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

[Len-2A Training]

Has anyone seen a re-write of the bill, with the amendments as passed??

I've been checking the state website and it refers back to H. 4285, but that copy only has the original 4285 text and not the 2265 text that did pass with amendments.

 

[Squire]

They didn't, but mentioning them gets the moonbats all riled up and riled up moonbats amuse me. The NRA (or more accurately the NRA-ILA,) is supposed to focus on national level stuff. It's GOAL's job to focus on MA stuff, and they're doing a pretty damn good job lately.

(Frankly, if GOAL can continue to operate mostly under the radar while the moonbats are fighting a ghost that's a good thing.)

Holy Shit, this! The NRA is like Keyser Soze from Usual Suspects, and MA citizens are Verbal Kint!

 

[yanici]

Has anyone seen a re-write of the bill, with the amendments as passed??

I've been checking the state website and it refers back to H. 4285, but that copy only has the original 4285 text and not the 2265 text that did pass with amendments.

Len, they need a break from this, just like we do. The pressure level needs to vent a little. Gotta pass a little gas to relieve the pain. LOL.

 

[Quiet]

Has anyone seen a re-write of the bill, with the amendments as passed??

I've been checking the state website and it refers back to H. 4285, but that copy only has the original 4285 text and not the 2265 text that did pass with amendments.

I wonder if it will be in there; I thought I saw a summary of what was about to happen that included the bill being renumbered again before being returned to the house.

 

[Fishercat]

I can see the old text of S.2265 on the MAlegislature site.
And the roll call vote PDF.
What is really curious is it says Amendment #6 was withdrawn.
I really want to see the text of what was passed.

 

[Mike S]

I can see the old text of S.2265 on the MAlegislature site.
And the roll call vote PDF.
What is really curious is it says Amendment #6 was withdrawn.
I really want to see the text of what was passed.

#6 became #63.1. That's the amendment that struck suitability from the bill and was voted on 28-10

 

[30Mauser]

I communicated with Rep. Fernandes this evening and he stated that he was very concerned that the elimination of FID suitability, which was the core compromise granted to the anti-gun people, would result in the overall failure of the bill.

While this may seem like cause for celebration in some circles, what it really means is simply that it would come up again in the next session in an atmosphere much less conducive to compromise, having seen compromise as a path to failure in this session.

 

[PaulD]

Is the roll call vote who actually vote for or against the bill? I'm just trying to be clear on this.

 

[Squire]

Is the roll call vote who actually vote for or against the bill? I'm just trying to be clear on this.

No. That was the #6 amendment

 

[drgrant]

Maybe LenS or Drgrant can chime in, If someone shows me their LTC or FID and I sell them a rifle shotgun or firearm (didn't want to just say gun) and it turns out that they were a PP but still in possession of their license - what is the penalty?

There is nothing under MGL if the guy has a valid FID/LTC. That is, unless the feds want to come after you, but even then, there is this word "knowingly" - eg, in order to violate the law at the fed level, you would have had to know the guy was a prohibited person. I'm not a lawyer but it would be a hard sell in any court, IMHO, unless they could somehow prove that you already knew the guy was a prohibited person. The feds usually only run these kinds of prosecutions when it involves a straw purchase, its easier for them to out the seller and the nostrum that the actual buyer was a prohibited person.

Of course none of this is really germane to this bill. This situation effectively will not change one way or another, regardless of what happens with this bill.

-Mike

 

[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 communicated with Rep. Fernandes this evening and he stated that he was very concerned that the elimination of FID suitability, which was the core compromise granted to the anti-gun people, would result in the overall failure of the bill.

While this may seem like cause for celebration in some circles, what it really means is simply that it would come up again in the next session in an atmosphere much less conducive to compromise, having seen compromise as a path to failure in this session.

I find it hard to believe that it was done out of politicans in this state suddenly gaining respect for the rights of citizens of the commonwealth.
Fear of losing cushy jobs would be more likely.
This isn't over yet on either side.
They will take their shot and then we will take ours.
People like Naughton showed what side they are on.
There won't be any guessing next time.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I communicated with Rep. Fernandes this evening and he stated that he was very concerned that the elimination of FID suitability, which was the core compromise granted to the anti-gun people, would result in the overall failure of the bill.

