Saw this on another site...CCW Proposed Changes

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
873
Likes
1
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht02/ht02125.htm

PETITION -- HOUSE

CHIEF SPONSOR:
Representative Toomey of Cambridge

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General Court assembled.

The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the passage of the accompanying bill or resolve.

PETITIONERS: LEGISLATOR/CITIZEN
DISTRICT/FULL MAILING ADDRESS

Timothy J. Toomey, Jr.
26th Middlesex

Carl M. Sciortino, Jr.
34th Middlesex

David Paul Linsky
5th Middlesex

Patricia D. Jehlen
27th Middlesex

Martha M. Walz
8th Suffolk

Alice Hanlon Peisch
14th Norfolk

REFILE OF PREVIOUS MATTER: BILL #: OF YEAR:

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
———————
IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND FIVE

An Act Relative to Controlling Firearms in the Commonwealth.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Section 1. Section 131 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 1992 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph after paragraph three:—

No license to carry shall be issued pursuant to this section unless and until the applicant for the license or for the renewal of an existing license presents to the licensing authority a complete list of every handgun owned by the applicant along with a certificate of insurance verifying that the applicant has a valid insurance policy insuring against any harm or damage that might arise out of the use of each weapon on said list. The applicant shall swear under the penalties of perjury that said list is a complete list of all handguns owned by the applicant. The insurance policy shall be in an amount of at least $250,000 and shall list the specific weapons covered by the policy. The list presented to the licensing authority shall match the list on the insurance policy or the license or renewal shall not issue. In the event that a holder of a license to carry acquires a new handgun after the issuance of the license or the renewal of an existing license, the holder shall register the weapon as required by law and shall forward to the licensing authority a true copy of a certificate of insurance verifying the existence of insurance, as required herein, for said new weapon or weapons within thirty days of acquisition. Such a policy of insurance shall be available to satisfy any judgment for personal injuries or property damages arising out of the unintentional, accidental or unlawful use of an insured weapon, provided that, in the event of multiple judgments, judgments for medical bills shall have a priority in the order that said judgments are satisfied and, provided further, that medical bills paid for by or owed to the Commonwealth and any municipal or regional governmental entity shall have a super priority and shall be satisfied first out of all such judgments for medical bills. In the event that a judgment issues against the license holder for personal injuries or property damage that cannot be satisfied by the required insurance policy due to the holder’s failure to maintain said policy, the license holder may be punished by imprisonment by not more than five years.



SECTION 2: Section 131 ½ of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out the second sentence and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-

The board shall consist of nine individuals, one of whom shall be a member of the gun owners action league, one of whom shall be a member of stop handgun violence, one of whom shall be a police chief selected from a list of four selected by the police chiefs association, one of whom shall be a district attorney selected from a list of three selected by the district attorney’s association, and one of whom shall be the director of the firearms records bureau within the criminal history systems board.

SECTION 3: Section 129C of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out in line 16 the words “shall be made” and inserting in that line after the word “gun,” the following:- “a seller or owner shall make”.

SECTION 4: Section 131 subsection (d) of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting thereafter the following sentence;-

(viii) has not successfully completed a firearms safety course of at least twenty hours, including a minimum of four hours of practical shooting instruction at a firing range that has been approved by the secretary of public safety or his designee.

SECTION 5: Section 123 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 64 the word “and”, and by inserting after the word “thirty-one” the following words:- “;and that no more than one firearm shall be sold to any person in the Commonwealth who has purchased a firearm within the past 30 days.”

SECTION 6: Section 131K of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-

“All weapons as defined in section 121 including, but not limited to, firearms, large capacity weapons, rifles and shotguns sold within the commonwealth without a safety device designed to prevent the discharge of such weapon by unauthorized users and approved by the colonel of the state police including, but no limited to, mechanical locks or devices designed to recognize and authorize, or otherwise allow the firearm to be discharged by its owner or authorized user, by solenoid use-limitation devices, key activated or combination trigger or handle locks, radio frequency tags, automated fingerprint identification systems or voice recognition, provided, that such device is commercially available, shall be defective and the sale of such weapons shall constitute a breach of warranty under section 2-314 of chapter 106 and an unfair and deceptive trade act or practice under section 2 of chapter 93A.”

SECTION 7: Chapter 269 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out section 10E and inserting place thereof the following section:-

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, assault weapons or any combination thereof, shall, if the quantity of firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, assault weapons or any combination thereof is:

(1) Three or more, but less than ten, be punished by a term of imprisonment of not more than ten 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 seventy-five thousand dollars may be imposed but not in lieu of the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, as established herein.

