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

[Garden12]

I would love for him to name one violent act where a FID card holder was the culprit, unless he is making a threat since he claims he owns a shotgun. What piece of crap he is.

John Rosenthal of the group Stop Handgun Violence, said giving police chiefs added discretion over the issuing of FID cards was the single most important aspect of the bill.

"Without it, it's not worth the paper it's written on," Rosenthal said. "Shame on the Massachusetts Senate. Sadly they voted against police chiefs and against public safety and for the special interest gun lobby and people will die as a result."

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/massachusetts_senate_approves_6.html

 

[JayMcB]

shame on him for being pro-rape by advocating for keeping the FID requirement for pepper spray

 

[shadyduk1979]

Is FTF still good with the official CC 3 page FA-10?

 

[exo]

Is FTF still good with the official CC 3 page FA-10?

Not as of March 1, 2015.

 

[BobR51]

The bill, which mirrored many other aspects of the House bill, was approved on a voice vote. That means the votes of individual senators were not recorded?
Is this common protocol?

 

[pastera]

Who is up for a transfer at the Taunton public library on March 1, 2015?

 

[Dadstoys]

That process will take time. They want this done by the end of next week. Could they scrap the entire thing, and write what they want? Yes. But, that will require too much time. And, now this is entirely my opinion-they don't want to hear from us anymore. They've worked more in 2 weeks than they have in 5 years, because of us. I see this going through as is, or maybe an amendment or 2 being dropped. I don't see any major changes, because I think they want this behind them. We've been a huge thorn in their side.
As to line item veto-i honestly don't know. I can check tonight at work though, if no one posts an answer by then.

Look, here's what GOAL says on its FB page:



Now, given how untransparent and corrupt the MA legislature is, why on earth should I not worry that the Conference Committee (which is essentially controlled by the the House Speaker and Senate President, since they have mucho say in who is on said committee) will pull a bait and switch on some things? Don't get me wrong -- I certainly hope they won't. But I trust nothing in this state.

And do you actually doubt that the MA legislature will do anything but overwhelmingly approve whatever the Conference Committee proposes? Whatever the Conference Committee writes is going to be the law.

Separate from all that, I'd still be interested in knowing if anyone has the answer to my question re: the governor's line-item veto power.

If I recall correctly his line item veto only applies to buget items.

 

[Dadstoys]

That process will take time. They want this done by the end of next week. Could they scrap the entire thing, and write what they want? Yes. But, that will require too much time. And, now this is entirely my opinion-they don't want to hear from us anymore. They've worked more in 2 weeks than they have in 5 years, because of us. I see this going through as is, or maybe an amendment or 2 being dropped. I don't see any major changes, because I think they want this behind them. We've been a huge thorn in their side.
As to line item veto-i honestly don't know. I can check tonight at work though, if no one posts an answer by then.

I think your right.
They have taken probably more heat on this than anything they have in a long time.
They want it done and behind them at this point.
Dragging it on will just make it worst for them.

 

[LoginName]

I would love for him to name one violent act where a FID card holder was the culprit, unless he is making a threat since he claims he owns a shotgun. What piece of crap he is.



http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/massachusetts_senate_approves_6.html

John Rosenthal of the group Stop Handgun Violence, said giving police chiefs added discretion over the issuing of FID cards was the single most important aspect of the bill.

"Without it, it's not worth the paper it's written on," Rosenthal said. "Shame on the Massachusetts Senate. Sadly they voted against police chiefs and against public safety and for the special interest gun lobby and people will die as a result."

Sen. Cynthia Creem, who opposed the amendment, said she was told that the NRA had pressed lawmakers to strip out the language.

"It wasn't until today that I had any inkling that that amendment would have had any traction," the Newton Democrat said.

Punked!...

 

[milktree]

The web portal thing would take effect March 1, 2015.

Who is up for a transfer at the Taunton public library on March 1, 2015?

How many people can we get to do that all at once?

