Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

It sounds like it was just a quick interview/soundbyte so I wouldn't read too much into it, but he states that the orginal 1 yr provision was DROPPED. Nothing was mentioned about being modified to 2 years or greater. He just mispoke about the current law. I don't think one statment had anything to do with the other. Thats how I interpreted it anyhow.
 
Has it even been finalized yet? I'm quite appalled, and rapidly losing my naivety, that a bill can undergo major surgery and be voted upon without anyone having a chance to read it. Or is it that only we, the public, have had no chance to read and react to it because all the politicians sat and negotiated their bits and pieces into it already?

All I can say is that I'm very happy to be writing this post from my new home in SW Florida. Only 18 months of back and forth before I get out of MA for good!
 
Has it even been finalized yet? I'm quite appalled, and rapidly losing my naivety, that a bill can undergo major surgery and be voted upon without anyone having a chance to read it. Or is it that only we, the public, have had no chance to read and react to it because all the politicians sat and negotiated their bits and pieces into it already?

All I can say is that I'm very happy to be writing this post from my new home in SW Florida. Only 18 months of back and forth before I get out of MA for good!

Good for you. I'm looking around Sarasota and Venice as we speak. I'm done here.

Fired from my HTC One with high capacity storage
 
We have to vote to approve it to see what is in it...

That is definitely the feeling I'm getting from this last-minute maneuver! How can they vote something (in clear conscious) out of committee that hasn't even be re-written yet??

Simple answer: They have NO conscious!
 
Even with the right to appeal in court, I will repeat here what Atty. Karen MacNutt told me ~30 years ago.

The judges work with the local police chiefs every day on criminal cases brought before their court. No way in hell that those judges will rule against a chief's opinion of someone's suitability, as they face those chiefs daily. In other words, even if you have a right to appeal, the odds of winning in district court are close to ZERO!! Nothing has changed in those 30 years!
 
Even with the right to appeal in court, I will repeat here what Atty. Karen MacNutt told me ~30 years ago.

The judges work with the local police chiefs every day on criminal cases brought before their court. No way in hell that those judges will rule against a chief's opinion of someone's suitability, as they face those chiefs daily. In other words, even if you have a right to appeal, the odds of winning in district court are close to ZERO!! Nothing has changed in those 30 years!

good to know corruption is alive and well.. reality I guess.
 
Even with the right to appeal in court, I will repeat here what Atty. Karen MacNutt told me ~30 years ago.

The judges work with the local police chiefs every day on criminal cases brought before their court. No way in hell that those judges will rule against a chief's opinion of someone's suitability, as they face those chiefs daily. In other words, even if you have a right to appeal, the odds of winning in district court are close to ZERO!! Nothing has changed in those 30 years!

Eh, I wouldn't say that even a majority of dc judges are that chummy with cops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

Just getting caught up here, do you have a link for this?
 
Last edited:
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 said after paying a visit to the Senate anteroom Tuesday afternoon.

Scum George. Pure scum.

NO COMPROMISE! You're a loser sir, like everyone else in MA politics. [puke]
 
Latest info:
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JULY 8, 2014…. A redrafted version of House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s gun violence prevention bill late emerged late Tuesday after weeks of negotiation between House Democrats and gun owner advocates that may be enough to win over skeptical lawmakers.

The House plans to debate and vote on the gun control bill (H 4121) Wednesday, and the House Ways and Means Committee opened a poll of the committee’s members Tuesday evening giving the panel just 16 hours to review the new legislation before their votes to advance the legislation were due.

“Since we unveiled the gun safety bill, I have been in discussions with gun safety advocates, experts, gun owners and House members. Our work has resulted in a bill that is fair and comprehensive,” DeLeo said in a statement. “I believe that the bill the House will debate tomorrow represents one of the most effective gun laws in the country, an important public safety measure that can serve as a model to other states.”

The original bill, which barely squeaked through the Public Safety Committee by a one-vote margin, was drafted with input from a task force appointed by DeLeo after the 2012 shootings inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Lawmakers in January 2013 joined together to call for passage of gun legislation but Beacon Hill leaders have been slow to rally around a single bill and with time running out on the session for controversial bills to advance.

Gun owners criticized DeLeo’s original legislation for erecting too many barriers to lawful gun ownership in an effort to limit the spread of illegal firearms and address the types of mental health issues than can lead to school and other community shootings.

The revised bill, according to a summary disseminated by the speaker’s office, would require the state to fully comply with a national instant background check system, and would authorize licensed gun dealers to access criminal histories prior to making a sale.

School districts would be required to have at least one resource officer and two-way communication devices with police and fire personnel in case of an emergency, as well as develop plans to address the mental health needs of its students.

The bill also retains a controversial provisions that would give the licensing authority, such as a local police chief, broader discretion to deny a firearm identification card or license to carry if “in the reasonable exercise of discretion” it determines the applicant to be unsuitable based on exhibited behavior or other factors that suggest the applicant could be a risk to public safety.

Rep. John Fernandes, a Milford Democrat who said he represents a lot of gun owners, said the new version requires police chiefs to have “reliable and credible information” in order to deny a license, and must put the specific reasons and evidence into writing, which could later be reviewed by a judge.

“We think that really puts some structure to what has been an unstructured situation up until now. If you think of it as a balance scale, the hope is that we brought that balance back,” Fernandes said, who worked with his fellow Democrats to bridge the divide with gun owners.

Fernandes said House leaders have also stripped a provision that would have required all private gun sales to be conducted through a licensed dealer, which would have created an addition hurdle and expense for gun owners trying to conduct a legal sale.

