-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Taurus G3***
Massachusetts Legislature Voting on Anti-Civil Rights Bill TODAY!
- Thread starter Amputee Marksman
- Start date
Here's the writeup
View: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10In5tl43nNoyl-VXqvEPRkKvsw8uelYX/view?usp=sharing
Last edited:
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
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.
I believe the change in "section 12" applies to the word "may" in 131F:
"Such license shall be valid for a period of one year but the colonel
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:
| 8/1/2022 | House | Enacted - 147 YEAS to 6 NAYS (See YEA and NAY No. 285 ) |
| 8/1/2022 | Senate | Enacted -see Roll Call #259 (Yeas 37 to Nays 1) |
| 8/1/2022 | Senate | Laid 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
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
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:
- 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
- Section 6 and 17 changes language by referring to departments instead of things like “the commissioner of”
- Section 8: Prohibited person now includes those under a permanent or temporary harassment prevention order under Chapter 258E.
- 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”
- Section 17 and 18 also amend non-resident licenses to include rifles and shotguns, and says that non-res licenses are now “shall issue.”
- Section 19 strikes out the may issue provisions for non-res licenses, BUT adds in language that allows for suitability
- Section 20 removes all ten clauses from Section 131F, covering reasons why a non-resident license could be denied.
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?
Dadstoys
NES Member
Tap dancing in a minefield.
I hope they keep playing little f*ck f*ck games till it cost them everything.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 44,582
- Likes
- 27,569
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
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
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.
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
Everyone is "shall issue" nowSo 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.
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.
Comm2A Files Against Northborough (again) - Morin v. Lyver
The First Circuit told Alfred Morin he couldn't challenge his license prohibition because he didn't apply for the 'right' combination of licenses. Well, now he can. He got the FID, the PTP was denied, and the NPD Chief gets sued again - Morin v. Lyver.
www.northeastshooters.com
free
NES Member
On the Governor's Desk
View what legislation is on the Governor's desk for review and action.
Similar threads
