New Gun Laws In Effect Starting Today

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.




Huh, read here:
I just copied this from the state web site.
SECTION 121. Section 34 is hereby repealed. SECTION 122. Sections 24, 25, 34, 42, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 61, 62, 63, 66, 71, and 75 shall take effect on January 1, 2021.
 
From that:



I thought there would be more than this. The only other thing I know of is the pepper spray stuff, which already happened. You mean all those hearings, and all that wrangling was for THIS SMALL TIDBIT? I feel like they are throwing us a tiny bone, or splinters of a bone at that.

[bs2][angry][banghead]


time to pick another bone to fight over.....pick a bigger one please =P
 
time to pick another bone to fight over.....pick a bigger one please =P
More importantly, take stock of the profound change that was this legislative process originally begun to burn us all as witches and ending with something else entirely. We need to take full advantage of lessons learned, bridges built and shifts in society out from underneath the 70's gun-grabber mentality.
 
I just copied this from the state web site.
SECTION 121. Section 34 is hereby repealed. SECTION 122. Sections 24, 25, 34, 42, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 61, 62, 63, 66, 71, and 75 shall take effect on January 1, 2021.

Double Huh!

My copy was copied from the State website on 8/15/14, 2 days after it was signed into law. It had been changed from effective now to 2021 due to "fear" by the legistraitors and was confirmed by Sen. Timilty to the person here on NES who was responsible for this change. SO, I'm not sure what to believe today . . . I've seen other errors on the state website, so I suggest that we wait for Ben Cartwright to check in and clarify.
 
More importantly, take stock of the profound change that was this legislative process originally begun to burn us all as witches and ending with something else entirely. We need to take full advantage of lessons learned, bridges built and shifts in society out from underneath the 70's gun-grabber mentality.


this....very well said sir. my biggest issue honestly is the defacto carry bans for licence holders in the city....so much of the states population currently will never be able to carry... changing perception requires allowing those you teach to practice. somebody here once said well only a tiny sliver of licence holders are restricted and yes that is true but a huge segment of the population in and around Boston will never try to become licence holders...and even if they do will never be allowed to carry. this makes it very hard to change perception in the city....honestly that is where it is needed...
 
time to pick another bone to fight over.....pick a bigger one please =P

Huh?

More importantly, take stock of the profound change that was this legislative process originally begun to burn us all as witches and ending with something else entirely. We need to take full advantage of lessons learned, bridges built and shifts in society out from underneath the 70's gun-grabber mentality.

Oh, I understand that (kind of, as much as anybody else paying attention, that is). I just thought for some reason there were a few more changes than this on Jan. 1.



Double Huh!

My copy was copied from the State website on 8/15/14, 2 days after it was signed into law. It had been changed from effective now to 2021 due to "fear" by the legistraitors and was confirmed by Sen. Timilty to the person here on NES who was responsible for this change. SO, I'm not sure what to believe today . . . I've seen other errors on the state website, so I suggest that we wait for Ben Cartwright to check in and clarify.

So the date changed, AFTER the law was passed? Sounds like a legal issue. Who is the keeper of records? Who is to be held responsible for this? Any idea?
 
"3. Firearms licenses will remain valid after the expiration date of the license until the
application for renewal is either approved or denied. However, the licensee must
present a valid receipt from his/her local licensing authority showing that the
renewal application was submitted prior to the expiration of the current license."

But, will a dealer recognize the license as being valid?
 
"3. Firearms licenses will remain valid after the expiration date of the license until the
application for renewal is either approved or denied. However, the licensee must
present a valid receipt from his/her local licensing authority showing that the
renewal application was submitted prior to the expiration of the current license."

But, will a dealer recognize the license as being valid?

If they're following the law, they should. The real question is whether the electronic system they use to submit transfers will recognize the license as valid.
 
Wasn't there also something about cracking down on people with misdemeanor arrest charges?

That was shit canned early on.

Good thing too... I'll bet a lot of would have been burned on that (I know I would have [wink]).

Double Huh!

My copy was copied from the State website on 8/15/14, 2 days after it was signed into law.

Yeah... sumphin ain't right.


The "current bill text" https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4376
(PDF - https://malegislature.gov/Document/Bill/188/House/H4376.pdf),
was created on 7/31/14 and the C&R provision takes effect on 01/01/15...

Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 31, 32, 1625 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, 1626 88, 91, 92, 94, 100, 101, and 102 shall take effect on January 1, 2015

The bill signed into law https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2014/Chapter284 (approved 8/11/14),
on 8/13/14 has the C&R provision taking effect on 1/1/21

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.

The "Joint Rule Addendum", https://malegislature.gov/Document/Bill/188/House/H4376/DocumentAttachment/H4376 errata.pdf
(7/31/14), has the C&R provision taking effect on 1/1/21

Sections 23, 24, 32, 33, 35A, 35B, 41, 46, 47, 49, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 68, 71 and 91 shall take effect on January 1, 2021

Unless there genuinely is a mistake on the MA.Gov website I think we're still looking at the C&R provision taking effect on 1/1/21

It had been changed from effective now to 2021 due to "fear" by the legistraitors and was confirmed by Sen. Timilty to the person here on NES who was responsible for this change. SO, I'm not sure what to believe today . . . I've seen other errors on the state website, so I suggest that we wait for Ben Cartwright to check in and clarify.

IIRC, it was Creems insistence and doing during the conference committee negotiations.

I know there was some discussion about having the date changed back to 1/1/15 once the chicanery was realized, but
fat chance of that ever happening now.

One... The legislature was had enough of gun control measures.

Two... We no longer have George Peterson to bail us out.

Three... Who knows what we would open ourselves up to by bringing it up before the legislature.
I don't even want to think about it.
 
Last edited:
Huh?



Oh, I understand that (kind of, as much as anybody else paying attention, that is). I just thought for some reason there were a few more changes than this on Jan. 1.


So the date changed, AFTER the law was passed? Sounds like a legal issue. Who is the keeper of records? Who is to be held responsible for this? Any idea?

I'm pretty sure it didn't.

Once the Governor signs it, it becomes law and only the legislature can change it (unless there's some weird shit in MA law that
says otherwise).

See my other post why we should probably let this slide and not make a legal issue of it.
 
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.

There are many exceptions to this, see below. I'm sure the Police Dept. will be able to make a photocopy for their records if a bank can photocopy a CAC during a transaction.

Dod Instruction 1000.13 Enclosure 3 PROCEDURES:

2. GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS. The guidelines and restrictions of this section apply to all forms of DoD ID cards.

a. Any person willfully altering, damaging, lending, counterfeiting, or using these cards in any unauthorized manner is subject to fine or imprisonment or both, as prescribed in sections 499, 506, 509, 701, and 1001 of title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (u)). Section 701 of Reference (u) prohibits photographing or otherwise reproducing or possessing DoD ID cards in an unauthorized manner, under penalty of fine or imprisonment or both. Unauthorized or fraudulent use of ID cards would exist if bearers used the card to obtain benefits and privileges to which they are not entitled. Examples of authorized photocopying include photocopying of DoD ID cards to facilitate medical care processing, check cashing, voting, tax matters, compliance with appendix 501 of title 50, U.S.C. (also known as "The Service member’s Civil Relief Act") (Reference (v)), or administering other military-related benefits to eligible beneficiaries. When possible, the ID card will be electronically authenticated in lieu of photographing the card.
 
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.

See my answer above, but simply bring a DD214 in if the person is that uncomfortable with a photograph of their CAC. Problem solved.
 
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.
Correct. However, it doesn't appear that they can keep them once they're no longer a LEO (unless they were department issued) and there doesn't appear to be an exemption to the prohibition on transferring LCFD and AWs to others. So, while current LEOs can now acquire and possess these items, it doesn't look like they can legally transfer or keep them.

Also, it doesn't appear as though dealers were given any exemption on the transfer prohibition. If I was a deal, I'd be double checking to make sure I'm allowed to transfer these items.

But Restrictions still have no standards in the law?
Correct. A judge can order the removal of a restriction only if there appears to be "no reasonable grounds" for imposing it.
 
See my answer above, but simply bring a DD214 in if the person is that uncomfortable with a photograph of their CAC. Problem solved.

Isn't a DD 214 given to the service member after they're discharged?

Edit to add...

I wonder if the underlined part would be sufficient?


Proof of military service; DD214
Published 08/03/2012 12:12 PM | Updated 08/21/2013 03:25 PM
What is acceptable proof of military service?
If you are still serving on regular active duty, you must include an original statement of service signed by, or by direction of, the adjutant, personnel officer, or commander of your unit or higher headquarters which identifies you and your social security number, and provides your date of entry on your current active duty period and the duration of any time lost.