While this may seem like cause for celebration in some circles, what it really means is simply that it would come up again in the next session in an atmosphere much less conducive to compromise, having seen compromise as a path to failure in this session.

^^ This.

If the current bill fails for any reason, we're just going to have to go through this again next session. And we'll do it with an opposition that's more firmly dug in and without several key allies from this round. Suitability has to be dealt with by the courts at some point anyway......

 

[FSTC]

^^ This.

If the current bill fails for any reason, we're just going to have to go through this again next session. And we'll do it with an opposition that's more firmly dug in and without several key allies from this round. Suitability has to be dealt with by the courts at some point anyway......

This is where Phase 2 of our activism comes in.
Volunteer to campaign for viable pro gun candidates.
I am the Volunteer Coordinator for Susannah Lee . we are running against a known anti gun democrat. (a co sponsor of Linskys bill)
We need manpower!
www.lee4rep.com

 

[Trackrat]

^^ This.

If the current bill fails for any reason, we're just going to have to go through this again next session. And we'll do it with an opposition that's more firmly dug in and without several key allies from this round. Suitability has to be dealt with by the courts at some point anyway......

You know far more about this me, but I will say it seems like the momentum on this is twindling. If it's kicked entirely I wonder how much traction it will really get later.

 

[DrNVP]

You know far more about this me, but I will say it seems like the momentum on this is twindling. If it's kicked entirely I wonder how much traction it will really get later.

If this bill fails, there will be even MORE momentum to pass another one next year. This is MA we are talking about. We are losing major allies in the legislature to retirement, and because of that next year's bill will be 100% onerous and unstoppable if this one doesn't pass. Our allies were instrumental in changing the original bill (which was a cluster****) to something that actually helps us take steps forward.

 

[The5thDentist]

I called Kathleen O'Connor Ives' office back this afternoon to thank her for her vote on 63.1. The aide was totally shocked that someone called to thank her on a vote, and he said he'd pass along my name and message, and he hoped I had a nice weekend.

I will, thanks.



I get the feeling that Watts' Women, or any of the other antis don't bother with something like that. I get the feeling that most people don't do that.

Just a simple way for us to combat the Plaid-wearing Neanderthal image that some people must have of "the gun lobby".

 

[Quiet]

If this bill fails, there is no such guarantee that there will be another bill next year, nor that it will be worse than this year. That is a risk.

That said, this bill should pass. While it is not perfect (no bill will be perfect for us) it is not onerous. It is on the whole a net plus for gun owners, while giving the anti's what they need: Universal Background Checks.

They NEED Universal Background Checks.

They MUST HAVE Universal Background Checks

The WANT Universal Background Checks.

Remind them of this. It is a huge win for them!!!!


They already had near real-time Universal Background Checks, but they didn't like that so we gave them even nearer real-time Universal Background Checks. In other words we gave up virtually nothing and gave them a huge win. Our compromise for that was the removal of FID suitability from the bill. They should be reminded that they are getting UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS and if they don't pass the bill they are saying "no" to UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS and their opponents in an election either now or in the future will use that against them.

C'mon folks. Understand how to push their buttons.

 

[inerlogic]

What will the new C&R process now look like?

Is a FA10 required when you purchase a C&R gun?

Always was.....

Sent from my EVO 4G LTE using Forum Runner

 

[inerlogic]

It seems to me...

I'll do you one better, you can buy a c&r handgun from grannie smith up in Maine.....

Sent from my EVO 4G LTE using Forum Runner

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I called Kathleen O'Connor Ives' office back this afternoon to thank her for her vote on 63.1. The aide was totally shocked that someone called to thank her on a vote, and he said he'd pass along my name and message, and he hoped I had a nice weekend.

I will, thanks.



I get the feeling that Watts' Women, or any of the other antis don't bother with something like that. I get the feeling that most people don't do that.

Just a simple way for us to combat the Plaid-wearing Neanderthal image that some people must have of "the gun lobby".