Realistically though, I'm more likely to buy/sell anything I'm likely to buy/sell on a printed PDF before March of next year so I can avoid using a wibbly wobbly web thing for as long as possible.


Does the bill still say you have to get permission from the state before (rather than within 7 days of) the transaction? I had trouble keeping track of all the language.

 

[cmcgraw2]

John Rosenthal of the group Stop Handgun Violence, said giving police chiefs added discretion over the issuing of FID cards was the single most important aspect of the bill.

"Without it, it's not worth the paper it's written on," Rosenthal said. "Shame on the Massachusetts Senate. Sadly they voted against police chiefs and against public safety and for the special interest gun lobby and people will die as a result."

If so he can partly blame MAIG, since Timilty told the Senate the Illegal Mayors called him to oppose the suitability language too.

 

[Coyote33]

Nope, FTF transfers will have to take place in public libraries and internet cafes for public access to the internet. I'm sure the press will be screaming about that in the near future.

"Public libraries and local internet cafes have become arms bazaars as an unintended consequence of a new MA law. HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?! Exclusive at 11!"

Funny, but libraries are CRAZY over the 1st Amendment. I wonder how they are with the 2nd.

That process will take time. They want this done by the end of next week. Could they scrap the entire thing, and write what they want? Yes. But, that will require too much time. And, now this is entirely my opinion-they don't want to hear from us anymore. They've worked more in 2 weeks than they have in 5 years, because of us. I see this going through as is, or maybe an amendment or 2 being dropped. I don't see any major changes, because I think they want this behind them. We've been a huge thorn in their side. ...

I think your right.
They have taken probably more heat on this than anything they have in a long time.
They want it done and behind them at this point.
Dragging it on will just make it worse for them.

Then we should NOT LET UP. Keep the pressure on them to get rid of the bad, and keep the good. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

 

[Bfatz]

I think your right.
They have taken probably more heat on this than anything they have in a long time.
They want it done and behind them at this point.
Dragging it on will just make it worst for them.

This: Deleo has other issues to contend with as we know.

 

[Coyote33]

I wonder how the news is going to spin this.

If I were GOAL, I would be hammering the phones right now, trying to get through to the Globe, T&G, and AP. The AP is the one with the legs, and best bang for the buck.

Time to get the Twitter fired up also, and spread the word. Even if it isn't awesome, MAKE it awesome as you can. OWN IT!

Like I said...

Here's the T&G's article, from AP:

Massachusetts Senate approves sweeping gun bill

One line from the article:

"Gun safety advocates said the change guts the bill."

Wait a minute. They said that as if to imply something bad happened. I'm for gun safety, so I guess that makes me an advocate. I have no problem with gutting the bill.

 

[Glockfan71]

Like I said...

Here's the T&G's article, from AP:

Massachusetts Senate approves sweeping gun bill

One line from the article:


Wait a minute. They said that as if to imply something bad happened. I'm for gun safety, so I guess that makes me an advocate. I have no problem with gutting the bill.

And the colorful sign holder in that pic is our very own Gottagetshooting. Great sign!!

Fired from my HTC One with high capacity storage

 

[JJ4]

Going forward now, one of two things happens:

- The house concurs with the senate version and it goes to Gov. Patrick to sign.
- The house does not concur and it goes to some closed-door panel to hammer out a compromise between the house and senate version. Maybe bringing back FID suitability?

Which do we want to happen? It sounds like the senate version is MUCH better than the house version, no?

Should we be calling our Reps and tell them to concur with the senate version? Essentially "We support this, vote for it"? Because the alternative is likely worse. And no, there's no magical 3rd option that makes all the shitty laws go away.


Also regarding #17 - that cops get to ignore the AWB for their whole lifetime. Rather than complain about inequality and try to get their exception removed, we can use their exception as the camel's nose under the tent / foot in the door/ etc. and start to demand equality and AWB repeal next year.

 

[LoginName]

More...

Janet Goldenberg, one of the leaders of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, said the group was “very disappointed” with the amendment stripping out the provision.

“In terms of keeping guns out of the hands of those who pose a danger to themselves, to their households, to the public,” she said, “the Senate bill is really a significant step backward from the House bill, a step backward from public safety.”

“It’s a shame to think that the gun lobby has that kind of influence in Massachusetts,” she said.

If the differing bills go to a conference committee to be reconciled, as is expected, legislators won’t have much time to hash out a bill suitable to both chambers: Formal legislative sessions are scheduled to end in two weeks.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...olence-bill/6VnoPwQ5iXb8LRygiqVk0J/story.html

 

[Squire]

More...



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...olence-bill/6VnoPwQ5iXb8LRygiqVk0J/story.html

I understand it now...these Statists use the Boogeyman "Gun Lobby" to make it sound like the NRA was bussing in protesters or some such bullshit, when in fact it was grassroots citizens with a belief in individual civil rights.

These people are either delusional, stupid, or afraid to admit that in a liberal democracy, individual civil rights trump the will of the majority, which amazing as it is, is what the Senate acknowledged today.

 

[OfficerObie59]

More...



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...olence-bill/6VnoPwQ5iXb8LRygiqVk0J/story.html

The provision, which was included in the House version of the legislation that passed last week and the Senate bill that was debated Thursday, would give police chiefs discretion to deny issuing permits for shotguns and rifles to those they deem unsuitable.

Gun control advocates cried foul and expressed hope that the provision would be reinstated as the two chambers hammer out a compromise measure.

If it is not, said John Rosenthal, the president of Stop Handgun Violence, “the most significant gun safety measure in the bill will have been scuttled and people will die as a result of it, as they have for years.”

Yeah, rifles and shotguns that were at the hands of FID holders have been killing people for years...perhaps John should stick to handguns, as the title of his organization suggests.

 

[StevieP]

Going forward now, one of two things happens:

- The house concurs with the senate version and it goes to Gov. Patrick to sign.
- The house does not concur and it goes to some closed-door panel to hammer out a compromise between the house and senate version. Maybe bringing back FID suitability?

Which do we want to happen? It sounds like the senate version is MUCH better than the house version, no?

Should we be calling our Reps and tell them to concur with the senate version? Essentially "We support this, vote for it"? Because the alternative is likely worse. And no, there's no magical 3rd option that makes all the shitty laws go away.


Also regarding #17 - that cops get to ignore the AWB for their whole lifetime. Rather than complain about inequality and try to get their exception removed, we can use their exception as the camel's nose under the tent / foot in the door/ etc. and start to demand equality and AWB repeal next year.

I say we push the Senate bill which leaves suitability off the books for fid's. The state has always justified ltc denials and restrictions by saying "Whelp, we're not denying your 2a rights. You can still get an FID."

If they can now deny fid's without cause it opens them up to lawsuits. As a taxpayer I don't want one red cent of my "donation" to pay you bastards' lawyers. lol. We should hammer this point, using Chicago & Illinois as an example. They're losing cases left & right & have written huge checks to the .NRA and SAF.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[Trackrat]

These people are either delusional, stupid, or afraid to admit that in a liberal democracy, individual civil rights trump the will of the majority, which amazing as it is, is what the Senate acknowledged today.

All of the above.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Going forward now, one of two things happens:

- The house concurs with the senate version and it goes to Gov. Patrick to sign.
- The house does not concur and it goes to some closed-door panel to hammer out a compromise between the house and senate version. Maybe bringing back FID suitability?

Which do we want to happen? It sounds like the senate version is MUCH better than the house version, no?

Should we be calling our Reps and tell them to concur with the senate version? Essentially "We support this, vote for it"? Because the alternative is likely worse. And no, there's no magical 3rd option that makes all the shitty laws go away.

Each version has it's problems. A joint committee to hammer out the bill is the likely next step.

