Governor Patrick Files Bill to Drastically Increase License Fees

Riverside said:
http://www.goal.org/misc/links.html#legislature
The link is having difficulties. Earlier today, I went there and saw a listing by city and town. You could go directly to the MA gov site.
I found this:Attleboro
Senator Scott P. Brown:precincts one, two, three A
Senator James E. Timilty:precinct three B
Representative John A. Lepper:precincts one, two, and three A
Representative Elizabeth A. Poirier:precinct three B
Send a copy to each one of them.

Senator Scott P. Brown (Scott doesn't P Yellow?)
Click to expand...

All four of them will be getting letters!
 
This proposal goes beyond preposterous. If I knew a word stronger than preposterous I would use it.

Let me say RIGHT NOW that I will support, with words, actions and money, any legal action against passage of sections 24 through 27 of this bill.

Unfortunately, I feel that even the maximum amount of action taken against this bill by concerned citizens may be in vane. While I strongly hope I am wrong, historically, the legislators of this state have proven that they care little about its legal gun owners. In addition, the pressure of an increasing state debt will probably result in far more votes for tax increases by legislators than cuts in expenses.

Ultimately, I feel that legal action may have to be brought against the state in this matter. I will commit as much of my income as possible to a legal fund for action against the state in this matter if such a fund is established. In a related side note, I am a member of the NRA and am joining GOAL right after I finish this post.

I will stay and fight with this. However, I have found that the Massachusetts laws, in both gun control and more globally, are just too oppressive to bear. If this law passes I will seriously consider leaving the state. I will be forced to abandon a career and community that I love because of this oppression.

This state has become a husk of what it was 1775 when citizens fought and bled for their own freedom. The spirit of that era has turned into open hands waiting for a state hand out as people are subjugated without even realizing it. Massachusett’s political leaders should be embarrassed and ashamed.
 
Who do I need to contact for fall river?

This kind of shit just makes me livid! I so just want to move like 2 miles away to Tiverton RI. Cant anyone help us mass residents? I know GOAL does a hell of a lot for us but what about the NRA they have law suits against CA and IL, WHY NOT mass???
 
Last edited:
How many times can I write these scumbags and scumbitches and tell them that I am not going to vote for them if they support the communist, anti-freedom, criminal loving bill of the week. They've known that I am not voting for them for a long while now.

More needs to be done. Someone smarter and better at leadership than me please come up with a plan here. Be it legal action or whatever, we've got to get something bigger and better going if we have any shot at this.
 
No one will respond to me while wasting away in Meninoville. So when this passes, I expect to renew with pennies. No law against that!!! Or, is there?
 
The gist of some communication I had via PM from GOAL, was that after 180 passed, GOAL spent a few hundred thousand dollars to hire "the best legal minds in the country" to fight it and that there's no reason to spend extra dough losing further in court. Would love to read the transcripts from the case - if only there were enough hours in my day.

I still find it hard to fathom that things like "the list" and taxing of a right and most of all, the denial of citizens the full right to keep and bear arms at the whim of a public servant are not up for challenge or debate in the court. This has become a police state where we are all subjects to the whims of the liberal elite...I say bullshit....bullshit.
 
MassMark said:
The gist of some communication I had via PM from GOAL, was that after 180 passed, GOAL spent a few hundred thousand dollars to hire "the best legal minds in the country" to fight it and that there's no reason to spend extra dough losing further in court.
Click to expand...

So that's it? No more legal actions from GOAL? I think that things would be different now after the Heller case. I really think that a new legal challenge is the way to go.
 
My friends, gun owners in this state have dropped below the critical mass required to maintain enough political power to sustain themselves. Starting in the mid 1990s, there became so few gun owners in MA that elected officials can do whatever they wish to this minority group with impunity.

How to solve this problem? In my mind, I am sorry to say, it is like asking how to stop a nuclear chain reaction. Gun owners are moving out, prospective gun owning residents are steering clear, and existing residents are not taking up the sport due to all of the restrictions. This process is not reversible because there are not enough of us left to have any political power.

So with this in mind, I am going to watch this bill and the "gun a month" bill very closely. If GOAL is able to defeat either of these bills, I will join GOAL and take this as proof that my theory is wrong. If they both pass, I will simply take this as proof that I am right, and save $30/year in a fund to move out of MA.
 
