• 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.

S 2265 (aka HB4285, 4278, 4121) out of Senate Ways and Means (FID Suitability)

Squire

Squire

Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
4,842
Likes
2,705
Feedback: 19 / 0 / 0
Starting a thread for discussion/organization around the next step for the Suitability law that the House passed.

Link to live Senate floor feed:

https://malegislature.gov/Events/EventDetail?eventId=959&eventDataSource=Sessions

List of Amendments from GOAL:

http://goal.org/Documents/S2265Amendents[3].pdf



Text/Status of Bill Here:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2265
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4285/History
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4278

How House Reps. voted on 4278:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/RollCallPdfs/188/00421.pdf

Senate email list here:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=108490&d=1405002837

Lookup your Senator here:

https://malegislature.gov/People/Senate

Original DeLeo/Committe/House Thread that reached Epic number of posts over last few Months:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/237413-Gun-Violence-report-in-the-hands-of-DeLeo

I'll update when we find out more about the metamorphosis into a Senate bill.

GOAL July 10 communication
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...00e00&ch=e0ef74f0-35e1-11e3-9453-d4ae52900e00
GOAL July 15 communication
http://goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html

But start contacting State Senators now to tell them how unconstitutional the Suitability provisions (for both FID and LTC) are.
 
Last edited:
Have already met with Senator Finegold's aide and am in constant communication.

Senator Barry Finegold is currently running for State Treasurer and therefore is open game to all of you. Let him know even if he's not your Senator. He's looking for votes.
 
Here's an email list of all 40 of our esteemed Senators.

Rep. Anne Gobi (D-5th Worcester) is running for Senate, and voted No on H4278.
 

Attachments

  • MASenateEmails.pdf
    43.7 KB · Views: 95
I'm going to lead with how by adding 'suitability' to FID cards, it opens up the Commonwealth to civil rights violations lawsuits, as is being seen in Illinois, where people who aren't prohibited have been denied their gun licenses, and are taking the state to court.

If the state had to pay damages and legal fees to everyone who appeals their denial, it could end up costing millions, which this state just doesn't have.

Q: When was the last time an FID-holder committed a crime with a low-capacity rifle or shotgun in this state? Anyone know if it's EVER happened?
 
Bill text is at https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4278.

List of senators is above.

Plenty to complain about with this bill.

- Want to spin up a Fudd? Check out the amendment Linsky proposed, which was approved:
SECTION XX: Section 10E of Chapter 269 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking the section in its entirety and inserting in place thereof the following:

Section 10E. Whoever, except as provided by law, in a single transaction or occurrence or in a series of transactions within a twelve month period, knowingly or intentionally distributes, sells, or transfers possession of a quantity of firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, or any combination thereof, shall, if the quantity of firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, or any combination thereof is:

(1) One or more, but less than three, be punished by a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years in the state prison or by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars may be imposed or by both such imprisonment and fine.

(2) Three or more, but less than ten, be punished by a term of imprisonment of not more than twenty years in the state prison. No sentence imposed under the provisions of this paragraph shall be for less than a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years and a fine of not more than one hundred thousand dollars may be imposed but not in lieu of the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, as established herein.

(3) Ten or more, be punished by a term of imprisonment not less than ten years up to life imprisonment in the state prison. No sentence imposed under the provisions of this paragraph shall be for less than a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ten years and a fine of not more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars may be imposed but not in lieu of the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, as established herein.

A prosecution commenced under this section shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding, and the sentence imposed upon a person convicted of violating any provision of said section shall not be reduced to less than the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as established in said section, nor shall any sentence of imprisonment imposed upon any person be suspended or reduced until such person shall have served said mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

