Macdonald negate "sporting purposes"?

[Len-2A Training]

I think that the licensing requirement in MA is ripe for challenge. IIRC, prior to the gun law changes in 1998 there was no license required to merely own a firearm in your own home or business. Now, the mere possession of a firearm requires permission from the state.

Really? Can you please cite anything that backs this up?

I can tell you with 100% certainty that as of ~1974 (Bartley-Fox Law) it was a minimum mandatory 1 year in prison for POSSESSION w/o a license.

FID Cards I was told go back to 1968 and were required for POSSESSION of any guns in the home (including handguns). If all you had was an FID, you needed a "Permit to Purchase" to buy a handgun . . . then you could take it home but NEVER move it anywhere else w/o a LTC.

Those with LTCs (and I've been told they go back to the 1910-1920s time-frame) could buy and carry (assuming no restrictions, but no legal penalties for violating restrictions) a handgun and possess anything (unsure when machine gun permits started).

So there is a lot of licensing history in MA and I'd guess that any challenge to invalidate all licenses would fail in court. After all, Heller decision had no problem with DC licensing people/guns.

 

[Kevlar]

Len is right. The FID card was created in 1968 by Chapter 737 of the Acts of 1968. Ironically, I just posted the history of the FID (and the LTC) today in another thread, but I'll re-post it here...

History of the License to Carry Firearms (LTC):
1906 The license was apparently created by Chapter 172 of the Acts of 1906.
1911 Chapter 548 (Unknown)
1919 Chapter 207 (Unknown)
1922 Chapter 485 (Unknown)
1925 Chapter 284 (Unknown)
1927 Chapter 326 (Unknown)
1936 Chapter 302 (Unknown)
1951 Chapter 201 of the Acts of 1951 added language that seems to have given control of the licensing to the local chief or local licensing authority.
1953 Chapter 319 of the Acts of 1953 deleted the reference to trial justices.
1953 Chapter 454 of the Acts of 1953 (Unknown)
1957 Chapter 688 of the Acts of 1957 rewrote the section covering the LTC.
1959 Chapter 296 of the Acts of 1959 inserted the words "possession" and "narcotic or harmful" in the first sentence.
1960 Chapter 293 of the Acts of 1960 (Unknown)
1969 Chapter 799 of the Acts of 1969 rewrote the language to prohibit minors from being able to acquire a machine gun license.
1972 Chapter 415 of the Acts of 1972 changed the term of a license and increased the fees from $2 to $10.
1973 Chapter 138 of the Acts of 1973 increased penalties for illegally issuing a license.
1973 Chapter 892 of the Acts of 1973 added language that required licensed persons to give notification of a change of address.
1974 Chapter 312 of the Acts of 1974 changed language to provide for a five year machine gun license.
1974 Chapter 649 of the Acts of 1974 added language to provide a 90 day grace period after the expiration of the license.
1975 Chapter 4 of the Acts of 1975 delayed the effective date of Chapter 649 of the Acts of 1974 until April 1, 1975.
1975 Chapter 113 of the Acts of 1975 added language concerning notification of license expiration.
1984 Chapter 420 of the Acts of 1984 inserted in the first sentence "whose license to carry firearms may only be issued under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty-one F" following the words "except an alien".
1986 Chapter 481 of the Acts of 1986 rewrote the entire section covering the LTC. This Act extended background checks and notification of address changes, etc.
1987 Chapter 465 of the Acts of 1987 made a minor change by inserting the word "than".
1994 Chapter 24 of the Acts of 1994 added language concerning individuals subject to a 209A (restraining order).
1996 Chapter 151 of the Acts of 1996 made changes to the law where it refer to the "commissioner of public safety", "colonel of the state police" or "executive director of the criminal history systems board".
1996 Chapter 200 of the Acts of 1996 added "youthful offender language".
1998 Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998 completely rewrote the section covering the LTC.
1998 Chapter 358 of the Acts of 1998 made changes to paragraphs (d), (j), (m), (o)