(2) Ten or more, but less than twenty, be punished by a term of imprisonment of not more than ten 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 seven years and a fine of not more than one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars may be imposed but not in lieu of the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, as established herein.

(3) Twenty 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 twelve years and a fine of not more than one hundred and seventy-five 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.
 
this State was the home of the American Revolution?
are we sure the history books are right on that one? freedom may have begun here, but its also looking like its going to die here as well..
register and insure this (insert picture of my ass)
 
We need to get a bill # so we can start writing our Reps.

If for whatever reason this peice of garbage passes, I will be moving out of the state earlier than expected.

No license to carry shall be issued pursuant to this section unless and until the applicant for the license or for the renewal of an existing license presents to the licensing authority a complete list of every handgun owned by the applicant along with a certificate of insurance verifying that the applicant has a valid insurance policy insuring against any harm or damage that might arise out of the use of each weapon on said list. The applicant shall swear under the penalties of perjury that said list is a complete list of all handguns owned by the applicant. The insurance policy shall be in an amount of at least $250,000 and shall list the specific weapons covered by the policy.
 
The most lethal thing I see nowdays is Americans. We should all have to register our americans, or they'll run off and kill someone.


"Remember to spade, neuter and register your American. IT'S THE LAW!!!"
 
My email to my Rep.

Lauren,

I have a link to a petition and I was wondering what Mr. Carron’s stance on this is.

My forum is up to over 12,000 unique visitors a month and I would like to post that
Mr. Carron and Mr. Brewer are against this proposed legislation.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht02/ht02125.htm

Thank you for your time.

Derek Hoskins
Spencer, MA
 
Damn, that is BS.

Once you get a number on that one post it. I'll make sure there are a few letters from your friends to the North.
 
From Rep Carron's assistant.

Hi Derek,

I will definitely speak to Rep. Carron about this legislation and let you know his position. I can tell you, however, that Rep. Carron and Sen. Brewer both have "A" ratings from the Gun Owners Action League.

Lauren Aquino Couture
Office of Representative Mark J. Carron
State House, Room 33
Boston, MA 02133

When she gets back to me on the exact position I will post it. [wink]
 
Well, unfortuneatley, all the folks in red states can give us the go ahead and move b/s. But if everyone leaves, who'll be left to fight the good fight. Plus, after a long while they'd be nowhere else to go.
 
The BS in this bill get filed every 2 years, like clockwork! I recall these items being in bills probably 20 years ago.

Typically they go nowhere, BUT one must always be vigilant and express displeasure when they do file them.

This is SOP by the antis in MA, with the hopes that one day it will stick . . . which it might well do if we let our guard down.
 
You know it's Summer in Australlia right now. We should go down there...overthrow thier GWF Government, and enjoy the summer and thems fine looking Aussie women, and maybe shoot a few of thems big-ass jackrabbits they have down there!

A Buddy of mine sez they're right-good eating! 8)

-Weer'd Beard
 
I'm SOOOOOOO sick of reading shit like this. Yes, Mother used a bad word without any $'s, or other symbols to lessen it. I'm also pissed. I've had it with the bloody state. I'm sick and tired of having to write yet another letter every other damn week because idiots on the hill are doing their damndest to make like tougher for US and not the f'ing criminals.

this is only more proof that they aren't interested in the criminals. They want to disarm us and make our getting firearms in the first damn place harder. BTW - in the first section - someone that's going for a license for the first damn time - they DON'T OWN any flipping hand guns!!!!!! That's WHY they're going for a license for crying out loud!!!! (Heaven help me with the stupidity of politicians) So, if they don't provide a list of hand guns and proof of insurance, does that mean they won't get their license the first time around? Don't laugh - depending on the CofP, that COULD happen here.

"Sorry ma'am/sir, but we can't give you an LTC because you haven't supplied us with a list of your hand guns or proof of insurance."

"But, Chief, I don't have any guns. I don't have a license, which is why I'm applying! If I had any guns now, I'd be breaking the law."

"That's besides the point."

If I haven't mentioned it lately...I really HATE this state.
 
ou know it's Summer in Australlia right now. We should go down there...overthrow thier GWF Government, and enjoy the summer and thems fine looking Aussie women
Around the time that a certain president tried to convince us that he didn't lie about having sex with that woman, because she was having sex with him but he wasn't having sex with her, one of the Senators/Reps from TX responded. IIRC, he said something along the lines that if he tried that, the last thing he saw would be his wife standing over him asking "So how I do reload this damn thing?"

That would not be my fate. My wife knows quite well how to reload that damn thing. And I probably wouldn't be alive to witness her reloading her AR15.
 