A person convicted of violating any provision of this section shall not, until he shall have served the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment established herein, be eligible for probation, parole, furlough, work release, or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct under sections one hundred and twenty-nine, one hundred and twenty-nine C and one hundred and twenty-nine D of chapter one hundred and twenty-seven; provided, however, that the commissioner of corrections may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of the correctional institution, grant to said offender a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes: to attend the funeral of a relative, to visit a critically ill relative, or to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric services unavailable at said institution. The provisions of section eighty-seven of chapter two hundred and seventy-six shall not apply to any person, seventeen years of age or over, charged with a violation of said sections, or to any child between the age of fourteen and seventeen, so charged, if the court is of the opinion that the interests of the public require that he shall be tried for such offense instead of being dealt with as a child.
[STRIKE=1]That's right. A liberal (heh) reading of this potentially makes it illegal to loan a shotgun to your kid to shoot trap with you. Want to teach your kid to shoot? Too bad now...It's illegal for them to own a firearm and illegal for you to lend them one. This needs to go.[/STRIKE] Further down in the thread, jasons mentions that this only increases the penalties for existing illegal transfers. I read this differently - as a reversal of the "what isn't illegal is legal" thing - but I have no confirmation of this other than my own reading of the law.

- We're talking about "compromise" in order to preserve rights and keep people safe. The committee and studies determined that 1) magazine limits are ineffective, 2) "assault weapons" are not used in most crimes. Yet I don't see a repeal of the magazine limits or the AWB.

- While we're at it, ask how many crimes were committed with suppressors in this state in the past decade, and then ask why we're still disallowing ANY ownership of an item that's required as a SAFETY ITEM in many other national jurisdictions that are MUCH more strict with regards to overall firearms ownership.

Edit: I'm not sure that attacking the suitability portion of this is the best way to go, as it's a "give" on our side's part that's more likely to be dismantled in the courts than any other thing that we "give up" in order to get better provisions put in. I'd gladly trade a suitability clause that's likely to be killed at the federal level for dismantling the AWB or killing the suppressor ban. Same with the AG's list and the e-FA10s. They do them anyway and they're just as likely to be killed in the courts whether they're codified or "just the way things are done here."
 
Last edited:
Jennifer Flannagan has been emailed and I will be calling her this afternoon. I basically said that I disagree with the bill, in particular suitability for FID and suitability as it stands in general and am requesting her to oppose the bill as well. I mentioned that I did not appreciate, despite some improvements, that it was completely redrafted overnight and voted on the next day in the house which gave many members and the public mere hours to read it.
 
Can OP edit the first post with a link to the house thread? It'd be helpful as I'm already trying to find it now that its locked and not stickied.
 
Today's Glob article from the DeLeo thread:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-state-laws/GzW9QWNOLmFszWf2wPLyNI/story.html

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where lawmakers will have to scramble to pass the bill before formal legislative sessions end July 31. A spokeswoman for Senate President Therese Murray said Wednesday that she looks forward to reviewing the bill “with the goal of taking up similar legislation before the end of the session.”
Click to expand...
The Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Handgun Violence said it would seek to toughen the legislation in the Senate by pushing for the one-gun-a-month limit.
Click to expand...
 
Just called the office of my state senator, Kenneth Donnelley. Woman that answered the phone did not know when the Senate was going to vote on HB4278, and said that it was currently with the Senate Ways & Means Committee. I asked how to contact them, she said to call 617-722-1540. I thanked her and asked to her to pass on a message that senator Donnelley support an amendment to the bill removing the suitability requirement for FID cards.

Called the Senate Ways & Means Committee - guy that answered said that they were in closed door meetings now, and that he did not know when the vote was planned. I'm thinking this is a good place to call and leave specific concerns as well because he offered to pass messages to the head of the committee and took down my name and address info.
 
Does GOAL have any further input or analysis to 4278, as opposed to "Neutral" before it was even debated on the house floor, now that is has had amendments added and passed the house?

Not bashing, just curious.
 
Friday said:
Does GOAL have any further input or analysis to 4278, as opposed to "Neutral" before it was even debated on the house floor, now that is has had amendments added and passed the house?
Click to expand...

Very much looking forward to this, really helps with writing an informed letter/email.
 
The whole point of the compromise is to not make it more difficult for law abiding gun owners but to increase penalties for law breakers. One gun a month is a silly restriction that will accomplish nothing towards safety but will serve only to burden the activities of the law abiding gun owner. It is just unnecessary and it breaks the spirit of the compromise.
 