Frankly, the lack of de novo review in LTC appeals is my main gripe. While the addition of "risk to public safety" language is a benefit, it won't mean much if no court can provide a more meaningful review than they can now.

 

[Aaron[MA]]

All of the above.

Do t forget EVIL and UNAMERICAN.


Tap

 

[oldsoldier29]

It wouldn't take them any time to (for example) put in the FID suitability language or the gun-a-month language. All they'd have to do is take what had already been written up as amendments on Tuesday and insert the language in the relevant places. Again, I don't want this to happen. I'm not saying that it will happen. I just don't trust our Beacon Hill overlords and I won't rest easy until I see what comes out of the committee.

Found your answer (kind of) for governor veto power:
Article 63, section 5, if the amendments to the massachusetts constitution:
Subject to the veto power of the governor and to the right of referendum by petition as herein provided, the general court may amend or repeal a law approved by the people.

So, I guess this means he can do whatever the hell he wants??

 

[OfficerObie59]

They can do anything they want. The Conference Committee will write the bill they want to write. Of course, the House Speaker and Senate President will put their minions on the Committee, so I would expect it'll reflect pretty much what they want. I wouldn't be shocked if it had stuff in it that wasn't in either bill. Once the bill comes out of conference it cannot be amended, only voted up or down. That scares me a lot because whatever comes out of conference is going to get approved and signed into law. So if some total piece of c**p ends up in it, we're going to be stuck with it.

I think the promising sign is that the FID suitability removal amendment passed by nearly a 3/4 vote in the Senate. Nine senators would have change their position for a bill that contains FID suitability for it to pass.

One question -- does the governor's line item veto power only apply to the budget or to any law? Because that's another way for us to get screwed -- to have the idiot in the corner office veto out positive changes.

I believe the governor's line item veto applies only in a bill dealing with appropriations. Never say never, but I doubt there are the votes nor the time for a conference, passage, straight veto, and then a veto override.

 

[jefftk]

Can anyone see the roll call votes for amendment 63.1? The pdf which the link gives me says it is locked by DRM.
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2265/History
https://malegislature.gov/Document/RollCall/188/Senate/411.pdf

 

[oldsoldier29]

Where are you seeing 2021?



Section 26 and 27 are what remove the paper form and require the new web portal, respectively.

I stand corrected. However, the date of march 1, 2015 is dependent upon the state CIO procuring the necessary IT services to implement this by October 1, 2014. Wanna bet that doesn't happen?

 

[exo]

I stand corrected. However, the date of march 1, 2015 is dependent upon the state CIO procuring the necessary IT services to implement this by October 1, 2014. Wanna bet that doesn't happen?

The lawr's the lawr, innit? If they're not ready will they just waive their hands and say what would clearly be illegal is temporarily legal because they're incompetent? Like some parts of Obamacare?

 

[exo]

How many people can we get to do that all at once?

Realistically though, I'm more likely to buy/sell anything I'm likely to buy/sell on a printed PDF before March of next year so I can avoid using a wibbly wobbly web thing for as long as possible.


Does the bill still say you have to get permission from the state before (rather than within 7 days of) the transaction? I had trouble keeping track of all the language.

The whole 7 day stuff is stripped out (except for out of state or build your own), and you will have to complete the online form either prior to or at the point of sale.

 

[oldsoldier29]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they the house approves the bill as is. Hammering out differences, they have to reconcile too much. Most of the anti stuff they wanted was rejected at the house AND the senate, I don't see it being added back in. They still have a lot on their plate, and with the pending DeLeo debacle, I'm sure they want this done. The antis are already crying foul, even though they're getting everything EXCEPT more restrictions. I really think they don't want to hear from us again. And, I'm ok with that. Because, now, we can start focusing on stuff like the AWB, and attacking smaller piecemeal bills. We concentrate on a single piece, like we did with all this, we can start pushing back. I'm tickled pink that the millions the anti side spent, their t shirts, their MAIG rallies, their sponsored luncheons, all was pissing in the wind for them.