MassMark said:
The gist of some communication I had via PM from GOAL, was that after 180 passed, GOAL spent a few hundred thousand dollars to hire "the best legal minds in the country" to fight it and that there's no reason to spend extra dough losing further in court. Would love to read the transcripts from the case - if only there were enough hours in my day.

I still find it hard to fathom that things like "the list" and taxing of a right and most of all, the denial of citizens the full right to keep and bear arms at the whim of a public servant are not up for challenge or debate in the court. This has become a police state where we are all subjects to the whims of the liberal elite...I say bullshit....bullshit.
Click to expand...

This is a better time for legal action then it was back then, GOAL needs to step up to the plate if they want anymore of my money.
 
maee said:
My friends, gun owners in this state have dropped below the critical mass required to maintain enough political power to sustain themselves. Starting in the mid 1990s, there became so few gun owners in MA that elected officials can do whatever they wish to this minority group with impunity.

How to solve this problem? In my mind, I am sorry to say, it is like asking how to stop a nuclear chain reaction. Gun owners are moving out, prospective gun owning residents are steering clear, and existing residents are not taking up the sport due to all of the restrictions. This process is not reversible because there are not enough of us left to have any political power.

So with this in mind, I am going to watch this bill and the "gun a month" bill very closely. If GOAL is able to defeat either of these bills, I will join GOAL and take this as proof that my theory is wrong. If they both pass, I will simply take this as proof that I am right, and save $30/year in a fund to move out of MA.
Click to expand...
I was one of the dropouts from the ranks in the '90's, But i say that the numbers are going to go up. Cost was not a concern when I purchased permit, pistol, press, and components. I just paid $120.00 for a thousand .45 LRN and thanked the shop owner. He must have thought I had two heads. I remember being pissed about the new postcard sized FID that had to be renewed. WTF, not for life now? I will NOT stand for this shit from here on out. I sent my first letters to pols thanks to link in GOAL email. Let's Fight. $30.00/year aint shit and you know it.
 
Last edited:
Greg said:
Together we can.

2002208848314568130_rs.jpg


Looks like Borock is reacing down Devals pants.[smile]
Click to expand...

With the smile on their faces I'm sure he is!
 
MPython said:
No one will respond to me while wasting away in Meninoville. So when this passes, I expect to renew with pennies. No law against that!!! Or, is there?
Click to expand...

Sure, your CLEO/Sgt declares you unsuitable to be a gun owner and denies your application.
 
I am very very pissed off.

If we stop this bill then next month it'll be a ban on lead bullets , or a separate license to buy ammo , or a legal limit on ammo ownership. ...

Government's only power is to vacuum money and prosecute criminals. If we refuse to give them money they have created more criminals to prosecute. They are out of control.

I have little faith in our state courts.

The Federal courts are going to be our last peaceful solution to this unconstitutional tyranny.

Maybe , just maybe .. they are scared. Tax repeal , Heller , faith in government falling. ...

Tell me who to send money to in order to bring this to a Ma. Judge who will tell us to f*** off - in order to let us get to a Federal Court.
 
ooglassoo said:
I still dont understand why the NRA has not stepped up yet to help us. I am a NRA member but if they dont help us out soon I wont be for long...
Click to expand...

Well and that's just it - division from within - we'll divide and conquer ourselves.

Look, I've been hit and miss with gun organizations for years. I fell off with the NRA back in the 80's when they stood idly by, (and many may say offered them up), as NFA owners were fed to the wolves. I was active in the ILA at the time and was stunned at some of the responses I got to my protests about the 86 ban that were tantamount to todays fudds saying AR-15's are unnecessary. I fell off from GOAL as well after a rather terse response to a simple question I sent via E-mail some years ago. I said: "screw it" and didn't bother sending a check for membership. Who was I hurting? The NRA? GOAL? Not really - they've done just fine without me. I was even contemplating not renewing to GOAL as recently as a few hours ago, but thought better of it - the check is in the mail - despite my concerns.

Right now, we need synergy folks and if enough of us demand change - even from within, we can make a difference. GOAL has done some great work on the front lines, but to quote a good friend of mine who I have also been corresponding via PM: "we need boots on the ground". That means recruiting. With only 5% of gun owners in Massachusetts members of the only gun organization focused on our rights locally, there's work that needs to be done. I'm not knocking GOAL at all - I recognize what's been done and honor the sweat and sacrifice, but just as I have a right to keep and bear arms, I also have the right to constructively criticize. I think GOAL has been a superb watchdog, but I think it's time for the german shepherd to ask the pit bull to come out and stand at his side. We need to get membership up, strength up and our voices heard. I think it's BS that GOAL is unable to find legal grounds to fight, but my cries of "bullshit" can't be heard from outside the box....
 