History of the FID Card:
1968 This was the year that the FID card law was created by Chapter 737 of the Acts of 1968. It took effect on January 1, 1969.
1969 Chapter 799 of the Acts of 1969 rewrote the FID section to make many clarifications.
1971 Chapter 225 of the Acts of 1971 rewrote part of the law to allow the licensing authority to conduct a mental health background check only when the authority doubted the applicant's response to the question of past hospitalization or mental illness.
1972 Chapter 312 of the Acts of 1972 deleted the words "a state prison or penitentiary" from the first paragraph and inserted the word "confinement". It also added "or is (f) an alien" to the language. It made FID Cards valid until revoked or suspended and added the requirement of a Card holder to give notification of change of address.
1976 Chapter 239 of the Acts of 1976 added the provision for residents of federal installations to be issued an FID.
1989 Chapter 339 of the Acts of 1989 substituted in the fourth sentence of the fifth paragraph, the word "thirty" for the word "ten"
1994 Chapter 24 of the Acts of 1994 added clause (g) in the first paragraph which created a disqualifier for anyone that was subject to a "209A" (restraining order). It also added similar language to the second paragraph under "setting other conditions."
1996 Chapter 151 & 200 of the Acts of 1996 changed the language to remove the word "commissioner" where relevant and insert the words "executive director of the criminal history systems board". The second bill inserted clause (h).
1998 Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998 completely rewrote the section covering FID Cards.
1998 Chapter 358 of the Acts of 1998 rewrote paragraph (3) covering application period.
2000 Chapter 159 of the Acts of 2000 deleted in paragraph (9) the expiration language.
2000 Chapter 236 of the Acts of 2000 corrected the expiration language.

http://www.massgunlawreform.com/Facts.htm

 

[cekim]

Len is right. The FID card was created in 1968 by Chapter 737 of the Acts of 1968. Ironically, I just posted the history of the FID (and the LTC) today in another thread, but I'll re-post it here...

Kind of stunning how often they mess with it...

MA legislators need electrodes installed to shock them each time they support a new bill so that they think twice...

 

[Coyote33]

Wait, I thought the 1930's "Miller case" said we cannot have arms unless they have a military purpose. How does this jive with the "sporting purposes" you mention?

Where are the lawsuits? I figured GOAL/NRA/GOA/SAF would have had them all lined up and ready to go pending the outcome of this decision.

 

[gjones77]

Wait, I thought the 1930's "Miller case" said we cannot have arms unless they have a military purpose. How does this jive with the "sporting purposes" you mention?

Where are the lawsuits? I figured GOAL/NRA/GOA/SAF would have had them all lined up and ready to go pending the outcome of this decision.

It takes time, they couldn't just run with a lawsuit without having the wording of the ruling to craft their cases, now that McDonald was ruled in our favor they can take the wording of Heller and McDonald and develop a case that will work in their favor, as opposed to running with a lawsuit that has no pertinent legal base because it was written prior to the ruling.

 

[jar]

Gura filed a new case yesterday in NC. They apparently suspend carry during states of emergency.

 

[BigMike]

Gura filed a new case yesterday in NC. They apparently suspend carry during states of emergency.

Now I know you (jar) know this.....but isn't a firearm the precise thing you want in your hand/on your person during a state of emergency?!

Holy crap that law is dumb....and far more sinister than it may imply

 

[jar]

Holy crap that law is dumb....and far more sinister than it may imply

Yeah, and it's in a relatively gun friendly jurisdiction. I think that's the reason Gura brought it. It's an attempt to start defining the right to bear in a more friendly court.

 

[seanc]

Wait, I thought the 1930's "Miller case" said we cannot have arms unless they have a military purpose. How does this jive with the "sporting purposes" you mention?

Where are the lawsuits? I figured GOAL/NRA/GOA/SAF would have had them all lined up and ready to go pending the outcome of this decision.

IANAL. My understanding of Miller was that they contended that Miller's unregistered (NFA stamp) short barrel shot gun was not in use by the military and thus not eligible under 2A as a militia suitable weapon. One thing lead to another, on appeal Miller ultimately never showed up at trial, the defense lawyer didn't try to dispute the shotgun in question's use by military and the judgement stood forever.

IIRC, the shotgun in question, WAS actually in use at the time but, as Miller did not show up to trial, the defense lawyer didn't have a chance to dispute the claim and the judgement stood forever.


