-
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.
Urgent GOAL Alert - Please call your State Rep NOW!
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
Let's get on this guys and girls!
Maybe it's cause I'm having one of those days but I'm confused. Is this two separate actions?
First would allow for the possession of pepper spray without a license...
The second would allow a person under the protection of a RO to receive an LTC quicker...
OR
Does the amendment only allow for an individual under RO to get a Pepper spray license faster?
Aloha
First would allow for the possession of pepper spray without a license...
The second would allow a person under the protection of a RO to receive an LTC quicker...
OR
Does the amendment only allow for an individual under RO to get a Pepper spray license faster?
Aloha
Cap
NES Member
Uh, no. No fees/process for anyone, or better yet, no required licenses...
More info;
http://milford-ma.patch.com/groups/...censes-for-victims-of-domestic-abuse_a67dcbc8
Last edited:
Bump.
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
Called Tom Conroy's office (I know.) Spoke to his legislative aide, Chelsea Gordon. She was aware that the amendments were being submitted but hadn't seen them posted yet.
Spoke to her about the fact that Mass was only state requiring permit and that possession on an academic campus was a crime (thought I'd bring that up too). She was very suprised about both. Said that she'd look into it and speak to the rep about it. Didn't feel like a brush-off but...
Aloha
Spoke to her about the fact that Mass was only state requiring permit and that possession on an academic campus was a crime (thought I'd bring that up too). She was very suprised about both. Said that she'd look into it and speak to the rep about it. Didn't feel like a brush-off but...
Aloha
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,517
- Likes
- 33,531
This is a classic example of how our side shoots itself in the foot by not attacking small, incremental problems. The pepper spray amendment might have succeeded, but couple that with something attacking suitability and restrictions for persons involved in potentially violent situation (yeah, I know potentially violent situations is why people carry guns) and it's DOA.
I also don't like the idea of rewarding someone for filing a 209a. Just imagine a couple of gun owners in Brookline - the first to file a 209a would get his/her restrictions removed, and the spouse would lose all guns. Treating 209a filers "differently" is buying into the entire "specific threat" logic that has made carry permits in NYC, NJ, HI, MD, most of CA and much of upstate NY all but impossible for the unconnected to obtain.
I also don't like the idea of rewarding someone for filing a 209a. Just imagine a couple of gun owners in Brookline - the first to file a 209a would get his/her restrictions removed, and the spouse would lose all guns. Treating 209a filers "differently" is buying into the entire "specific threat" logic that has made carry permits in NYC, NJ, HI, MD, most of CA and much of upstate NY all but impossible for the unconnected to obtain.
Last edited:
dieselauto
NES Member
As I read it this is one amendment so it would be both or neither. Much as I believe that anyone should be able to purchase pepper spray, no license required, part 2 makes it a no go.
The idea that your significant other or other family member could file a bogus 209A which would result in loss of your LTC, confiscation of your firearms, and permit them, even if otherwise unable to qualify for an LTC to get one is INSANE.
I think GOAL needs to rethink support for this amendment.
The idea that your significant other or other family member could file a bogus 209A which would result in loss of your LTC, confiscation of your firearms, and permit them, even if otherwise unable to qualify for an LTC to get one is INSANE.
I think GOAL needs to rethink support for this amendment.
Does anyone know what the outcome was?
From Goal's Facebook:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,517
- Likes
- 33,531
This is good news. As long as something attacking chief's power was in there, this was DOA. The issue of "may issue" and "suitability" is a big enough issue that it needs to be fought on its own.
Remember that the MA "Katrina bill" was a fait accompli, having made it to a point in the legislative process that virtually assured enactment. The LEO lobby got wind that it provided penalties for officers who violated the new law, called in a few favors, and had it killed in a back room.
Similar threads
