Firearm Control Advisory Board - December, 2024

[KAG Arms]

Public Meeting Notice - Firearm Control Advisory Board

The Firearm Control Advisory Board will meet on Friday, December 6 at 10 a.m. at:

Department of Criminal Justice Information Services*

200 Arlington Street

Chelsea, MA 02150

*All visitors will need to present a current government-issued picture ID and will be subject to a full security screening to enter the building. No dangerous items will be allowed or secured on-site.

If any member of the public wishing to attend this meeting seeks an accommodation in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact John Melander at john.melander@mass.gov

​

Agenda​

​

FCAB Agenda - December, 2024​

The agenda is as follows:

1. Introduction of final board member and swearing in
2. Discussion of the State’s Conflict of Interest Training for non-state/special state employees
3. Discussion of current firearms rosters, including the roster status of rifles and shotguns. Potential vote on whether rifles and shotguns (i.e. “long-guns or “non-handguns”) need to be on an approved roster to be legally sold in MA.
4. Discussion about the creation of a roster of prohibited “assault-style firearms”
5. Update on CMR and next steps
6. Discussion of future meeting dates

https://www.mass.gov/event/firearm-...jc2NC4zLjAuMTczMzQyMjc2NC4wLjAuMA..Discussion

 

[HARRYM]

Public Meeting Notice - Firearm Control Advisory Board

The Firearm Control Advisory Board will meet on Friday, December 6 at 10 a.m. at:

Department of Criminal Justice Information Services*

200 Arlington Street

Chelsea, MA 02150

*All visitors will need to present a current government-issued picture ID and will be subject to a full security screening to enter the building. No dangerous items will be allowed or secured on-site.

If any member of the public wishing to attend this meeting seeks an accommodation in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact John Melander at john.melander@mass.gov

​

Agenda​

​

FCAB Agenda - December, 2024​

The agenda is as follows:

1. Introduction of final board member and swearing in
2. Discussion of the State’s Conflict of Interest Training for non-state/special state employees
3. Discussion of current firearms rosters, including the roster status of rifles and shotguns. Potential vote on whether rifles and shotguns (i.e. “long-guns or “non-handguns”) need to be on an approved roster to be legally sold in MA.
4. Discussion about the creation of a roster of prohibited “assault-style firearms”
5. Update on CMR and next steps
6. Discussion of future meeting dates

https://www.mass.gov/event/firearm-...jc2NC4zLjAuMTczMzQyMjc2NC4wLjAuMA..Discussion

I just spotted a typo. Line 3 is some sort of mistake as we know they aren't after shotguns and long rifles............

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Gotta love #3:
They are going to vote on whether or not they are going to follow the law.

This state has is an effn joke.

 

[KAG Arms]

Gotta love #3:
They are going to vote on whether or not they are going to follow the law.

This state has is an effn joke.

“Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”

 

[HorizontalHunter]

“Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”

Exactly my point.

 

[Sunny]

Provide ID in a public building? Really?

 

[Broc Tuah]

Gotta love #3:
They are going to vote on whether or not they are going to follow the law.

This state has is an effn joke.

What about #4 ... they want to add to the law.

 

[GM-GUY]

If the board believes that it can hide behind poor wording (have you read the law?), I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't ban ALL semiauto handguns, rifles and shotguns to start.

Is the board on the list of people who can 'Red-Flag' you? If so, handing over ID isn't going to end well if you do anything other than genuflect and bend over.

 

[LakeTrout]

Provide ID in a public building? Really?

The same people who tell you voter ID is oppressive because black people don’t have IDs and can’t afford them. So I guess they don’t want black people in the building?

 

[Drix]

The same people who tell you voter ID is oppressive because black people don’t have IDs and can’t afford them. So I guess they don’t want black people in the building?

Going to be honest, when the government puts in a regulation like this the government should be paying the fee.

Need a safety course and license for a constitutional right? Ok, you pay it. Need me to have an ID? OK you provide it.

 

[LakeTrout]

Going to be honest, when the government puts in a regulation like this the government should be paying the fee.

Need a safety course and license for a constitutional right? Ok, you pay it. Need me to have an ID? OK you provide it.

Problem is the government doesn’t pay for anything. We do. Even if they did what you are suggesting, it’s still going to come out of our pockets in some tax or another. And you but your ass this new tax will be double what the cost of the licenses are so that the other half ends up in the general fund so that they can pay for kids to have their ducks cut off or whatever other wacky liberal shit they’re into these days.

 

[Drix]

Problem is the government doesn’t pay for anything. We do. Even if they did what you are suggesting, it’s still going to come out of our pockets in some tax or another. And you but your ass this new tax will be double what the cost of the licenses are so that the other half ends up in the general fund so that they can pay for kids to have their ducks cut off or whatever other wacky liberal shit they’re into these days.

I'm ok with the socialization of gun licenses. If mom's demand action etc wants us to drop 2k to get licensed they can pay for it too.

 

[LakeTrout]

I'm ok with the socialization of gun licenses. If mom's demand action etc wants us to drop 2k to get licensed they can pay for it too.

I’m not okay with licensing. But if I were, I would see your point. Which I guess doesn’t make sense. I don’t know. It’s all BS either way. And the end result is people shouldn’t have to pay money to exercise their rights.

