Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
new guy said:
So GOAL currently does not represent (any?) votes because it doesn't represent all of the gun owners, but if GOAL had the backing of a majority of gun owners it would represent more votes. Interesting. At what backing level do the legislators view GOAL as having something that they want?
Click to expand...

At the level where GOAL support or opposition of a particular politician affects their election outcome. Until then, GOAL is basically powerless.
 
hello no FTF and suitability FID's

haven't heard much on the actual suitability proposals that were in the original, as to who is going to determine them, etc etc, are they nixing that and letting the chiefs do it as they do currently? or are they moving ahead with a non voted on board of untrained people imposing suitability standards for everyone?
 
I'm wondering if the silence indicates that the "behind closed doors" process is not going as smoothly as DeLeo likes. I think we won't hear anything until it has all been hammered out and the public vote is a formality. So right now is an important time to call/facebook your rep and senators.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
Bill Katt said:
Has anyone heard any updates on this shit?

Is it still in committee?
Click to expand...
It is still in committee... Given "the process" in MA, that's generally a bit euphemistic for "the people with real power are deciding what to do and the committee will be told..."

This has been an unusual process to say the least in both bad and good ways. We need to keep the phone lines and email boxes so hot they can't touch them as it is having a profound impact on what is happening.
 
JJ4 said:
I'm wondering if the silence indicates that the "behind closed doors" process is not going as smoothly as DeLeo likes. I think we won't hear anything until it has all been hammered out and the public vote is a formality. So right now is an important time to call/facebook your rep and senators.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

for something like this I have to think that no news is good news
 
Wasn't there something about formalizing the definition of suitability? Have we heard anything about that?
 
Win said:
Wasn't there something about formalizing the definition of suitability? Have we heard anything about that?
Click to expand...

Bill Katt said:
This part sill pisses me off.....how can they possibly vote yea or nay on something that hasn't even been determined? Some effing 'ANTI-committee' [strike=me]could[/strike] WILL write the 'suitability standards' in a way which would disarm the entire effing state! [puke]
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Stop Handgun Violence (John Rosenthal's group) just sent this email out an hour ago indicating that the House is voting TOMORROW:

Hello Supporters!

As you may be aware, Massachusetts has strong gun laws, however, there is still more we can do to make it harder for criminals and the dangerous mentally ill to access guns and for Massachusetts to remain a national leader in gun violence prevention.

Tomorrow the State House of Representatives is taking a vote on House Speaker DeLeo’s comprehensive gun legislation, HB #4121 “An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence”. The bill would bring Massachusetts into compliance with the Federal Background Check System, it gives police chiefs discretion in licensing for long-guns and it requires background checks for all gun sales, among other provisions.

Stop Handgun Violence supports the bill and we will be showing our support to the entire House of Representatives tomorrow. Please join us tomorrow at the Massachusetts State House at 12:30pm at the House Chamber on the 3rd floor. If you cannot join us in person, please call your representative and urge them to vote in favor of the bill.

For more information, please feel free to email me at [email protected].

We value your continued support!
Click to expand...
 
RDG said:
http://wwlp.com/2014/07/08/massachusetts-lawmakers-to-weigh-revised-gun-bill/
Click to expand...

Interesting.

An updated version of the bill, expected to be debated on Wednesday, would require police chiefs to write down reasons for denying gun licenses to individuals seeking them.

Those denials could be appealed in district court and would have to be based on factors of public safety.
Click to expand...

Depending on how that gets written up it could be an improvement over the current system.

The bill would also create a web-based portal within the state Executive Office of Public Safety to allow for real-time background checks for private gun sales.
Click to expand...

We already have that, it's called eFA-10


Looking forward to reading the revised bill......
 
Last edited:
Knuckle Dragger said:
Stop Handgun Violence (John Rosenthal's group) just sent this email out an hour ago indicating that the House is voting TOMORROW:
Click to expand...


I should be able to sneak out of work and be there for a couple hours at least. Anyone else want to help represent our side?
 