I sent a similar email to Sen Timilty thanking him and pointing out two of his staff who helped with drafting #30 especially Elizabeth who worked with me on the day of the vote on the redraft. I spent some time explaining the background and how C&R's work. My thanks to one of our members (I forget his handle) who used the P38 example - I used it to her

 

[milktree]

But, and, I'm going off of memory here-the requirement is to be fully compliant in 2021. I don't see them launching a website in less than a year. Hell, I don't see it happening by 2021!

Where are you seeing 2021?

I think I found where 2021 came from: LTC-B elimination.

Which makes sense, it allows for current (and shortly issued) LTC-Bs to live out their lifespan without there being any confusion about LTC-A vs. B.

Although I'd rather it just said, "all LTC-Bs will be considered LTC-As"

 

[Coyote33]

... While this may seem like cause for celebration in some circles, what it really means is simply that it would come up again in the next session in an atmosphere much less conducive to compromise, having seen compromise as a path to failure in this session.

Unless we elect more pro-RKBA representatives and senators before then. There are several threads on that topic.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This is where Phase 2 of our activism comes in.
Volunteer to campaign for viable pro gun candidates.
I am the Volunteer Coordinator for Susannah Lee . we are running against a known anti gun democrat. (a co sponsor of Linskys bill)
We need manpower!
www.lee4rep.com

Absolutely, and finally, some candidates in MA are starting to see supporting the Second Amendment as a productive position. I meet Susannah a while back and was very impressed. Her primary opponent is is also very pro-2A.

You know far more about this me, but I will say it seems like the momentum on this is twindling. If it's kicked entirely I wonder how much traction it will really get later.

If this bill fails, there will be even MORE momentum to pass another one next year. This is MA we are talking about. We are losing major allies in the legislature to retirement, and because of that next year's bill will be 100% onerous and unstoppable if this one doesn't pass. Our allies were instrumental in changing the original bill (which was a cluster****) to something that actually helps us take steps forward.

It's hard to say what, if any, viable bills will come up next session if this bill is not enacted. I lean very much towards the 'devil you know' rather than the one you don't. And let's face it, there's a lot to like in this version. If we can get this bill, or something close to it, signed by the Governor the antis can feel like they've done something (ok with me) and we'll have picked up some serious yardage on the crap pulled by the PDs.

 

[OfficerObie59]

It's hard to say what, if any, viable bills will come up next session if this bill is not enacted. I lean very much towards the 'devil you know' rather than the one you don't. And let's face it, there's a lot to like in this version. If we can get this bill, or something close to it, signed by the Governor the antis can feel like they've done something (ok with me) and we'll have picked up some serious yardage on the crap pulled by the PDs.

Not to mention a new occupant in the Corner Office.

It seems Deval has had a hands-off approach on this bill, which in my estimation has been a positive thing. Next time it could be Marsha or Grossman, who may well exert far more influence than Deval has.

 

[Quiet]

Which is why I think this was purposely left in there-for the senate to toss it out. A little debate, that's removed, sent back to the house, agreed, passed. All in 1 day. But still, c we need to hammer or 2 senators on this. Me, u want this to pass as is-because, once a court case is brought forth federally, regarding suitability, and both the FID & ltc are tied to it, and it's deemed illegal, suitability will all go out the window.

I agree with you, but hey I'm not a lawyer and Comm2A disagrees with us. I just don't see how taking away from the state the entire Shall Issue FID, a twisted wiggly squishy line of reasoning that is fraught with dangers and pitfalls in the arguments and massively simplifying the case is not a huge double plus good.

With a May Issue FID, a person has no legal right in the state to any firearm whatsoever for defense of hearth and home, nevermind the penultimate defense weapon, the handgun. Whether that's attacked from the FID denial or the LTC denial (OR BOTH) is an issue in tactics that the suits will need to figure out... but I might have a resident who is denied an FID on suitability immediately turn around and apply for the LTC to be denied.
I can't think of a slammier dunk than that.

Anyway, good luck to all in all your endeavors in working on the Senate for saving the Commonwealth from itself or in the courtrooms.