Last edited:
Thanks Derek for posting that for me earlier.

A few points that folks should take to heart:

- MA does NOT recognize the 2nd Amendment, period!

- The 2nd Amendment is NOT incorporated and thus the Heller decision has NO effect on any states as of this moment. Probably will, but not until the Chicago case is heard and ruled on . . . that'll take a few years.

- Gun owners are terribly fractionalized! Look at this thread with threats that if GOAL doesn't win x, they will drop out. You/we can't win battles like that. We need to stand together.

- We don't have "political clout/mass" in MA like AARP or NRA does. Politicians know that they can screw us over with impunity at the polls. So they do, regularly.

- Even the USSC allowed licensing to stand, fees to stand, etc. I don't think they'd be sympathetic to a $200 fee. I certainly wouldn't want to bet on that.

- Using a Constitutional argument against the fees is a losing proposition IMNSHO.

- Democrats never saw a fee or tax that they didn't like. It's a tough sell to get them to back off any proposal to tax/raise fees.

- Good news: Rules change for each legislative session . . . this session there is NO rule requiring a change in a proposed tax/fee having to also propose where the money would be made up elsewhere. This was confirmed for me by my state Rep's Legislative Aid in our phone conversation mid-afternoon.

- The actual proposal by Deval increases fees in a lot of areas, not just guns. I don't think we were singled out for any reason other than a relatively small, unsympathetic group from which to extort more money (e.g. just like smokers).

- GOAL IS meeting with a nationally respected lawyer to discuss "future plans for legal action" shortly.

- Anyone can file a lawsuit, but if you have hopes of actually winning, you MUST plan an iron-clad strategy and have the funding (think $500K+ minimum) to follow thru. You must pick your battles very carefully if you are to have a hope of winning. Don't bet on judges being unbiased in this part of the country.

Make your phone calls, let them hear from you.

True, most legislators never read our Emails. Aides "may" read them and respond . . . or not. More likely to get a decent response if the legislator actually knows you first. Otherwise, phone or hard-copy signed letter is best (it shows that you invested yourself in the issue).
 
Nitro said:
Whoa! hold up, the SC stated that the licensing wasnt brought up in the case so they will not make a ruling on it at this time.
Click to expand...


You are correct. However in the lengthy decision Justice Scalia pointed out that licensing was basically acceptable. It tells us how they would look upon a complaint about fees/licenses.
 
Rep. Denis Guyer, Second Berkshire

I mentioned this last night, but didn't want to post it until he had a chance to get the word out. Rep. Guyer sent the following to his colleagues in the House.

Dear Colleague,

I hope that you will join me in sponsoring the amendments (below) to the Governor's Supplemental Appropriation Bill.

While the bill does not yet have a bill number assigned, I will be filing these amendments as soon as we are able; so I thank you for your support in advance.

These amendments will strike sections 24, 25, 26, and 27 which raise the fees on legally licensed gun owners and dealers. Under current law (Chapter 140) citizens must pay $100 to renew their gun licenses now. Under the Governor's proposal this figure will be more than doubled to $250.

While the exact reasons for this increase have not yet been made clear, what is clear to most of us is that this new fee will make the legal and recently affirmed constitutional right for our citizens to legally possess a firearm financially out of reach. Making it harder for legal gun owners to renew their licenses will do nothing to stop the issues of gun violence and unlicensed guns on our streets today, and may in fact, create a new class of criminal: the current license holder and gun owner who is unable to afford the new fee.

Please support the thousands of LEGAL and responsible gun owners in this state by co-sponsoring these amendments.

To become a co-sponsor please respond to this email or call my office at (617) 722-2460 by 5PM Wednesday 7/16

Thank You,
Rep. Denis Guyer
Second Berkshire District

Amendments:

Amendment 1:
MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the bill by striking section 24.

Amendment 2:
MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the bill by striking section 25.

Amendment 3:
MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the bill by striking section 26

Amendment 4:
MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the Bill by striking section 27.