Sporting purposes came in later, when all of a sudden the 2A was about duck hunting. Bush(?) stopped importation of "non sporting purposes" guns. Under the ever popular "nobody needs an uzi to hunt deer" mantra and the Brady-ites power. This got louder and more ingrained into the country mindset and ATF started imposing sporting purposes criteria culminating on them reclassifying "Ugly" shotguns as DDs. All about the time of the 1994 AWB...

Thus why we have Makarovs w/ adjustable sights, Tokarevs with external safeties, neutered Saigas and no more polytechs, norincos or hakkims coming in.


Does that sound about right?

 

[jar]

Sporting purposes for imported handguns goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sean, IIRC the reason that Miller didn't show up for the USSC was that he had died. Dead or not, if he (or his attorney) wasn't there to defend him (or his ashes), it was a one-sided case/argument and became bad law.

 

[seanc]

Sean, IIRC the reason that Miller didn't show up for the USSC was that he had died. Dead or not, if he (or his attorney) wasn't there to defend him (or his ashes), it was a one-sided case/argument and became bad law.

I'd believe that.. But.. Isn't there something that says that if the accused dies during a trial (or maybe an appeal) they are presumed/ judged innocent?

 

[terraformer]

IANAL. My understanding of Miller was that they contended that Miller's unregistered (NFA stamp) short barrel shot gun was not in use by the military and thus not eligible under 2A as a militia suitable weapon. One thing lead to another, on appeal Miller ultimately never showed up at trial, the defense lawyer didn't try to dispute the shotgun in question's use by military and the judgement stood forever.

IIRC, the shotgun in question, WAS actually in use at the time but, as Miller did not show up to trial, the defense lawyer didn't have a chance to dispute the claim and the judgement stood forever.


Sporting purposes came in later, when all of a sudden the 2A was about duck hunting. Bush(?) stopped importation of "non sporting purposes" guns. Under the ever popular "nobody needs an uzi to hunt deer" mantra and the Brady-ites power. This got louder and more ingrained into the country mindset and ATF started imposing sporting purposes criteria culminating on them reclassifying "Ugly" shotguns as DDs. All about the time of the 1994 AWB...

Thus why we have Makarovs w/ adjustable sights, Tokarevs with external safeties, neutered Saigas and no more polytechs, norincos or hakkims coming in.

Does that sound about right?

It was Reagan who used executive power to ban importation of those things. The industry was right behind him as they benefitted from the maneuver. It took out any and all cheap overseas competition. Don't doubt that local gun shops here in MA know that if the market was to really be opened up here, they would lose.

Sporting purposes for imported handguns goes back to the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Only handguns at that time. I am betting that the industry was happy with that when it happened. It all but ensured american companies would not have to compete with anyone but themselves.

Sean, IIRC the reason that Miller didn't show up for the USSC was that he had died. Dead or not, if he (or his attorney) wasn't there to defend him (or his ashes), it was a one-sided case/argument and became bad law.

Miller was one of two defendants. The other was a party to the case too. One did die (after the fact IIRC) but the issue was there was no NRA to pay the lawyers way to DC and lawyers didn't live solely for arguing at the SCOTUS like they do now. ex; Akin Gump

 

[Coyote33]

Gura filed a new case yesterday in NC. They apparently suspend carry during states of emergency.

Now I know you (jar) know this.....but isn't a firearm the precise thing you want in your hand/on your person during a state of emergency?!

Holy crap that law is dumb....and far more sinister than it may imply

We had this law last year, and it got passed by both the house and the senate.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/s01401.htm

(Is it law yet? If not, why not?)

 

[terraformer]

We had this law last year, and it got passed by both the house and the senate.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/s01401.htm

(Is it law yet? If not, why not?)

No, it has not passed yet. It was vetoed I believe or it failed to be reconciled in conference. Basically on the recommendation of MCOPA. You know, the guys and gals who exercise suitability with LTCs...

 

[center442]

My apologies, LenS and Kevlar; I stand corrected. That's what I get for relying on memory, and in this case, a very faulty one.

Why?

Heller didn't direct DC to issue a license at no cost. It directed them to issue a license.

Sorry if I was unclear in my OP.

