said sections to 21, inclusive, and the effective date of those changes.

SECTION 55. Sections 18 to 21, inclusive, shall take effect 90 days after the effective date of this act; provided, however, that no person shall 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.

 

[MAJoe]

Actually, it looks like S.2194 is the amended language.

Bump and trigger crank are defined, then they are categorized as machine guns.

This part is interesting:

from 2194


from MGL Chapter 140, Section 131:


So i am not clear what the intent there is. Its either you cannot use the "i have a bump stock, so i need a machine gun license" excuse OR its stating that a machine gun license does not allow you to posses a bump stock.
I think is the no excuse part, but these people suck at writing clear laws.

Appears that applies to reasons for issuing a MG license.

 

[W.E.C]

M senators aid ,had a short one line responce. “I’ll let the senator know”.

my house reps phone went unanswered. After 30 rings.

so I sent an email Expressing my disappointment at his not doing anything to stop this mess.

both are rated A by goal.

Did anyone point out Ma is the only state to fly off the handle to get this b.s. passed ?

like a bunch of frightened children, not leaders.