Is Rosenthal ever going to stop running his suck. How long can you spout misinformation and still be given an audience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Swami 87 said:
Here is the latest:
PETERSON: HOUSE GUN BILL HAS “MOVED A LONG WAY”
In an effort to win support for House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s gun violence prevention bill, House Democrats have compromised enough that Rep. George Peterson, a Grafton Republican and leading voice in the House for gun rights activists, is now seriously considering voting for the bill. “It’s moved a long way from the original bill that got reported out of committee and I’m just waiting to see the final details,” Peterson told the News Service after paying a visit to the Senate anteroom Tuesday afternoon. House leaders have said they intend to put the gun control bill on the floor Wednesday for a vote, but after meeting with Democrats earlier Tuesday Peterson said the bill is still being written and a Ways and Means official said it was unclear when the final language would be ready. Asked whether he could support the redrafted bill, Peterson said, “I don’t want to say that until I’ve seen the final language, but I’m much closer than I was before. Much closer.” Hesitant to offer too much detail, Peterson said language that would have prohibited anyone with a misdemeanor conviction carrying a penalty of one year of incarceration or more from obtaining a firearm license has been dropped. “It would have opened up a plethora of different crimes that had nothing to do with violence, so that got dropped pretty quickly,” he said. Current law prohibits anyone with a misdemeanor conviction carrying a penalty of two years in jail or more from being licensed to carry a weapon. Peterson said additional training requirements have also been eliminated because they are addressed in current statute, but he is less certain about what will happen to the controversial proposal to give police chiefs the ability to deny a firearm ID card for a rifle or shotgun based on a new "suitability" standard. “We’ve tried to make a stab at that and tighten the language up to some degree but it remains to be seen how that finally is going to work out,” Peterson said.
Click to expand...


These people dont even know what the current law is..there is a huge diff in the meaning of each of these. This way will still proh 10's of thousands of people. this is what Rep Peterson said...

he said. Current law prohibits anyone with a misdemeanor conviction carrying a penalty of two years in jail or more from being licensed to carry a weapon.

When the acual law reads

(b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years;

(i) has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of (a) a felony; (b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years; (c) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (d) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C;
 
jasons said:
Depending on how that gets written up it could be an improvement over the current system.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering, like everyone else probably, if this portion is in lieu of the standardized suitablility standards or in addition to.

Now that it SEEMS the 1 yr misdemeanor MAY have been dropped, the standardization clause is now my chief concern. Depending on the language, this could potentially be more harmful to gun owners than the 1 yr misdemeanor deal might've been. What could they use as disqualifying standards? number of court appearances? Arrests? CWOFs? WTF??!
 
Double Tap said:
I'm wondering, like everyone else probably, if this portion is in lieu of the standardized suitablility standards or in addition to.

Now that it SEEMS the 1 yr misdemeanor MAY have been dropped, the standardization clause is now my chief concern. Depending on the language, this could potentially be more harmful to gun owners than the 1 yr misdemeanor deal might've been. What could they use as disqualifying standards? number of court appearances? Arrests? CWOFs? WTF??!
Click to expand...

... bitter exes who who were granted a harassing 209a...even if it was vacated as groundless prior to expiration?
 
SBR said:
These people dont even know what the current law is..there is a huge diff in the meaning of each of these. This way will still proh 10's of thousands of people. this is what Rep Peterson said...

he said. Current law prohibits anyone with a misdemeanor conviction carrying a penalty of two years in jail or more from being licensed to carry a weapon.

When the acual law reads

(b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years;

(i) has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of (a) a felony; (b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years; (c) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (d) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C;
Click to expand...

Yeah, he mispoke about the current law but he indicated that it was dropped. Which I ASSUME means the >2 year DQ remains intact. He didnt say the 1 year provision in the original bill has been modified to read 2 years or greater. If that isn't the case, though, I agree with you 100%.
 
Peterson said the bill is still being written and a Ways and Means official said it was unclear when the final language would be ready.
Click to expand...

They're scrambling to save this thing. I'm glad we've had an a small impact on all the (D)rones, but I'm sure it's still a dry sh*t sandwich instead of a wet one.
 
Double Tap said:
I'm wondering, like everyone else probably, if this portion is in lieu of the standardized suitablility standards or in addition to.

Now that it SEEMS the 1 yr misdemeanor MAY have been dropped, the standardization clause is now my chief concern. Depending on the language, this could potentially be more harmful to gun owners than the 1 yr misdemeanor deal might've been. What could they use as disqualifying standards? number of court appearances? Arrests? CWOFs? WTF??!
Click to expand...

Take into consideration whom will be setting the standards...

The executive office of public safety and security, with the advice and recommendations
of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the gun control advisory board, shall
promulgate rules and regulations establishing uniform standards that specify, clarify or define
what constitutes a suitable person for the purposes of issuing a license pursuant to this paragraph
Click to expand...
 
so when he says dropped does it mean left out altogether or rewritten to say
prohibits anyone with a misdemeanor conviction carrying a penalty of two years in jail or more from being licensed to carry a weapon.

This is still no good for many many many many many people


IT NEEDS TO SAY MORE THAN TWO YEARS

NOT I repeat NOT TWO YEARS OR MORE very very big diff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Number of new gun owners since 2020 election surged to equal population of Florida: report
Replies
4
Views
134
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The 10 Commandments of Gun Safety
Replies
2
Views
382
deerdad
deerdad
Cerakote Color of the Month
Replies
1
Views
246
MAGA99
MAGA99
The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law
4 5 6
Replies
174
Views
4K
sbhaven
S
CT: Armed Patrol wants New Haven residents to take safety into their own hands despite opposition
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Zappa
Zappa
Back
Top Bottom