New Gun Laws In Effect Starting Today

[cekim]

I'm absolutely certain that much of the above-posted changes are NOT ready and in the hands of dealers, etc. as of my writing this.

I know that FRB and EOPS are "working on this stuff" and I was advised to contact them for updated info sometime after today. I'm equally certain that MCOPA is working diligently on ways to circumvent the positive changes in the law!

Nothing here yet...

They sent out a letter detailing the CORI requirement and mentioned pepper spray and LEO exemptions, but no suicide prevention materials.

 

[Precision Point Firearms]

Nothing here yet...

They sent out a letter detailing the CORI requirement and mentioned pepper spray and LEO exemptions, but no suicide prevention materials.

Same here. Gonna make my own in MS Paint using cartoons.

 

[cekim]

Same here. Gonna make my own in MS Paint using cartoons.

If only I would not be practicing medicine without a license to offer psychological counseling...

"Don't do it man... just move to another state... "

 

[Precision Point Firearms]

We won't have to include it on 9mm handguns right? Just .40 and up

 

[Double Tap]

- Suitability is now based on specific criteria, rather than any reason the issuing authority feels like (gutted Moyer vs. Shelburne)

Have any of these suitablility guidelines been formulated?

 

[Coyote33]

... January 1, 2015. The speculation and conjecture can end. ...Anyone have a list or link to what laws changed overnight from the last big bill? What, if any are still left with a future effective date? Please include any changes to hunting laws as well. I know the pepper spray stuff went into effect a couple months ago. ...

Just for the sake of keeping this focused:

SECTION 117. Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 31, 32, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 67, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 84, 88, 91, 92, 94, 100, 101, and 102 shall take effect on January 1, 2015.

SECTION 121. Section 34 is hereby repealed.

Any (brief) descriptions on these? Are these all new stuff?

Have any of these suitablility guidelines been formulated?

Is that supposed to be in place right now? I thought each department was allowed their own "guidelines" still. Confused here.

 

[Idoktr]

What is the change to the C&R that does not change until 2021?

 

[Emoto]

What is the change to the C&R that does not change until 2021?

Or anything at all that relates to C&R?

 

[SKS Ray]

Wasn't there also something about cracking down on people with misdemeanor arrest charges?

 

[Squire]

Is that supposed to be in place right now? I thought each department was allowed their own "guidelines" still. Confused here.

RE: suitability. My understanding was that there are no standards, but if COP is going to deny for any non-Fed prohibited person reason, they have to get a court to affirm their reason. How this will work in practice is unknown (will the license be issued and then revoked if the court agrees unsuitable, or does the person have to wait for the courts decision). Additionally, there is the Restriction issue as it relates to suitability (Comm2a is on this, donate as much as you can, make your own coffee in the morning and become a diamond sponsor).

It will be interesting to see who the first chief to go to a judge to deny FID, LTC, or restrict LTC, because there is a chance (someday) of a SCOTUS decision requiring Shall Issue in MA since this law gets Suitability/Restrictions into the courts.

IANAL, and defer to perspectives/opinions of those on Forum who have more knowledge.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Suitability

RE: suitability. My understanding was that there are no standards, but if COP is going to deny for any non-Fed prohibited person reason, they have to get a court to affirm their reason. How this will work in practice is unknown (will the license be issued and then revoked if the court agrees unsuitable, or does the person have to wait for the courts decision). Additionally, there is the Restriction issue as it relates to suitability (Comm2a is on this, donate as much as you can, make your own coffee in the morning and become a diamond sponsor).

It will be interesting to see who the first chief to go to a judge to deny FID, LTC, or restrict LTC, because there is a chance (someday) of a SCOTUS decision requiring Shall Issue in MA since this law gets Suitability/Restrictions into the courts.

IANAL, and defer to perspectives/opinions of those on Forum who have more knowledge.

A licensing authority ONLY needs to petition a court if they want to deny an FID for a non-statutory reason. If they want to restrict an LTC or deny it entirely they can just do it. There is no connection between suitability and restrictions. They are two separate issues.

As for suitability criteria, this is the law for LTCs:

A determination of unsuitability shall be based on:
(i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or
(ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.

It it far too early to see how courts will interpret this language or if police departments will modify their practices. If you read this correctly, police departments should no longer be able to impose non-statutory licensing requirements like letters of reference, doctor's notes, range memberships, etc. The problem is that they'll largely continue these practices by refusing to accept 'incomplete' applications. And everyone will continue to just go along.

