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

[ThePreBanMan]

Perhaps an amendment for the protection of kittens and unicorns that removes the 10 round mag ban?

I wish.... But not very likely.

 

[StevieP]

OP has July 10 GOAL communication:

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...00e00&ch=e0ef74f0-35e1-11e3-9453-d4ae52900e00

Interesting.

Among the GOAL commentary at that link, it says:

he National Instant Check System (NICS) sections were drastically changed by ensuring that people voluntarily seeking mental health treatment or observation are not to be considered a prohibited person and therefore not reported to the NICS.

This doesn't seem quite right to me.

Consider the exact same person who seems to be going through some mental issues:

A) Family or friends notify "authorities" and they come and take him but he goes peacefully. Loses his 2A rights

B) SAME person realizes he is going nuts, and calls for the SAME help at the SAME treatment center. Doesn't lose his rights.

Just because he self-reported instead of having his mom narc on him, he's all of-a-sudden OK enough to not be reported to NICS?

Same person.

 

[mbullism]

Does anyone recall the name of the Freshman rep. that gave the defacto victory speech before the vote yesterday... the two yr. uniformed/14 yr. detective that stated on the record he'd not once arrested a licensed gun owner in more than 240+ career interactions for gun violations?

tia

Mb

 

[sieveboy]

This will go through Senate like shit through a goose

 

[Squire]

This bill appears better than the last bill but is that merely to quiet us and give a feeling of content among the people who oppose ANY 2A RESTRICTIONS?
I just read todays statement from GOAL & they seem pleased with the bill.
I hope the early optimism being publicly expressed from them as well as some forum members here doesnt lead to a quick passing of further restrictions & infringements of 2A rights...
I still OPPOSE this bill as it stands and hope GOAL does as well...

I think everyone is surprised at how effective the pressure on the Reps. was. I mean, they rewrote the bill, and the fact is that it IS much less honerous than what DeLeo presented to the first committee.

That said, now is not the time for patting backs. If the pressure we put on the House was surprising, then if we TRIPLE it on the Senate (bigger State House demonstrations, more calls, emails, letters, FTF meetings), then not only can we stop this STILL SHITTY bill, but gain experience on how to get back the other rights that were taken in the past, ON OUR TERMS (ie, not in court).

Thanks, GOAL.

 

[Mark from MA]

I wrote and called Senator Brewer today telling him to oppose the bill because giving police chiefs latitude on fid is going in the absolute wrong direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mark from MA]

they would have put this in the house bill if it had any chance of passing. if the senate adds it it still has to get cleared by the house I believe. highly unlikely they add ANYthing to the bill

This. As much as i dont trust those fxcks i think if an asswagon like Rosenthal is calling it a win they are happy and it looks like they did something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robjax]

From GOAL:

Gun Bill Update July 10, 2014 Gun Owners' Action League ​

GOAL Members Update on Gun Bill - 7/10/2014 Good news, H.4121 is gone. Thanks to all of your advocacy efforts through calls, emails, letters and personal contacts with legislators, a less onerous and greatly improved bill H.4278 has replaced the original bill. For those of us who were around for the infamous fight in 1998, we remember getting completely steamrolled by the anti-second amendment push. During that fight, gun owners were powerless to stop virtually anything- regardless of how hard we fought. This time things were greatly different because of you, the GOAL member. Because of your effective efforts, the new bill passed by the House has the following changes: The FID Card language no longer has "reason for issue", no more restrictions, Public Safety and the Mass. Chiefs will no longer be able to define suitability and the burden for denials of will rest squarely on the chiefs. Any reason for denials must be clearly defined and in writing and contain credible evidence. Restrictions on LTCs would also be subject to judicial review and the chief would have to provide evidence for any restrictions. The FID card and LTC laws also will use the term "prohibited person" which is the legal term we have been fighting for. There are no longer any Class B LTCs. We clarified the laws regarding the training of our junior shooters. We were able to reinstate private transfers and create a real time web based confirmation system for those transfers. There is no listing of your guns when you apply for license. When you do apply you will be issued a receipt that will make your license valid for all lawful purposes while you are waiting for your new license. The National Instant Check System (NICS) sections were drastically changed by ensuring that people voluntarily seeking mental health treatment or observation are not to be considered a prohibited person and therefore not reported to the NICS. The definitions for matters reported to NICS were completely changed to reflect only what the federal law requires. Added language to make sure that any information sent to NICS is not open to the public. Included language for those who are no longer considered prohibited for that information to be forwarded to NICS to remove them from federal disqualifiers. And much more... While there are still some issues with this new legislation, we will try to address them as the bill moves to the Senate. Gun owners should be extremely proud of how far we have come in being effective advocates on Beacon Hill. Due to your advocacy efforts, we were able to see a vastly improved bill go to the House floor last night. Is the bill perfect? By no means is it perfect. The bill now moves to the Senate where we can try to address the remaining issues. Over the upcoming days, we will be going over the new bill again and setting up meetings with Senators in an effort to further clean up the legislation. Your voice was overwhelmingly heard in the House portion of this effort. Let's try to build on that success as we move to this next phase. One thing is clear, GOAL members should be very proud of the difference we have made in this fight. Our work over the years has made a remarkable difference in our ability to fight off many gun control measures. Now, we need to stay focused on the challenges still ahead because this fight is not over. Next week GOAL will be letting you know what you can do to make your voice heard as the bill goes through the Senate. Thank you all for the hard work and attention to detail. ​ ​

 

[jasons]

Does anyone recall the name of the Freshman rep. that gave the defacto victory speech before the vote yesterday... the two yr. uniformed/14 yr. detective that stated on the record he'd not once arrested a licensed gun owner in more than 240+ career interactions for gun violations?

tia

Mb

Representative Silva from Fall River.

 

[StevieP]

Anyone a LEO, or know one, and if so, what's the word among the LEO community regarding their new-found "FID suitability power to deny?"

Does anyone think that maybe denials and restrictions will go down, because they won't want to deal with going to court to defend non-statutory denials?

edit: checking over at masscops.com

 

[CobaltBlueSteel]

Interesting.

Among the GOAL commentary at that link, it says:



This doesn't seem quite right to me.

Consider the exact same person who seems to be going through some mental issues:

A) Family or friends notify "authorities" and they come and take him but he goes peacefully. Loses his 2A rights

B) SAME person realizes he is going nuts, and calls for the SAME help at the SAME treatment center. Doesn't lose his rights.

Just because he self-reported instead of having his mom narc on him, he's all of-a-sudden OK enough to not be reported to NICS?

Same person.

I thought it said if you were taken away for evaluation and released it would not be held against you, but if you are involuntarily committed after evaluation, then it does.

 

[Squire]

Anyone a LEO, or know one, and if so, what's the word among the LEO community regarding their new-found "FID suitability power to deny?"

When you ask them, use the phrase "new mandated responsibility to justify in writing the reason for denial, and subsequent legal recourse for the deniee". It's all about perspective.

 

[FrugalFannie]

For the sake of accuracy, I'm going to point out that this amendment only increased the penalties associated with the existing law that's already on the books. (Read it yourself here: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section10E)

It only applies to unlawful transfers, lending your kid a shotgun to shoot trap is not an unlawful transfer.

Really? How do you conclude that? I am reading this and I do not see that.

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.

If you think this is referring to unlawful transactions, think again. This would exempt Firearms dealers from this. This amendment appears to be 1 transfer PER YEAR. Someone please tell me I am wrong and why.

The only way to read this differently is that someone without an LTC/FID could do 1 private transfer/ year.

Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.

 

[mattyw]

Really? How do you conclude that? I am reading this and I do not see that.



If you think this is referring to unlawful transactions, think again. This would exempt Firearms dealers from this. This amendment appears to be 1 transfer PER YEAR. Someone please tell me I am wrong and why.

The only way to read this differently is that someone without an LTC/FID could do 1 private transfer/ year.

Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.

you are wrong,

except as provided by law

a lawful transfer is provided by law

 

[pastera]

Representative Silva from Fall River.

And he is not our friend.

 

[Bill Katt]

Really? How do you conclude that? I am reading this and I do not see that.



If you think this is referring to unlawful transactions, think again. This would exempt Firearms dealers from this. This amendment appears to be 1 transfer PER YEAR. Someone please tell me I am wrong and why.

The only way to read this differently is that someone without an LTC/FID could do 1 private transfer/ year.

Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.

except as provided by law

I think that is the part that refers to legal transfers....as it is now.
IANAL/JMO

 

[jasons]

Really? How do you conclude that? I am reading this and I do not see that.



If you think this is referring to unlawful transactions, think again. This would exempt Firearms dealers from this. This amendment appears to be 1 transfer PER YEAR. Someone please tell me I am wrong and why.

The only way to read this differently is that someone without an LTC/FID could do 1 private transfer/ year.

Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.

You may be right, but consider that this law has been on the books for many years (since 1998 I'm guessing) and has been interpreted that way the whole time.

 

[jefftk]

Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.

It is provided by law that LTC/FID holders can transfer up to 4 firearms per calendar year.

 

[FrugalFannie]

you are wrong, a lawful transfer is provided by law

so I know the amendment is marked with a header as "Illegal Gun Sales" but Ch 269 sec 10 isn't just about illegal gun sales. does this mean that if a gang banger sells 1-3 guns they cant get more than 10 years in prison and if they sell more than 3 but less than 10 they max out at 20 years.

And if this is meant for illegal gun sales only shouldn't it be part of sec 10E?

I know I'm being paranoid but I think we all know there is no reason for us to trust the legislature.

 

[TOM1960]

When you ask them, use the phrase "new mandated responsibility to justify in writing the reason for denial, and subsequent legal recourse for the deniee". It's all about perspective.

Does it explain the "legal expenses" associated with the "legal recourse"? Most attorneys charge at least $250/hr or more. Can the deniee, if successful in court, not only obtain his/her FID or LTC and recoup their legal costs from the city or town where they were denied? How about court costs? These questions are noticeably absent from the debate.

 

[FrugalFannie]

It is provided by law that LTC/FID holders can transfer up to 4 firearms per calendar year.

that makes the most logical argument that I am reading this wrong. so this is talking about illegal transfers and their penalties and thus should be in sec 10E (I think)

 

[gunclinger]

I appreciate GOAL's tremendous efforts. But why the apparent victory lap? This is not a victory and this fight should NOT be over. The expanded-discretion-FID is complete BS, and I can't explain why this provision was preserved, and nearly all the other of the anti's items were tossed) except that this is ultimately the hammer to deny RKBA. There WILL be "gun-free" towns/cities. Legal gun ownership WILL decline. I can't think of any other reason for this, and yet I hear so many positives about the new review process. This pushes our rights over to some unelected judicial board. Talk about a blind bargain.

Read how the "review board" concept is working out in Illinois:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-concealed-carry-rejection-20140706,0,7842594.story

Is there something I'm missing here?

Keep up the fight. I'm meeting with my State Senator tomorrow.

 

[jasons]

nd if this is meant for illegal gun sales only shouldn't it be part of sec 10E?

It is section 10E....

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section10E


EDIT: And it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

 

[rlee]

If you look at the current MGL 269 s10E, it provides a penalty for 3 or more illegal transfers.
The change is to also provide a penalty for the first two illegal transfers.

 

[oldsoldier29]

Chiefs will have the power to shut down all Juniors programs in their city or town and prohibit hunting by youths, if this bill passes. Heck, they could completely disarm their city or town by refusing to issue any LTCs or FIDs to anyone other than police officers. Don't like it? Pony up thousands of $$$$ and take it to a court, whose judge will probably side with the chief's decision anyway. Me? I am just about done here. My girlfriend and I closed on our brand-new home in coastal south Alabama two weeks ago (half the price of a used home of similar size here!). Alabama does not require FIDs or any type of license to own a gun. If you wish to carry concealed, you apply to the local sheriff's department for a CCW permit (easy to get and unrestricted, from what a few of the local gunshop Bubbas told me). I feel sorry for anyone stuck in MA. The pols have all MA gun owners over a barrel and keep twisting the screws ever tighter!

No. You either didn't read the bill, you misunderstood it, or are going off what others are saying. Youth shooting programs are protected in this bill

 

[jar]

OK, so other than the 15 - 20 year olds, and the FUDDs who only need to be licensed for their trap guns, wouldn't just about everyone else go for the LTC, then?

Unintended consequence to the state = more people eligible to own and carry handguns.

There just aren't that many people in this situation though. According to the data at http://comm2a.org/index.php/8-home/197-licensing, there are 34K FIDs and 300k LTCs. A significant number of FIDs are held by people aged 15-20. I'm guessing the the people who are eligible for an LTC but have an FID is ~10K or less.

 

[mbullism]

Representative Silva from Fall River.

Much appreciated... Thank you.

 

[robjax]

Jim Wallace - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gaObvi6NR0

 

[DONALDG-HOG]

I know guys who have criminal histories but are not "prohibited" that can not get a pistol permit here- and will likely lose their FID's if it at the discretion of the Po. There are a few hunters that we be limited to black powder out there............

There just aren't that many people in this situation though. According to the data at http://comm2a.org/index.php/8-home/197-licensing, there are 34K FIDs and 300k LTCs. A significant number of FIDs are held by people aged 15-20. I'm guessing the the people who are eligible for an LTC but have an FID is ~10K or less.

 

[mbullism]

And he is not our friend.

Even better... He's on the record, on the speakers behalf, acknowledging that legal gun owners are not the problem... I can use that in my contact with my senator