Amendment 5:
MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the Bill by striking the following sections: 24, 25, 26 and 27.
 
State House News: GUN OWNERS, LAWMAKERS LASH OUT AT GOV’S PROPOSED FIREARM FEES

By Kyle Cheney
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JULY 14, 2008.....Gun rights advocates are fuming over a raft of increased licensing fees proposed over the weekend by Gov. Deval Patrick, each of which at least double existing assessments.

The proposal, included in a supplemental budget, would increase to $200 from $100 the cost of licensing a firearm, and increase by the same amount the cost of renewing a license, which has to be done every six years. In addition, the bill would establish a new annual $100 fee for license holders and increase to $250 from $100 the cost of a temporary license for out-of-state carriers.

“This is just ridiculous,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League. “Our supporters would see this as a direct attempt to basically tax citizens out of their civil rights. This may push people to the edge of civil disobedience and they’ll just keep and bear arms. The government has pushed the local citizen to the edge to where they can’t comply anymore.”

Even one gun control advocate said the proposed fee increase may be too much.

The fees are projected to bring in $2.8 million this year, an estimate built into the fiscal 2009 budget passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor on Sunday. But lawmakers must still approve separate legislation authorizing the fee increases before they take effect.

The revenue collected from the increases would be directed to the state’s General Fund.

“Agencies across state government were asked what fees it may be time to revisit. These were among a host of others that were included in the budget,” said administration spokeswoman Cyndi Roy. “We face some challenging economic times that call for both restraint in spending and for new revenue sources. This is one area we felt, as we believe the Legislature did by including the revenues in their budget, was an appropriate place to revisit.”

The increase would be the first since 2003, when lawmakers approved an increase from $25 to the current $100 license renewal fee.

Lawmakers who support gun ownership blasted the fees as unaffordable for some and said they would unfairly penalize law-abiding citizens.

“Give me a kid who’s into hunting and fishing and I will give you a kid who’s not doing crack cocaine down on a street corner,” said Sen. Stephen Brewer (D-Barre).

Brewer, vice chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, said he would wield his influence to try to strip the supplemental budget of the fees in committee.

“This appears to be a punitive, large amount,” he said. “I will make my voice heard.”

Rep. Dennis Guyer (D-Dalton), a licensed firearm carrier himself, said existing fees were already a burden on gun owners, let alone a twofold increase.

“It’s going to put a heavy, heavy burden on these folks who enjoy hunting and like to carry the personal protection,” he said, noting that some residents in his district, such as security personnel, are required to carry weapons for their jobs.

Wrentham Republican Rep. Richard Ross, who also has a license to carry, said the governor seemed to be making an end run around a recent Supreme Court decision affirming the right of individuals to own guns.

“Not everyone that has a handgun and has a lawful right to carry it is wealthy,” he said.

Ross said that his job as a funeral director requires him to travel to some “dubious locations” where he prefers to have a gun.

News of the fee proposal stoked renewed interest from opponents in reducing or eliminating them completely. Brewer said he has a bill pending to cut existing licensing fees from $100 to $25 and Wallace, of GOAL, said his group’s supporters may now actively seek to cut fees altogether.

John Rosenthal, co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, said eliminating fees entirely would be “extreme” but that the increases proposed by the governor were “a little too much.”

“It’s a shame we can’t charge criminals who really should bear this cost,” he said. “For many, that may be a very onerous user fee.”

-END-
07/14/2008

Serving the working press since 1910

http://www.statehousenews.com
 
John Rosenthal, co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, said eliminating fees entirely would be “extreme” but that the increases proposed by the governor were “a little too much.”

“It’s a shame we can’t charge criminals who really should bear this cost,” he said. “For many, that may be a very onerous user fee.”
Click to expand...
Quite a comment, considering the source.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Quite a comment, considering the source.
Click to expand...


No kidding, but then think about what he is apparently knowing doing in all other aspects. He gets that criminals should bear the cost....

I got a reply from Sen. Rosenberg saying the fee increase was "out of line" and that he thought it would be removed.
 

Similar threads

Showing driver’s license with LTC?
2
Replies
31
Views
781
Dench
Dench
3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
T-Unit
T
Scott signs VT Suppressor Hunting Bill into law
Replies
23
Views
889
1sern
1
VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
213
Reptile
Reptile
Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Back
Top Bottom