I dislike the idea of licensing in the first place. But if we're going to be stuck with licensing I feel it should be with a very nominal fee. As it stands now, at least in MA, getting licensed could easily cost more than some folks can afford to pay. I'm fortunate that I can afford it, but someone in poor finances might not be able to. That leaves a poor person with having to choose between being unarmed or breaking the law by not getting licensed.

If the 2nd Amendment recognizes the truly inherent right of possessing the tools of self defense then I believe that government should put as few roadblocks in the way as possible. The real question is at what $$ point does the cost of a license become an unfair burden? $100? $500? $1000? It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Mayor Daley were to suggest that a gun license should cost $10,000. It's already been suggested that licensees there might need liability insurance.

You're correct that Heller directed DC to issue a license, not a free one. I don't know what it would cost to obtain a license there. My point is that unless it is a very small fee, some folks are still going to be unable to jump that hurdle, and I think that is wrong.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

My apologies, LenS and Kevlar; I stand corrected. That's what I get for relying on memory, and in this case, a very faulty one.



Sorry if I was unclear in my OP.

I dislike the idea of licensing in the first place. But if we're going to be stuck with licensing I feel it should be with a very nominal fee. As it stands now, at least in MA, getting licensed could easily cost more than some folks can afford to pay. I'm fortunate that I can afford it, but someone in poor finances might not be able to. That leaves a poor person with having to choose between being unarmed or breaking the law by not getting licensed.

If the 2nd Amendment recognizes the truly inherent right of possessing the tools of self defense then I believe that government should put as few roadblocks in the way as possible. The real question is at what $$ point does the cost of a license become an unfair burden? $100? $500? $1000? It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Mayor Daley were to suggest that a gun license should cost $10,000. It's already been suggested that licensees there might need liability insurance.

You're correct that Heller directed DC to issue a license, not a free one. I don't know what it would cost to obtain a license there. My point is that unless it is a very small fee, some folks are still going to be unable to jump that hurdle, and I think that is wrong.

If the 2nd Amendment recognizes the truly inherent right of possessing the tools of self defense then government should not place ANY roadblocks in the way. It should not even concern itself at all with it, other than to punish those on every level of society whom to any degree tamper with that right.....to include and especially, its own officials and employees. It doesn't grant that right and therefore except through the use of unlawful force can it deny it.

 

[M1911]

I dislike the idea of licensing in the first place. But if we're going to be stuck with licensing I feel it should be with a very nominal fee.

I dislike lots of things, but that doesn't mean that Heller vs. DC supports them.

You're correct that Heller directed DC to issue a license, not a free one. I don't know what it would cost to obtain a license there. My point is that unless it is a very small fee, some folks are still going to be unable to jump that hurdle, and I think that is wrong.

As I said, I think lots of things are wrong, but that doesn't mean SCOTUS agrees with me.

 

[center442]

I dislike lots of things, but that doesn't mean that Heller vs. DC supports them.


As I said, I think lots of things are wrong, but that doesn't mean SCOTUS agrees with me.

Understood, M1911. My hope is that with Heller and MacDonald recognizing the underlying right as basic, that there will be other cases addressing the issue of licensing and the related fees, and a whole host of other issues. I don't see these two decisions as the end; they're more of a beginning. Heller and MacDonald are the foundation, but the house still has to be built. What kind of house gets built remains to be seen.

 

[terraformer]

Understood, M1911. My hope is that with Heller and MacDonald recognizing the underlying right as basic, that there will be other cases addressing the issue of licensing and the related fees, and a whole host of other issues. I don't see these two decisions as the end; they're more of a beginning. Heller and MacDonald are the foundation, but the house still has to be built. What kind of house gets built remains to be seen.

There could be a chance to knock off the license fees or drag them down to something more reasonable, but don't expect outright licensing to fall, though I am not about to put money on that latter one. It may be able to fall and concepts like creating lists of prohibited people and saying they can't have guns instead of the corollary are possible. The natural answer to that will be "safety training" can't be verified without the license.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

There could be a chance to knock off the license fees or drag them down to something more reasonable, but don't expect outright licensing to fall, though I am not about to put money on that latter one. It may be able to fall and concepts like creating lists of prohibited people and saying they can't have guns instead of the corollary are possible. The natural answer to that will be "safety training" can't be verified without the license.

Doctors are trained without a license.
Pilots are trained without a license.
Drivers are trained without a license.
Dentists are trained without a license.
Lawyers are trained without a license.
Morticians are trained without a license.
Soldiers are trained without a license.
Plumbers are trained without a license.
Electricians are trained without a license.

Get the picture? All of the above professions and trades have the ability to induce harm or death just as easily as a gun...some use guns.

Training has nothing to do with licensure.......licensure has everything to do with collecting money and noting who has what and where.

Guns have been around for what, a few thousand years since the ancient Chinese and all of a sudden, someone says you have to have a license? Kind of absurd isn't it?

 

[terraformer]

Doctors are trained without a license.
Pilots are trained without a license.
Drivers are trained without a license.
Dentists are trained without a license.
Lawyers are trained without a license.
Morticians are trained without a license.
Soldiers are trained without a license.
Plumbers are trained without a license.
Electricians are trained without a license.

Get the picture? All of the above professions and trades have the ability to induce harm or death just as easily as a gun...some use guns.

Training has nothing to do with licensure.......licensure has everything to do with collecting money and noting who has what and where.

You picked a whole host of professions with licensure. And in fact many of those have licensure based on their own industries standards based on the belief that licensure can be used to enforce training and recertification requirements.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

You picked a whole host of professions with licensure. And in fact many of those have licensure based on their own industries standards based on the belief that licensure can be used to enforce training and recertification requirements.

My point is, training for any one of those professions doesn't require prior licensure to verify the training....it simply requires a sign off on completion of specific courses or classes or tasks.....at least initially.

So, if firearms licensure were to disappear, the training in the use of firearms could still be verified. It could be done by certified instructors(just as it is now) but the license aspect of it with the government charging you for it and registering transactions would not be there. All they would need to know is "yes joe blow passed the course and can handle a gun".
They don't need to know if joe blow went and bought one, or where he keeps it or whether he has a little piece of paper in his wallet that gives him permission to have it.

Like I said, licensure has everything to do with collecting money and noting who has what and where.

 

[swampy]

Move to TN, transfer the gun there, move back to massachusetts...but think really hard about moving back to massachusetts before you do it.

Would trying to have an unapproved gun transferred do the trick equally as well?

If so, I have a Colt Official Police Mk 4 in nickel made in the 70's that was/is a gift from my grandpa in TN and even GOAL said I couldn't get it transferred in.

 

[GSG]

This makes 2259 make more and more and more sense!

I think that H2259 will give Mass. gun owners some great legs to stand on to fight for their gun rights. But some of the stuff in their scares me a bit, like creating a division of MSP that does in MA what ATF does on a national level. Ask Michael Lara if he thinks that's a good idea.

Something that is a constitutional right does (should) not need a license.

I'm not directing this at you...but imagine for a second if you needed to fill out a 4473, pass a NICS check and obtain a permit from your local police chief in order to not be forced to feed and house soldiers, or to possess a book. Felons, people with domestic violence convictions, restraining orders, or those adjudicated mentally defective would be legally barred from books, churches, and the privacy of their own home.

We've really lost track of what a fundamental right is in this nation when it comes to firearms.

Len, they are required to ensure that someone is NOT a FPP prior to issuance...



I understand that some FPPs obtain FIDs, but the issuance itself is a violation of the bolded sections of the above statute.

Exactly. EOPS and the Mass. State Police aren't doing so well at reading about what they're required to do regarding licensing in the MGL's.

The real issue is that MA MUST issue an FID 5 years after completion of any sentence for a FEDERAL DQ. Non-federal DQ's don't enter into this particular issue.

As Kevlar pointed out here, and as I did in my thread on the subject, they are not legally allowed to issue an FID to a federally prohibited person. They still do for whatever reason.

Mea culpa. Rob has it right.

For the sake of most of the people on this forum, let's just hope that the ATF agents working out of the Boston Field Division have the same understanding of the Caron case as Rob and I do.

I despise all gun control laws. But Heller and MacDonald do not make all gun laws suddenly null and void. They both left huge gray areas that will take decades and mega-dollars to litigate.

+1. These two cases provided a figurative baseball bat with nails hammered through the end of it for gun owners. Individuals and groups will still have to pick up the bat & get in the ring to fight the bear.