Well, comm 2a are lawyers, I'm most certainly not. They would be the experts here. If there is no legal reason to call this out, I'll use slander, that the FID is issued, as a rule, mainly to hunters and kids, to comply with state law. So, this clause was obviously introduced, and agreed upon, because politicians feel the elderly and minor hunters are viscous criminals, out committing violent gun crimes on the streets of Boston. Think of the lives saved by restricting these 2 evil groups of people!

Apparently MAIG thinks that there were constitutional issues with the discretionary FID and urged removal as well. I don't know if it was a just a political maneuver. I don't know if they have a legal opinion from someone as deeply involved with MA laws as Comm2a, but if I were Comm2A I'd be seriously looking at my position on what the "Shall Issue" FID with a (heretofore never issued) PTP means for a Heller/McDonald Constitutional challenge of LTC May issue. I remember reading a case (that I simply and frustratingly cannot find) where the ruling was that the fact that a tax stamp had never been issued did not negate the fact that there was in the law the ability to get one. I wish I could find that again.

You have to get past the Shall Issue FID for long guns, you have to get past the PTP, you have to prove you cannot transport handguns for training, you have to get past training availability with range guns. There's probably a lot more I haven't thought of. There's all sorts of landmines to step on with shall issue FIDs. I'm still thinking that "May Issue FID" would have eliminated all of those confounding and complicating issues.

I'm not a lawyer in any way shape or form. I'm just a lay person talking about things I know I don't well understand. I'm glad FID discretion is not in the bill, just as GOAL is.... just as MAIG is.

 

[LoginName]

Apparently MAIG thinks that there were constitutional issues with the discretionary FID and urged removal as well. I don't know if it was a just a political maneuver. I don't know if they have a legal opinion from someone as deeply involved with MA laws as Comm2a, but if I were Comm2A I'd be seriously looking at my position on what the "Shall Issue" FID with a (heretofore never issued) PTP means for a Heller/McDonald Constitutional challenge of LTC May issue. I remember reading a case (that I simply and frustratingly cannot find) where the ruling was that the fact that a tax stamp had never been issued did not negate the fact that there was in the law the ability to get one. I wish I could find that again.

You have to get past the Shall Issue FID for long guns, you have to get past the PTP, you have to prove you cannot transport handguns for training, you have to get past training availability with range guns. There's probably a lot more I haven't thought of. There's all sorts of landmines to step on with shall issue FIDs. I'm still thinking that "May Issue FID" would have eliminated all of those confounding and complicating issues.

I'm not a lawyer in any way shape or form. I'm just a lay person talking about things I know I don't well understand. I'm glad FID discretion is not in the bill, just as GOAL is.... just as MAIG is.

Short answer... they don't want to risk/gamble on a potential SCOTUS case on this anymore than we do.

Pretty much the same situation took place just prior to DC v. Heller. Neither the NRA, nor the Brady Campaign wanted it to go forward.

 

[pdm]

Not to mention a new occupant in the Corner Office.

It seems Deval has had a hands-off approach on this bill, which in my estimation has been a positive thing. Next time it could be Marsha or Grossman, who may well exert far more influence than Deval has.

Yeah, but how much influence do they really have? We have a very parochial system, with a lot of turf-protecting going on. I don't really see a Governor, no matter how moonbatty, calling the shots in the legislature. But maybe that's wishful thinking.

 

[Horrible]

We all need to stay uber vigilant until the 31st so that they don't slip any last minute crap into this bill.

 

[Reptile]

I need somebody to write a letter that I can give to my House Rep so they will support the senate bill.

Edit:

oops, wrong thread...

 

[garandman]

Not to mention a new occupant in the Corner Office.

It seems Deval has had a hands-off approach on this bill, which in my estimation has been a positive thing. Next time it could be Marsha or Grossman, who may well exert far more influence than Deval has.

Remains to be seen but I think Coakley has realized her extreme advocacy hurts her if she wants to win the election and id backing off the rhetoric at least.

Grossman has as much chance of being elected as my dog. Both he and Coakley have mortal enemies in state government.