The compromise calls for the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services to develop an online portal for private sales that will speed the process of background checks without making it more difficult for legal gun owners to do business with one another, he said.

Other sections of the bill would create stiffer penalties for failure to report a lost or stolen firearm, while waiving the 90-day renewal process for a firearm identification card and reducing the fines for having an expired firearm license.

A new unit within the state police would be established to focus on firearms crime and trafficking and work with the attorney general’s office and district attorney’s in investigating firearms crimes.

In an effort to win support for 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, now says he will support the bill.

“On the whole, this bill is miles in the direction of law abiding guns owners. I’m going to be supporting it. It’s going to be a delicate balance,” said Peterson, who reported after a call with the Gun Owners Action League that the group is “quite pleased” with the changes.

Peterson said his support would “evaporate very quickly” if changes are made to the bill on the floor to tip the balance away from lawful gun owners, and also said he will ask for a vote to be delayed a week to give lawmakers time to review the legislation.

“I think a bill of this important and complexity we should have a least a week for members to read it and comprehend it and talk tot their constituents, but I probably won’t be too successful,” Peterson said.

Peterson was particularly pleased to see language dropped that would have prohibited anyone with a misdemeanor conviction carrying a penalty of one year of incarceration or more from obtaining a firearm license. Under current law, a resident is only listed a “prohibited person” if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor carrying a penalty of at least two years in jail.

“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.

Peterson also said the new state police unit will be responsible for gathering information on guns at crime scenes and collecting data that will law enforcement better understand what types of guns are being used to commit crimes and from where they are coming.

“This is something we’ve been working for long time and I think it’s a big step in the right direction,” he said.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh issued a statement calling the legislation “sensible” and suggesting it would help reduce street violence. Walsh said that last year 46 percent of all traceable guns used to commit a crime in Boston originated from Massachusetts, with 37 percent of those guns making their way from a legal gun owner to a criminal in three years or less.

“These numbers show that we can and must do better for the people of Boston and the Commonwealth. I urge my partners in the House of Representatives and Senate to act favorably on this legislation as it is an integral part in our shared efforts to combat gun violence,” Walsh said.
 
Rep. John Fernandes, a Milford Democrat who said he represents a lot of gun owners, said the new version requires police chiefs to have “reliable and credible information” in order to deny a license, and must put the specific reasons and evidence into writing, which could later be reviewed by a judge.

Horse shit. Anyone can lie..

On the whole, this bill is miles in the direction of law abiding guns owners. I’m going to be supporting it. It’s going to be a delicate balance,” said Peterson, who reported after a call with the Gun Owners Action League that the group is “quite pleased” with the changes.

Is Peterson A+ GOAL rated?? GOAL is useless as an organization. No compromises, remember guys?? I think the folks of MA have given enough. You make me sick. The only thing that would be good for LAW ABIDING gun owners, is to burn the whole bill.


Boston Mayor Marty Walsh issued a statement calling the legislation “sensible” and suggesting it would help reduce street violence

WRONG!!!!!


Fernandes said House leaders have also stripped a provision that would have required all private gun sales to be conducted through a licensed dealer, which would have created an addition hurdle and expense for gun owners trying to conduct a legal sale.

Wow, how generous. [thinking]
 
Last edited:
Anyone going to go to the State House tomorrow?

To celebrate more gun laws being passed? Too late now. Shame this is how they have to do it.we scared them enough to make them re-write the bill completely and force it through in less than 24 hours. You would think it should get the scrutiny that new bills do since that's what it is. But nope
 
The page of the bill is still showing the old version.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4121

The bill also retains a controversial provisions that would give the licensing authority, such as a local police chief, broader discretion to deny a firearm identification card or license to carry if “in the reasonable exercise of discretion” it determines the applicant to be unsuitable based on exhibited behavior or other factors that suggest the applicant could be a risk to public safety.

Rep. John Fernandes, a Milford Democrat who said he represents a lot of gun owners, said the new version requires police chiefs to have “reliable and credible information” in order to deny a license, and must put the specific reasons and evidence into writing, which could later be reviewed by a judge.
That paragraph really tells us nothing.

Does the judge get to review the decision de novo, or merely whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious--like they are limited to now.
 
Last edited:
They really need to be sure of the language on the misdemeanor section. It has to read, "over two years" as it does now not, "two years or more." I hope GOAL is letting them know how important that is.
 
Latest info:
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JULY 8, 2014…. A redrafted version of House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s gun violence prevention bill late emerged late Tuesday after weeks of negotiation between House Democrats and gun owner advocates that may be enough to win over skeptical lawmakers.

This is the part that gets me, and what I've always suspected...

DeLeo said in a statement. “I believe that the bill the House will debate tomorrow represents one of the most effective gun laws in the country, an important public safety measure that can serve as a model to other states.”

It's not about reducing firearms related crime, public safety and never was.

From the start, it was all about bragging rights and a pissing match about which anti 2ndA state has the "toughest gun control laws in the nation".

"Model to other states" my ass.

There's no more than 6-7 "other states" that have an issue with this, and everyone knows who they are.

The other 43-44 just shake their heads and laugh.
 
They really need to be sure of the language on the misdemeanor section. It has to read, "over two years" as it does now not, "two years or more." I hope GOAL is letting them know how important that is.

The way I'm reading it, there shouldn't be ANY language in the misdemeanor section, as it was dropped. So it defaults to the >2 years that is current law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom