Massachusetts Legislature Voting on Anti-Civil Rights Bill TODAY!

Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
402
Likes
142
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,949
Likes
9,582
Thank you. If anyone has the document with the line numbers, I'm missing the important parts in yellow at the bottom.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,949
Likes
9,582
We should be writing this up and handing this to our reps and senators. Make then vote on it. Put them on the record.
As far as I know, they DID vote on it, and it is waiting to be signed by Baker. Not sure if the vote is on record or not.

Keep in mind this was NOT an official document. It was something I whipped up late last night because the way they write these laws is insane, and I wanted to try to make sense out of it.
 
Rating - 100%
51   0   0
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
2,906
Likes
1,650
Location
Cape
As far as I know, they DID vote on it, and it is waiting to be signed by Baker. Not sure if the vote is on record or not.

Keep in mind this was NOT an official document. It was something I whipped up late last night because the way they write these laws is insane, and I wanted to try to make sense out of it.
If the Senate did vote, they changed it, so it had to go back to the house.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
3,472
Likes
3,438
Location
Sudbury, MA Surrounded by snowflakes.
If the Senate did vote, they changed it, so it had to go back to the house.

Says here it was "laid before the governor"

Yes, it has already been voted on and has been on bakers desk.

For those who are looking to see how their rep voted, you should be able to click the links here:

8/1/2022HouseEnacted - 147 YEAS to 6 NAYS (See YEA and NAY No. 285 )
8/1/2022SenateEnacted -see Roll Call #259 (Yeas 37 to Nays 1)
8/1/2022SenateLaid before the Governor

Also remember, at this stage your reps were voting for the complete package, not just the gun related parts. There was a lot on that bill that is not gun related.
 

free

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
2,581
Likes
1,712
Location
In the Data Dump
As far as I know, they DID vote on it, and it is waiting to be signed by Baker. Not sure if the vote is on record or not.

Keep in mind this was NOT an official document. It was something I whipped up late last night because the way they write these laws is insane, and I wanted to try to make sense out of it.
And bless your pointy little ears for doing so. Thanks for the efforts Wylie.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,949
Likes
9,582
And bless your pointy little ears for doing so. Thanks for the efforts Wylie.
I hope it reads OK, and the "color coding" makes sense to people. It was late at night, but I was "pissed-typing", and wanted this done.

1. The way they do these bills is ridiculous.
2. Even after the corrections, the language is atrocious, and often nonsensical.
3. Why can't they put forward bills to correct all the broken language?
4. I hoped this helped someone else besides me. After I spent the time doing it, it did actually help make more sense.
5. If anybody wants to swap in the parts in yellow at the end, PM/DM/IM me, and I'll get you the doc. Then we can get it to Springfield T.D. to re-post it up again for all.
 

Goliathan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,597
Likes
1,472
Location
Bristol County
Changing the damn numbers every time some legislator cuts a loud fart makes it impossible to track these things through the process. H.5163 is the final deal, my own boil-down of the Ch. 140 section of the amendment work out to:

  1. Sections 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 through 16, 19, 21, 22 essentially strike out and remove references to “may issue” provisions, licensing authority discretion, and licensing restrictions. The Bruen stuff, apparently
  2. Section 6 and 17 changes language by referring to departments instead of things like “the commissioner of”
  3. Section 8: Prohibited person now includes those under a permanent or temporary harassment prevention order under Chapter 258E.
  4. Section 11: under the suitability language, it used to say that licensing authorities could deny based on “reliable and credible” information that the applicant would be a danger, etc. Now it says “Reliable, -articulable- and credible”
  5. Section 17 and 18 also amend non-resident licenses to include rifles and shotguns, and says that non-res licenses are now “shall issue.”
  6. Section 19 strikes out the may issue provisions for non-res licenses, BUT adds in language that allows for suitability
  7. Section 20 removes all ten clauses from Section 131F, covering reasons why a non-resident license could be denied.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
663
Likes
350
Location
South Shore, MA
The section 11 part: Reliable, -articulable- and credible. Sounds like a Boy Scout pledge. I guess that leaves somebody like Stephen Hawking out in the cold. It begs the question though, where does this or from who does the information get generated from?
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
10,048
Likes
12,656
Location
Taunton
The section 11 part: Reliable, -articulable- and credible. Sounds like a Boy Scout pledge. I guess that leaves somebody like Stephen Hawking out in the cold. It begs the question though, where does this or from who does the information get generated from?
It essentially means they can write down a credible reason for denial (which will get rubber stamped by a judge)
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
44,582
Likes
27,569
It essentially means they can write down a credible reason for denial (which will get rubber stamped by a judge)
This is a substantial improvement IF the courts follow it. The old standard (which was applied long pas its time) was any reason the issuing authority wanted as long as it was not arbitrary, capricious and and abuse of discretion. There was absolutely no requirement that the decision be based on violence or the potential thereof. If the chief said "we consider taking the 5th to be non-cooperation in an investigation", it was upheld. There was no mention of credibility either - it just had to be a reason the issuer felt appropriate.

There is a strong probability the courts will fail to look for a specific "dangerousness finding" even though the law requires it, and it is even more likely that the court will preserve the "not de-novo" from the old Moyer case.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
19,735
Likes
21,820
Location
North Shore
True - they are setting the standard to deny an enumerated right at the same level as probable cause.
However until there is a sympathetic case, there is no remedy.
It may be what it takes.
We didn't get in this hole overnight and I doubt we will get out of it overnight.
 

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
6,756
Likes
18,238
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
So will MA honestly be able to be referred to as Shall Issue? Considering the inclusion of the "suitability" language, that goes beyond the simple question of whether an applicant is a prohibited person, some might say that Shall Issue title is up in the air.

🐯

P.S.> I would like to add a nag that the permit to purchase aspect of the LTC and its $100 fee remains unconstitutional.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
10,048
Likes
12,656
Location
Taunton
So will MA honestly be able to be referred to as Shall Issue? Considering the inclusion of the "suitability" language, that goes beyond the simple question of whether an applicant is a prohibited person, some might say that Shall Issue title is up in the air.

🐯

P.S.> I would like to add a nag that the permit to purchase aspect of the LTC and its $100 fee remains unconstitutional.
Everyone is "shall issue" now
Mass can and will try its hand at suitability in one of the shitty towns and it will work as long as they only deny people with a lot of crap in their past.
As soon as they deny someone who has a low level non-violent issue then the reckoning will happen.

Bigger issue would be towns letting people know "hey, we're going to let you withdraw this application and get your $100 back instead of putting a denial on your record".
For someone who is actually prohibited but doesn't realize it then that's a decent offer but that's not the only people some of the old red towns will pull it on.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,949
Likes
9,582
P.S.> I would like to add a nag that the permit to purchase aspect of the LTC and its $100 fee remains unconstitution
 
Top Bottom