The criteria for FID suitability is similar, however a police chief must petition a court in advance if they to deem someone 'unsuitable'. In deciding whether to affirm a chief's determination of unsuitability the court must follow this guideline:

A determination of unsuitability shall be based on a preponderance of evidence that there exists:
(i) reliable, articulable, and credible information that the applicant has exhibited or engaged in behavior to suggest the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety; or
(ii) existing factors that suggest that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety.

On of the big problems here is the preponderance of evidence standard of review which is insufficient when applied to the restriction of a fundamental right. By contrast someone petitioning the FLRB for a restoration of their 2A rights must meet the higher "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard:

You bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that you are a suitable person to receive a firearm identification (FID) card or a license to carry (LTC) notwithstanding the disqualifying conviction.

More details on the new law can be found here: H.4376 Explained

 

[RDG]

What is the change to the C&R that does not change until 2021?

SECTION 59. Said chapter 140 is hereby further amended by striking out section 131E 1116 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-

A firearms collector, licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(b), may purchase a rifle, shotgun or firearm that was not previously owned or registered in the commonwealth from a dealer licensed under section 122 if that rifle, shotgun or firearm is a curio or relic as defined in 27 CFR 1145 478.11.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Have any of these suitablility guidelines been formulated?

No but I expect MCOPA will be doing so, and it will not be in our favor.

What is the change to the C&R that does not change until 2021?

To explain the quote above in simple terms. In 2021, a MA Dealer will no longer be prohibited from transferring a C&R gun to a C&R FFL in MA, given that said handgun is not on the EOPS approved list and wasn't in MA on 10/21/1998.

 

[jd4444]

Anyone have the official reference to the law change that now exempts current or former military from the mandatory training?

I read the cover letter from the state saying "active duty" which I don't remember that term being used at all. Of course, most people who use that term like whoever wrote the cover letter or say any business who uses that term as a qualification for a discount, could not give you an aaccurate discription of it.

I have a few friends who have been waiting to drop their applications off.

 

[Squire]

A licensing authority ONLY needs to petition a court if they want to deny an FID for a non-statutory reason. If they want to restrict an LTC or deny it entirely they can just do it. There is no connection between suitability and restrictions.

I thought we were sold that LTC suitability denial would also require a petition of the court, and that was the reason allowing FID to become MAY issue was acceptable (this was the compromise, and that now no one should try for an FID, just LTC, the denial of which would require the court petition, where we'd take the fight)?

 

[Smokewagon]

Same here. Gonna make my own in MS Paint using cartoons.

Winning.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Anyone have the official reference to the law change that now exempts current or former military from the mandatory training?

I read the cover letter from the state saying "active duty" which I don't remember that term being used at all. Of course, most people who use that term like whoever wrote the cover letter or say any business who uses that term as a qualification for a discount, could not give you an aaccurate discription of it.

I have a few friends who have been waiting to drop their applications off.

This ONLY exempts ACTIVE duty MIL, NOT former/retired.

 

[jd4444]

This ONLY exempts ACTIVE duty MIL, NOT former/retired.

That is what the cover letter says and also why I have been looking at GOALs website for the actual law. The bill does not say "active duty."

Besides, if it says "active duty" I have never determined how someone would prove they are on active duty? You get PCS orders but that is about it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The entire text of the bill is here:

AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE REDUCTION OF GUN VIOLENCE

SECTION 67. Subsection (a) of said section 131P of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:- A current member of the United States military or the Massachusetts National Guard who has not been prohibited under said section 129B from owning a firearm and has received adequate training while serving in the military shall be exempt from being required to submit a basic firearms safety certificate to the licensing authority upon submitting a copy of the member’s most current military identification form.

 

[Len-2A Training]

That is what the cover letter says and also why I have been looking at GOALs website for the actual law.

Besides, if it says "active duty" I have never determined how someone would prove they are on active duty? You get PCS orders but that is about it.

There is enough confusion with the law itself. That's why I wouldn't reference GOAL's site or anyone else's except if they had a section notation where I could go read it for myself.

I'm in the process of creating a seminar just on the changes, once I get a handle on all of them and I intend to have section numbers in my notes just for this reason.

Best source of info right now is probably the Comm2A site with their analysis of the changes. Or DL C. 284 and search for a keyword, that is what I'd be doing for things like this. . . I just did this for you and PURELY ACCIDENTALLY found it (no my keywords didn't work)!

SECTION 67. Subsection (a) of said section 131P of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph:- A current member of the United States military or the Massachusetts National Guard who has not been prohibited under said section 129B from owning a firearm and has received adequate training while serving in the military shall be exempt from being required to submit a basic firearms safety certificate to the licensing authority upon submitting a copy of the member’s most current military identification form.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I thought we were sold that LTC suitability denial would also require a petition of the court, and that was the reason allowing FID to become MAY issue was acceptable (this was the compromise, and that now no one should try for an FID, just LTC, the denial of which would require the court petition, where we'd take the fight)?