Yeah, and it's in a relatively gun friendly jurisdiction. I think that's the reason Gura brought it. It's an attempt to start defining the right to bear in a more friendly court.

No offense, but it's gun friendly to people who've lived in MA for years on end. In N.C. you need an LTC or permit to purchase to purchase handguns, there's a ridiculously long list of places where you can't carry a gun, and they allow one county to force registration of firearms. To most of the US that's heavily infringed.

(Is it law yet? If not, why not?)

The Mass. Katrina bill was scuttled by MCOPA because it included language that would make criminal penalties for LE breaking that law. That makes a loud statement about the members of MCOPA in my opinion.

Guns have been around for what, a few thousand years since the ancient Chinese and all of a sudden, someone says you have to have a license? Kind of absurd isn't it?

The NES member Clinotus used to have a quote in his signature line with an excerpt from the first piece of gun control legislation passed on US soil. It was from the 1700's in North Carolina, and it prohibited "negroes and mulattos" from carrying rifles & muskets.

Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a license to carry when his life was in regular danger in Birmingham, because like Mass. today they were discretionary at the time.

Today, in June of 2010, most of the people on the "no soup for you" side of NICS are minorities, and even in free states the permitting structures that require a costly training course and a $50-$150 fee for a license to carry leave most minorities unable to afford the license.

No matter what the stated intent or suggested purpose of the gun control laws that we have on the books today, the people most affected by them aren't white. For the record, I'm not making excuses for violent criminals or welfare octomoms, but I do find it interesting that historically gun control always favors certain races.

 

[Len-2A Training]

1. I think that H2259 will give Mass. gun owners some great legs to stand on to fight for their gun rights. But some of the stuff in their scares me a bit, like creating a division of MSP that does in MA what ATF does on a national level. Ask Michael Lara if he thinks that's a good idea.
3. Exactly. EOPS and the Mass. State Police aren't doing so well at reading about what they're required to do regarding licensing in the MGL's.
   
4. For the sake of most of the people on this forum, let's just hope that the ATF agents working out of the Boston Field Division have the same understanding of the Caron case as Rob and I do.
6. The Mass. Katrina bill was scuttled by MCOPA because it included language that would make criminal penalties for LE breaking that law. That makes a loud statement about the members of MCOPA in my opinion.
8. No matter what the stated intent or suggested purpose of the gun control laws that we have on the books today, the people most affected by them aren't white. For the record, I'm not making excuses for violent criminals or welfare octomoms, but I do find it interesting that historically gun control always favors certain races.

I'm taking the liberty of numbering your points above that I'm addressing below for clarity.

1. Like in Item #4 below, the silence on H 2259 indicates to me that MCOPA has scuttled our attempts to make these changes. They always do this "in the back room", so that it's not publicly known or cause any public dissent at their actions.
   
2. True. Each Gov-appointed Sec of Public Safety brings their own legal team and gives marching orders on "how to interpret MGLs and Regs" to fit their political agenda. Currently this results in some grim interpretations . . . with no public knowledge some interpretations now make a crime out of something that was previous policy/interpretation.
   
3. From personal experience, NO, BATFE Boston agents do not have a good understanding of Fed Laws/Regs or MGLs (which they are involved in enforcement as well). As an example, some C&R FFLs that were audited have been told that they must keep their collection SEPARATE from their "personally owned firearms" . . . a result of no understanding of the difference between a collector and a dealer!! I have some other personally known examples, but they aren't for publication but you get the idea.
   
4. Yes, personal responsibility for breaking the law runs counter to MCOPA's mission statement! They also will do anything not to lose "power" and control . . . i.e. that's why the Byrne Grant Report on LE training was ignored (recommended to create a POST like 48 other states and wrest control from MCOPA of the curriculum for all LE training in the state of MA). It's also why I'm certain that they scuttled H 2259 quietly.
   
5. I'd like to think that the discrimination we see today towards minorities is not racially motivated and that it's motivated by politicrats running cities that are out of control and want to "look tough on crime" by limiting legal guns/gun owners instead of going after criminals. I'm hoping that I'm right, but there really is no way to know or get into their pea-brains to confirm their motivations.

 

[namedpipes]

You picked a whole host of professions with licensure. And in fact many of those have licensure based on their own industries standards based on the belief that licensure can be used to enforce training and recertification requirements.