This is very reminiscent of some of the British legislation. As previously noted it isn't new, but like water dripping on a stone, eventually the stone wears away.

Right now the sentiment for more gun control is at a higher level with the situation in Boston, and of course the tragic hunting accident that just happened this week will only provide more fuel for the fire.

Insurance for firearms loss is in and of itself not a bad idea, but mandatory insurance that would cover a variety of situations is ridiculous.
Part of the situation is class warfare to a degree. A lower income person will find many of the approved guns too expensive, the licensing fee is high, and now with an insurance premium on top of that, some would be forced to give up guns entirely from just a financial perspective.

Lest the skeet shooters and duck hunters stand by idly, if this legislative proposal takes off, long guns will be next.

Mark
 
Is the gun insurance going to be modeled after the state of MA wonderful car insurance system? This is absolute crap. [evil]
 
"Is the gun insurance going to be modeled after the state of MA wonderful car insurance system? This is absolute crap." K.

Well, here's a thought: if auto insurance reform becomes a reality in Mass and the big companies move in, the local insurance companies are going to have to stay in business somehow :D

Who says that the premiums have to be cheap ?

Mark
 
mark056 said:
Well, here's a thought: if auto insurance reform becomes a reality in Mass and the big companies move in, the local insurance companies are going to have to stay in business somehow :D

Who says that the premiums have to be cheap ?

Mark

off-topic but...

The history of a free market will dictate. Supply and demand. More supply to the current demand, I would bet that the prices will go down.
 
derek said:
mark056 said:
Well, here's a thought: if auto insurance reform becomes a reality in Mass and the big companies move in, the local insurance companies are going to have to stay in business somehow :D

Who says that the premiums have to be cheap ?

Mark

off-topic but...

The history of a free market will dictate. Supply and demand. More supply to the current demand, I would bet that the prices will go down.

One can only hope....
 
mark056 said:
This is very reminiscent of some of the British legislation. As previously noted it isn't new, but like water dripping on a stone, eventually the stone wears away.

Mark

Whether or not this "bill" is nothing more than the rantings of a few unmedicated mad men and women, it suggests to me to hold off on my first gun purchase. As much as Lynne is tired of the writing campaign, I'm not so sure that I want to engage in, what could be, a costly hobby that requires my constant vigilance and forces me to have to take pen to paper on a regular basis, regardless of my rights and responsibilities to be an armed citizen. To be sure, I've had a strong dislike of MA since the day I set foot here. Maybe this will be the final push in my campaign to so Ta-Ta-Forever to these flaming Libs and their lemming-like followers. So let me ask you this (before I bail from this increasingly oppressive commiewealth), are there enough gunowners to put a stop to these mindless politicos, or is it that "eventually the stone wears away?"
 
Derek,

What I was suggesting was that the current Mass auto insurance companies become the Mass Gun Insurance Companies and so chartered by the state, with arcane rules that would only make it attractive for them to offer that type of insurance.

For example, let's suppose the standard 250,000 dollar minimum policy proposed had a premium of say, 5,000 dollars. High premiums would force a lot of gun owners to give up their firearms, and given this state's unusual insurance laws, who is to say that premiums like this can't assessed ?

Regards,

Mark
 
MyKey said:
Whether or not this "bill" is nothing more than the rantings of a few unmedicated mad men and women, it suggests to me to hold off on my first gun purchase. As much as Lynne is tired of the writing campaign, I'm not so sure that I want to engage in, what could be, a costly hobby that requires my constant vigilance and forces me to have to take pen to paper on a regular basis, regardless of my rights and responsibilities to be an armed citizen. To be sure, I've had a strong dislike of MA since the day I set foot here. Maybe this will be the final push in my campaign to so Ta-Ta-Forever to these flaming Libs and their lemming-like followers. So let me ask you this (before I bail from this increasingly oppressive commiewealth), are there enough gunowners to put a stop to these mindless politicos, or is it that "eventually the stone wears away?"

If you are adverse to protecting your own rights, MA is no place to be! And NO, most MA gun owners could care less what legislation is passed or what requirements are invoked on the honest citizenry. It is only a very small number who do all the talking, writing, protesting, etc. in our favor. To be truthful, it is also only a small number of anti-activists that cause all our problems here too . . . but the media pimps for them to make them look like the majority to the sheeple.

However, after you run away from MA, ponder this:

- Lately even in "Live Free or Die" NH, onerous legislation gets filed there too. Their activists have to stay on top of it.

- A comprehensive look at legislation filed in many/most states, you will find similar attempts by the wacko fringe element to limit their freedom too.

- Vigilance is a lifelong commitment for all our freedoms!

Good luck in your future, wherever you choose to live.
 