No. Think of it like this.

FIDs are still essentially 'shall issue' unless the COP first petitions a court.

LTCs are still discretionary, but discretion has to be tied to a specific public safety justification based upon past behavior or existing conditions.

Overall this is a huge improvement, but only if people are actually willing to assert their rights, which most people are not willing to do.

Before anyone decries FID discretion remember, it is irrelevant. Only about 10% of licenses are FIDs and the ONLY people that should be applying for and accepting an FID card are people under 21. An FID card is not sufficient for the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

 

[jd4444]

Thanks. I did just find this in the bill.

I don't know what a police department will determine to be "submitting." It is currently illegal under federal law to photocopy a DoD identification badge, except is a few circumstances and this is not one of them. It is not up to the individual to say it is "ok" to photocopy it as the individual service member does not have ownership of the card.

I think enlistments will show Guard membership.

It also tells you how well the state read the bill before publishing their cover/summary letter.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Nothing here yet...

They sent out a letter detailing the CORI requirement and mentioned pepper spray and LEO exemptions, but no suicide prevention materials.

Same here. Gonna make my own in MS Paint using cartoons.

Well, the link to the authorized documents can be found in this post:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/270587-MGL-Suicide-Prevention-Materials

I do like Johnny's solution better however. Make sure you take your BP meds prior to reading the drivel the state came up with.

 

[cekim]

Well, the link to the authorized documents can be found in this post:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/270587-MGL-Suicide-Prevention-Materials

I do like Johnny's solution better however. Make sure you take your BP meds prior to reading the drivel the state came up with.

Well, that's some fine looking drivel right there... Nice of them to let us know.

We've been closed for the New Year, so no issue, but I am sure some are open this weekend.

I love how everything is a "public health issue" despite being deeply private. There is no disease transmission here.

 

[jd4444]

There is enough confusion with the law itself. That's why I wouldn't reference GOAL's site or anyone else's except if they had a section notation where I could go read it for myself.

I'm in the process of creating a seminar just on the changes, once I get a handle on all of them and I intend to have section numbers in my notes just for this reason.

Best source of info right now is probably the Comm2A site with their analysis of the changes. Or DL C. 284 and search for a keyword, that is what I'd be doing for things like this. . . I just did this for you and PURELY ACCIDENTALLY found it (no my keywords didn't work)!

Len thanks for the info. I don't know what a local police dept will consider "submitting a copy." If you like I can get you the official DoD references saying it is illegal to photocopy a DoD identification card, should you want that for your seminar.

 

[DogMan99]

SECTION 59. Said chapter 140 is hereby further amended by striking out section 131E 1116 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-

A firearms collector, licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(b), may purchase a rifle, shotgun or firearm that was not previously owned or registered in the commonwealth from a dealer licensed under section 122 if that rifle, shotgun or firearm is a curio or relic as defined in 27 CFR 1145 478.11.

Something i don't get here about C&R. If the change is in Sec 59 and 59 starts Jan 1, 2015 whats with the 2021 date?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len thanks for the info. I don't know what a local police dept will consider "submitting a copy." If you like I can get you the official DoD references saying it is illegal to photocopy a DoD identification card, should you want that for your seminar.

Yes, I would greatly appreciate that. I'll also "push it up the hill" to my friends in FRB. I doubt that my chief would care about US or DOD laws/regs!! I know that there are all sorts of laws about photocopying gov't docs and I'm sure that they are routinely ignored by TPTB. It would probably have to come down from the US AG or maybe MA AG to impress any of these chiefs.

Something i don't get here about C&R. If the change is in Sec 59 and 59 starts Jan 1, 2015 whats with the 2021 date?

Huh, read here:

SECTION 112. Sections 23, 24, 33, 35A, 35B, 41, 46, 47, 49, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 68, 71 and 91 shall take effect on January 1, 2021.

 

[kalash]

Cleaning out a file cabinet today... Anyone need about a dozen paper FA-10 forms.....

I'll take a few...

 

[Shawnyc]

3. Law enforcement officers are now exempt from the assault weapon large capacity feeding device ban.

So a LEO can now purchase a newly manufactured hi-cap mag? That's B.S.

 

[Squire]

LTCs are still discretionary, but discretion has to be tied to a specific public safety justification based upon past behavior or existing conditions.

But Restrictions still have no standards in the law?