If you were discharged from regular active duty after January 1, 1950, a copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty should be included with your VA Form 26-1880. If you were discharged after October 1, 1979, DD Form 214 copy 4 should be included. A PHOTOCOPY OF DD214 WILL SUFFICE.....DO NOT SUBMIT AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.

If you are still serving on regular active duty, you must include an original statement of service signed by, or by direction of, the adjutant, personnel officer, or commander of your unit or higher headquarters which shows your date of entry on your current active duty period and the duration of any time lost.

If you were discharged from the Selected Reserves or the National Guard, you must include copies of adequate documentation of at least 6 years of honorable service. If you were discharged from the Army or Air Force National Guard, you may submit NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, or NGB Form 23, Retirement Points Accounting, or it’s equivalent. If you were discharged from the Selected Reserve, you may submit a copy of your latest annual points statement and evidence of honorable service. Unfortunately, there is no single form used by the Reserves or National Guard similar to the DD Form 214. It is your responsibility to furnish adequate documentation of at least 6 years of honorable service.

If you are still serving in the Selected Reserves or the National Guard, you must include an original statement of service signed by, or by the direction of, the adjutant, personnel officer, or commander of your unit or higher headquarters showing the length of time that you have been a member of the Selected Reserves. Again, at least 6 years of honorable service must be documented.

https://iris.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1848/~/proof-of-military-service;-dd214
 
Last edited:
There are many exceptions to this, see below. I'm sure the Police Dept. will be able to make a photocopy for their records if a bank can photocopy a CAC during a transaction.

Dod Instruction 1000.13 Enclosure 3 PROCEDURES:

2. GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS. The guidelines and restrictions of this section apply to all forms of DoD ID cards.

a. Any person willfully altering, damaging, lending, counterfeiting, or using these cards in any unauthorized manner is subject to fine or imprisonment or both, as prescribed in sections 499, 506, 509, 701, and 1001 of title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (u)). Section 701 of Reference (u) prohibits photographing or otherwise reproducing or possessing DoD ID cards in an unauthorized manner, under penalty of fine or imprisonment or both. Unauthorized or fraudulent use of ID cards would exist if bearers used the card to obtain benefits and privileges to which they are not entitled. Examples of authorized photocopying include photocopying of DoD ID cards to facilitate medical care processing, check cashing, voting, tax matters, compliance with appendix 501 of title 50, U.S.C. (also known as "The Service member’s Civil Relief Act") (Reference (v)), or administering other military-related benefits to eligible beneficiaries. When possible, the ID card will be electronically authenticated in lieu of photographing the card.

Banks can't legally photo copy it either. Basically it can be photo copied to process military benefits via authorized benefit providers. Places do it but remember the service member saying it is "ok" to copy it is not illegal, even though it is not their property to OK the copy. The illegal part is making the photo copy when not authorized by above.


I will not let anyone, outside of a DoD agency, copy mine. There is no need for it.
 
There are many exceptions to this, see below. I'm sure the Police Dept. will be able to make a photocopy for their records if a bank can photocopy a CAC during a transaction.

Dod Instruction 1000.13 Enclosure 3 PROCEDURES:

2. GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS. The guidelines and restrictions of this section apply to all forms of DoD ID cards.

a. Any person willfully altering, damaging, lending, counterfeiting, or using these cards in any unauthorized manner is subject to fine or imprisonment or both, as prescribed in sections 499, 506, 509, 701, and 1001 of title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (u)). Section 701 of Reference (u) prohibits photographing or otherwise reproducing or possessing DoD ID cards in an unauthorized manner, under penalty of fine or imprisonment or both. Unauthorized or fraudulent use of ID cards would exist if bearers used the card to obtain benefits and privileges to which they are not entitled. Examples of authorized photocopying include photocopying of DoD ID cards to facilitate medical care processing, check cashing, voting, tax matters, compliance with appendix 501 of title 50, U.S.C. (also known as "The Service member’s Civil Relief Act") (Reference (v)), or administering other military-related benefits to eligible beneficiaries. When possible, the ID card will be electronically authenticated in lieu of photographing the card.

I suspect that the state position would be that they are giving a benefit to those with said card, thus the bolded/red portion might apply.


See my answer above, but simply bring a DD214 in if the person is that uncomfortable with a photograph of their CAC. Problem solved.