 

[FalArAk]

The same people who tell you voter ID is oppressive because black people don’t have IDs and can’t afford them. So I guess they don’t want black people in the building?

Good idea.

Let them know that requiring ID to attend this hearing is racist and meant to exclude primarily underrepresented black people.

Throw their own logic back in their face.

 

[KAG Arms]

We have precedent in Gideon v. Wainwright. If the Sixth Amendment can be read to provide a right to counsel. The second amendment can be read that the government must provide arms to the indigent.

 

[KAG Arms]

Good idea.

Let them know that requiring ID to attend this hearing is racist and meant to exclude primarily underrepresented black people.

Throw their own logic back in their face.

I'm african american if a plaintiff is needed.

 

[LakeTrout]

Good idea.

Let them know that requiring ID to attend this hearing is racist and meant to exclude primarily underrepresented black people.

Throw their own logic back in their face.

Absolutely. This is what we need to do to these psycho commies that don’t think at all about how rediculous their ideas are.

 

[Drix]

I’m not okay with licensing. But if I were, I would see your point. Which I guess doesn’t make sense. I don’t know. It’s all BS either way. And the end result is people shouldn’t have to pay money to exercise their rights.

Oh I'm with you, I'm also living the real world where I have to pay money to exercise a right. I shouldn't have to pay squat.

 

[Sunny]

Let them know that requiring ID to attend this hearing is racist and meant to exclude primarily underrepresented black people.

No, it's a f***ing 4A violation.

It's a public meeting, held in a public building, open to the public. I am free to access any and all publicly accessible areas without giving up my 4A rights. If they want to see that I physically have a drivers license, I'll hold it up in the air. But there's no way I should provide the anti-2A meeting holders with my full name, address, DOB, etc.

I really hope someone presses on this, because it's not cool at all.

 

[FalArAk]

No, it's a f***ing 4A violation.

It's a public meeting, held in a public building, open to the public. I am free to access any and all publicly accessible areas without giving up my 4A rights. If they want to see that I physically have a drivers license, I'll hold it up in the air. But there's no way I should provide the anti-2A meeting holders with my full name, address, DOB, etc.

I really hope someone presses on this, because it's not cool at all.

Pretty sure they don't GAF about any amendments.

 

[Sunny]

Pretty sure they don't GAF about any amendments.

Well I hope a f***ing auditor puts this to the test. Government buildings have required ID to enter, auditor refuses, police respond, auditor wins. There is no law to identify yourself in public unless a crime was committed. 4A is super clear about this.

 

[bullseye]

1. Discussion about the creation of a roster of prohibited “assault-style firearms”
2. 

 

[milktree]

Well I hope a f***ing auditor puts this to the test. Government buildings have required ID to enter, auditor refuses, police respond, auditor wins. There is no law to identify yourself in public unless a crime was committed. 4A is super clear about this.

I will donate $1k to your defense fund if you do this.

 

[GL2020]

Provide ID in a public building? Really?

I agree with the sentiment, but in fairness I believe this is the same building where their data center is partly housed...it's common practice in public and private facilities that house data centers. Don't know how much stuff is actually housed there, but knew a guy who worked there years ago and all the court records are were stored there....and who else knows what. It's common practice there even when there is no public meeting. NonResident LTC....first thing was being met with the gorilla at the front desk asking for ID, and appointment info

 

[mothybee]

Provide ID in a public building? Really?

Saves them from taking license plat numbers in the cold.

 

[HARRYM]

A board of anti-gun folks deciding what 2A rights we have and Leftist Judges saying sounds fine to us........

 

[Mesatchornug]

No, it's a f***ing 4A violation.

It's a public meeting, held in a public building, open to the public. I am free to access any and all publicly accessible areas without giving up my 4A rights. If they want to see that I physically have a drivers license, I'll hold it up in the air. But there's no way I should provide the anti-2A meeting holders with my full name, address, DOB, etc.

I really hope someone presses on this, because it's not cool at all.

Technically, it says government issued ID. A passport would suit. That said, I'm with you, and...

I will donate $1k to your defense fund if you do this.

will match.

I agree with the sentiment, but in fairness I believe this is the same building where their data center is partly housed...it's common practice in public and private facilities that house data centers. Don't know how much stuff is actually housed there, but knew a guy who worked there years ago and all the court records are were stored there....and who else knows what. It's common practice there even when there is no public meeting. NonResident LTC....first thing was being met with the gorilla at the front desk asking for ID, and appointment info

Cool. So they can put the security at the access to the secure area. There's no good reason they didn't lay the building out in a way that supports public access to public meeting spaces even if there are other areas in the building that are necessarily not public.

 

[Mark from ?]

Gotta love #3:
They are going to vote on whether or not they are going to follow the law.

This state has is an effn joke.

It reads like this....We passed it....now who is gonna do the work.

Crickets...

OK...lets vote to repeal that part that involves work.

 

[Mark from ?]

What about #4 ... they want to add to the law.

That's easy....everything semi auto. Done.

 

[GL2020]

Technically, it says government issued ID. A passport would suit. That said, I'm with you, and...

will match.

Cool. So they can put the security at the access to the secure area. There's no good reason they didn't lay the building out in a way that supports public access to public meeting spaces even if there are other areas in the building that are necessarily not public.

I agree. It’s not a public building by any stretch. They just are stupidly holding a public meeting there. No reason they couldn’t have it in a publicly accessible place.