We were talking aobut this at our members meeting at our club last night.

I know that GOAL is against this. But I would like to know how they are talking this...

Are they pretty sure that it's a joke, and we need to write, but really not worry.

Or, are they really concerned that this might squeek through?
 
New Hampshire, here I come!

(viii) has not successfully completed a firearms safety course of at least twenty hours, including a minimum of four hours of practical shooting instruction at a firing range that has been approved by the secretary of public safety or his designee.

Think that might up the cost some?

That's what we need, ANOTHER hurdle to prevent more poor people from obtaining gun licenses.

Toomey is the same assmunch who proposed paying for new anti-crime initiatives by INCREASING the $100 fee on LTC's and FID's.

For more on (pronounced as one word) Timmy Dimbulb Toomey, related blog post here:

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/03/bay-state-lawbreakers-and-lawmakers.html
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/02/reality-disconnect-aisle-six.html

And here's one from last year's attempt at this "handgun insurance" BS.

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2004/03/thanks-ms-kaprielian-but-no-thanks.html
 
Re: New Hampshire, here I come!

mAss Backwards said:
(viii) has not successfully completed a firearms safety course of at least twenty hours, including a minimum of four hours of practical shooting instruction at a firing range that has been approved by the secretary of public safety or his designee.

OK, what happens when the Secretary of Public Safety refuses to approve any ranges?

Think stuff like this won't happen?

Try to buy a quality (brand name) motorcycle helmet, that's made in the US. There aren't any. Why? Frivolous lawsuits ran off ALL the companies. Bell was the last to leave.

Think it's irrelevant? Federal "Extortion" legislation requires the states to have helmet laws. No US company makes decent helmets. If the President or Congress wanted to ban motorcycles, all they have to do is tighten down on helmet standards and ban importation of helmets. It's that simple.
 
mark056 said:
Derek,

What I was suggesting was that the current Mass auto insurance companies become the Mass Gun Insurance Companies and so chartered by the state, with arcane rules that would only make it attractive for them to offer that type of insurance.

For example, let's suppose the standard 250,000 dollar minimum policy proposed had a premium of say, 5,000 dollars. High premiums would force a lot of gun owners to give up their firearms, and given this state's unusual insurance laws, who is to say that premiums like this can't assessed ?

Regards,

Mark

Gotcha. I missed the post of the last post. You're right that would be their goal. They figure if they can make premiums high enough the average low income Joe in the bad part of town wont be able to afford to insure his firearms. Thus reducing gun ownership to a few rich skeet shooters, and returning MA to it's blissful low crime fairytale land...
 
LenS said:
MyKey said:
Whether or not this "bill" is nothing more than the rantings of a few unmedicated mad men and women, it suggests to me to hold off on my first gun purchase. As much as Lynne is tired of the writing campaign, I'm not so sure that I want to engage in, what could be, a costly hobby that requires my constant vigilance and forces me to have to take pen to paper on a regular basis, regardless of my rights and responsibilities to be an armed citizen. To be sure, I've had a strong dislike of MA since the day I set foot here. Maybe this will be the final push in my campaign to so Ta-Ta-Forever to these flaming Libs and their lemming-like followers. So let me ask you this (before I bail from this increasingly oppressive commiewealth), are there enough gunowners to put a stop to these mindless politicos, or is it that "eventually the stone wears away?"

If you are adverse to protecting your own rights, MA is no place to be! And NO, most MA gun owners could care less what legislation is passed or what requirements are invoked on the honest citizenry. It is only a very small number who do all the talking, writing, protesting, etc. in our favor. To be truthful, it is also only a small number of anti-activists that cause all our problems here too . . . but the media pimps for them to make them look like the majority to the sheeple.

However, after you run away from MA, ponder this:

- Lately even in "Live Free or Die" NH, onerous legislation gets filed there too. Their activists have to stay on top of it.

- A comprehensive look at legislation filed in many/most states, you will find similar attempts by the wacko fringe element to limit their freedom too.

- Vigilance is a lifelong commitment for all our freedoms!

Good luck in your future, wherever you choose to live.

Lens -

Are you saying that the "stone eventually wears away?"

Mike
 
C-pher said:
We were talking aobut this at our members meeting at our club last night.

I know that GOAL is against this. But I would like to know how they are talking this...

Are they pretty sure that it's a joke, and we need to write, but really not worry.

Or, are they really concerned that this might squeek through?

I am on some sort of list for GOAL notification. I have not received anything yet. I remember getting a postcard for something once or twice that GOAL thought was worth fighting. Either it is too early or....


Why don't we hear from the national organizations on this? Where is our national support?
 
Back
Top Bottom