Let's pick on aestheticians for a minute, since there probably aren't a lot on this forum to get offended.

You have to complete 300 hours of training that consists of a manual, some written tests, practical demos and practice. The course can range from $500 - $?k. You then take a test ~ 1 - 2 hours, pay a FEE to the state and you are a licensed aesthetician. Maintain the license 2 years, pay another FEE and you can bump up to the next level. Etc. If you have the ability to pass a core curriculum college course and final exam, you can get your esty license. If you pay the fees...

That does not make you a great esty, though. I know of several that are ok to poor and one that is positively scary (and although she practices medicine too, writing scripts on a real doctor'ss pad, she isn't one. That's ok though, she mainly practices on illegals because they can't sue. I do feel bad for the one lady that lost her eyebrows, though.)

I digress.

Speaking in terms of the trades like esthetics, carpentry, juice, mechanics, etc., the public is better served by people trained by (apprenticed to) pros that have been doing this for a long time, and just possibly by private accreditation organizations. The license from the state does not impart skills or knowledge. Experience and training does.

Hold the offenders liable when/if they screw up. Collecting a fee in advance won't prevent that screwup from happening.

 

[Coyote33]

Regarding the Katrina bill, here is what the state says happened at http://www.mass.gov/legis/185history/s01401.htm :

Petition of Richard T. Moore, George N. Peterson, Jr. and Bruce E. Tarr for legislation to prohibit the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a state of emergency.
01/11/07 S Referred to the committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
01/11/07 H House concurred
03/31/08 S Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means -SJ 1407
07/29/08 S Committee recommended ought to pass
07/29/08 S Rules suspended
07/29/08 S Read second, ordered to a third reading, read third and passed to be engrossed -SJ 2205
07/29/08 H Read; and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means -HJ 1855
07/31/08 H Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to the committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling
07/31/08 H Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next sitting
07/31/08 H Rules suspended
07/31/08 H Read second and ordered to a third reading
07/31/08 H Rules suspended
07/31/08 H Read third
07/31/08 H Bills in the Third Reading report accepted
07/31/08 H Passed to be engrossed -HJ 1915
01/06/09 H No further action taken

Does that last line mean no further action CAN be taken? Or is that the end of the road for it?

 

[terraformer]

Let's pick on aestheticians for a minute, since there probably aren't a lot on this forum to get offended.

You have to complete 300 hours of training that consists of a manual, some written tests, practical demos and practice. The course can range from $500 - $?k. You then take a test ~ 1 - 2 hours, pay a FEE to the state and you are a licensed aesthetician. Maintain the license 2 years, pay another FEE and you can bump up to the next level. Etc. If you have the ability to pass a core curriculum college course and final exam, you can get your esty license. If you pay the fees...

That does not make you a great esty, though. I know of several that are ok to poor and one that is positively scary (and although she practices medicine too, writing scripts on a real doctor'ss pad, she isn't one. That's ok though, she mainly practices on illegals because they can't sue. I do feel bad for the one lady that lost her eyebrows, though.)

I digress.

Speaking in terms of the trades like esthetics, carpentry, juice, mechanics, etc., the public is better served by people trained by (apprenticed to) pros that have been doing this for a long time, and just possibly by private accreditation organizations. The license from the state does not impart skills or knowledge. Experience and training does.

Hold the offenders liable when/if they screw up. Collecting a fee in advance won't prevent that screwup from happening.

I agree the license itself doesn't impart the knowledge, but the licensing is the tool by which completion in said training/apprenticeship is "proven" or otherwise keyed to. If you needed the training to get the license, then therefore licensed individuals are trained.

 

[mousegunfan]

I agree the license itself doesn't impart the knowledge, but the licensing is the tool by which completion in said training/apprenticeship is "proven" or otherwise keyed to. If you needed the training to get the license, then therefore licensed individuals are trained.

Ok, I can agree to a point. I had to train, take a state test to get my professional license. But now I have to pay every 2 years to renew it for no reason. It should be indefinite unless revoked. Revoked only because of professional misconduct related to the license, not I didn't pay my excise tax or something. Do you have to pay your college every 2 years to keep your degree? Its all about the money and power over you at this point.