And what good would that do? The exemption is ONLY for active members. DD214 means you are out, thus not eligible for the exemption.
 
Isn't a DD 214 given to the service member after they're discharged?

Edit to add...

I wonder if the underlined part would be sufficient?




https://iris.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1848/~/proof-of-military-service;-dd214



This just all adds the to the confusion with laws when terms are used that definitions are not even known. The summary letter referenced at the beginning of this post, is just a summary of what the author thought was in the law and contains incorrect information. That is why in my first post I was looking for the reference. The summary letter is not a reference.


Yes you will only receive a DD214 when discharged from ACTIVE duty. This is why current active duty members cannot receive veteran license plates in Massachusetts or Veteran on their driver's license. Unless you had a break in service.
 
Last edited:
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:

That may be true from a perspective of arguing about scrutiny, but you don't even get to that point because what it is referring to is so weak and vague and subjective:
behavior to suggest the applicant could potentially create a risk

I think maybe it's just a smidge silly to argue about unconstitutional scrutiny levels of a law that is based on emotions, guesswork and fortune telling.

"Oh look, I have video that he tied his shoe backwards (articulable), he could potentially fall holding his gun and accidentally shoot someone or could potentially get angered after his fall and go on a shooting spree"

Doesn't matter what level of scrutiny you apply to a silly (and facially unconstitutionally vague) law like that.

If the preponderance of the evidence standard was applied to the likelihood of his actually acting in an illegal manner then that's a pretty high bar to reach: "More likely than not that this guy is going to murder someone" is a pretty high standard if looked at by a supposedly objective court.
 
Last edited:
A DD214 is given after every period of Active Duty, not necessarily after being discharged. Every service member has at least one (after Basic Training). However, yes, that doesn't prove current service, it just proves you served, but I guess I was thinking along the lines of having a piece of paper to show, maybe along with showing your CAC to the PD. Should have clarified.
 
Last edited:
A DD214 is given after every period of Active Duty, correct. Every service member has at least one (after Basic Training). However, yes, that doesn't prove current service, it just proves you served, but I guess I was thinking along the lines of having a piece of paper to show, maybe along with showing your CAC to the PD. Should have clarified.

Remember every service member will receive at least one but not every service member currently has one.
 
Correct. A judge can order the removal of a restriction only if there appears to be "no reasonable grounds" for imposing it.
Right, and the Judge can find it reasonable that a Statist JBT doesn't want his subjects armed. Didn't some war start on April 19, 1775 in Lexington for that exact reason?

I'm a smart guy, but this law stuff is too squishy for me, thanks for doing it.
 
Correct. However, it doesn't appear that they can keep them once they're no longer a LEO (unless they were department issued) and there doesn't appear to be an exemption to the prohibition on transferring LCFD and AWs to others. So, while current LEOs can now acquire and possess these items, it doesn't look like they can legally transfer or keep them.

Also, it doesn't appear as though dealers were given any exemption on the transfer prohibition. If I was a deal, I'd be double checking to make sure I'm allowed to transfer these items.

Correct. A judge can order the removal of a restriction only if there appears to be "no reasonable grounds" for imposing it.

do we expect some challenges to this? Watertowns grounds for restricting my licence was quote "i don't own a business nor am i a victim of a crime"

as in legally what needs to happen to challenge your restrictions?
 
do we expect some challenges to this? Watertowns grounds for restricting my licence was quote "i don't own a business nor am i a victim of a crime"

as in legally what needs to happen to challenge your restrictions?

By statutory law and case law, Watertown is still justified in doing that. The statutory standard for restrictions hasn't change, so there's really no new grounds for bringing a challenge. Outside of the 7th and (for now) 9th federal circuits, no higher court has held that the Second Amendment protects any right beyond the home. Davis v. Grimes makes that challenge and two cases pending before the SJC also address the question of how the Second Amendment applies outside of the home. So, the question is certainly in play. If any of those cases swing our way, it would apply through the state.

There will be additional opportunities to bring these challenges, but with so many relevant cases in progress, the issue of restrictions is a moving target. If someone challenges Watertown tomorrow, that case could easily completely change even before the town has an opportunity to answer the complaint.
 
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.





Huh, read here:


A copy of a birth certificate is required for FID/LTC issuance; it's unlawful to photocopy a birth certificate (it's right on the cert.)

So, that precedent's set! [laugh]
 
Back
Top Bottom