Speaking of GOAL. Where are they? I have heard nothing from them at all. They were in my FB and twitter feeds daily till they met with Deleo and then have not seen anything. I heard about yesterday's process here on NES. Nothing from GOAL at all.
 
Jsemtp2005 said:
Speaking of GOAL. Where are they? I have heard nothing from them at all. They were in my FB and twitter feeds daily till they met with Deleo and then have not seen anything. I heard about yesterday's process here on NES. Nothing from GOAL at all.
Click to expand...


there are FIVE employees at GOAL. Jim has been at the State House all week, Sweeney is on a vacation, planned 4 months ago, Jon Green is running training, Tara and Angie are fending off phone calls and membership questions.

At the present time, GOAL remains Neutral on Bill H4278, as passed by the House. We will take a wait and see approach on what comes out of the Senate, which as we all know, can be a totally different animal than what the House just passed.

Jim Wallace is entrenched at the State House, doing his job as GOAL's Lobbyist; as soon as any additional information comes to light, I'm sure it will be posted here.

Joe
 
Jsemtp2005 said:
Speaking of GOAL. Where are they? I have heard nothing from them at all. They were in my FB and twitter feeds daily till they met with Deleo and then have not seen anything. I heard about yesterday's process here on NES. Nothing from GOAL at all.
Click to expand...

I just called GOAL (phone number of their site) and asked if they are going to do a report on HB4278 like they did for HB4121. They said yes, absolutely, that they are working on it now and hoping to have more info on the site about HB4278 by end of day.
 
Palladin said:
there are FIVE employees at GOAL. Jim has been at the State House all week, Sweeney is on a vacation, planned 4 months ago, Jon Green is running training, Tara and Angie are fending off phone calls and membership questions.

At the present time, GOAL remains Neutral on Bill H4278, as passed by the House. We will take a wait and see approach on what comes out of the Senate, which as we all know, can be a totally different animal than what the House just passed.

Jim Wallace is entrenched at the State House, doing his job as GOAL's Lobbyist; as soon as any additional information comes to light, I'm sure it will be posted here.

Joe
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update!
 
Rekonn said:
I just called GOAL (phone number of their site) and asked if they are going to do a report on HB4278 like they did for HB4121. They said yes, absolutely, that they are working on it now and hoping to have more info on the site about HB4278 by end of day.
Click to expand...

I had left Mike a message, didn't realize he was on vaca. I'll link in the OP when they put a link on their research/position. I know Jim is working hard.
 
cmcgraw2 said:
Today's Glob article from the DeLeo thread:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-state-laws/GzW9QWNOLmFszWf2wPLyNI/story.html
Click to expand...

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where lawmakers will have to scramble to pass the bill before formal legislative sessions end July 31. A spokeswoman for Senate President Therese Murray said Wednesday that she looks forward to reviewing the bill “with the goal of taking up similar legislation before the end of the session.”

...

The Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Handgun Violence said it would seek to toughen the legislation in the Senate by pushing for the one-gun-a-month limit.
Click to expand...

Any changes to the bill in the Senate mean that it would have to go to a Joint Conference Committee to work out the differences and then back to both houses again. The makes the process longer and I'd take it as a sign that the Senate wants to kill it without actually killing it. Stretching the process out until the end of July would be a way to do that.

Of course that's just tea leaf reading on my part and if both houses really want to pass something, they'll figure out a way to do it.

I'd be more worried about a bill filed after the November elections.
 
Contact Your State Senator

I emailed mine, Jen Flanagan and told her I was very concerned about the new rules for person to person firearm sales. I stated our LTC's already constitute a "background check" so what is this fictitious website going to do? Who will design and implement it? Who will pay for it? What type of info will be stored on it and who will have access to that info?
 

Similar threads

MA Out of state LTC
Replies
19
Views
359
drgrant
drgrant
Fid requirements for minors
2
Replies
58
Views
1K
Brannigan03
Brannigan03
Plus and Minus of buying a Semi Auto Uzi?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
Road_Clam
R
Where to get out of date / trashed lvl 3 + 3a armor on the cheap?
Replies
13
Views
239
Broc
Broc
Seattle PD taking out the trash
Replies
22
Views
610
MGnoob
MGnoob
Back
Top Bottom