Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Swami 87 said:
Latest info:
STATE HOUSE, .


 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.
Click to expand...


What the hell is Walsh talking about? He needs to be called out on this bs lie.

Is this the same nonsense Andrea Cabral tried to quote at the last hearing?


Tap
 
[QUOTE="AaronMA]Is this the same nonsense Andrea Cabral tried to quote at the last hearing?[/QUOTE]

Probably.
 
Last edited:
The Swami 87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the post I'm talking about.
 
To all you no compromise guys... doesn't it at least seem that this bill keeps the status quo and actually makes license denials in the future harder, and provides a safety for renewals?

No its not OUR bill, but at least from the articles Im seeing does it not seem this makes us a little better off than we were before? Remember this started out as an attempt to make a SAFE ACT 2.0 for MA, I wouldn't be so quick to burn your reps for stripping virtually every "anti-gun" measure from the bill on top of adding in a few safetys for gun owners.

Those of you screaming "no compromise," all I can say is that will get us absolutely nowhere ever on gun issues in this state. Period. Ever. This isnt a "last stand," this is an anti-gun hardcore lib state with very few gun owners, most of whom are fudds. Your "no compromise" crap won't do anything but hurt us. Also, at least as this bill seems to be being redrafted as, it isnt a compromise.... we are making very small gains at what looks like no expense to lawful gun owners.... on a bill that was originally intended to be unimaginabely awful.

Don't get me wrong, Im applying to grad school in free states everywhere and doubt very much Ill live out my life in MA, but it seems to me many of you/us are making unreasonable demands given this state is Massachusetts, that really will do nothing to actually help the situation.

ETA. Ive seen how some gun owners talk to GOAL and Jim Wallace, as well as their reps at these meetings. While I can sympathize with the take no prisoners mentality, that really doesn't accomplish anything in reality. Also, many of the more "vocal" people are clueless as to how the legislative process works in the first place.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Last edited:
crazymjb said:
To all you no compromise guys... doesn't it at least seem that this bill keeps the status quo and actually makes license denials in the future harder, and provides a safety for renewals?

No its not OUR bill, but at least from the articles Im seeing does it not seem this makes us a little better off than we were before? Remember this started out as an attempt to make a SAFE ACT 2.0 for MA, I wouldn't be so quick to burn your reps for stripping virtually every "anti-gun" measure from the bill on top of adding in a few safetys for gun owners.

Those of you screaming "no compromise," all I can say is that will get us absolutely nowhere ever on gun issues in this state. Period. Ever. This isnt a "last stand," this is an anti-gun hardcore lib state with very few gun owners, most of whom are fudds. Your "no compromise" crap won't do anything but hurt us. Also, at least as this bill seems to be being redrafted as, it isnt a compromise.... we are making very small gains at what looks like no expense to lawful gun owners.... on a bill that was originally intended to be unimaginabely awful.

Don't get me wrong, Im applying to grad school in free states everywhere and doubt very much Ill live out my life in MA, but it seems to me many of you/us are making unreasonable demands given this state is Massachusetts, that really will do nothing to actually help the situation.

ETA. Ive seen how some gun owners talk to GOAL and Jim Wallace, as well as their reps at these meetings. While I can sympathize with the take no prisoners mentality, that really doesn't accomplish anything in reality. Also, many of the more "vocal" people are clueless as to how the legislative process works in the first place.

Mike
Click to expand...

This.

With the exception of this is how MA is right now. Things can change over time and nobody has a crystal ball. Politics can move based on experience over time, changes in technology and events. 15 years ago, the bill would have been passed as originally written. Heck, 15 months ago in the immediate wake of Newtown...

As for the contents of the bill, I'll believe them when I see the details as passed.
 
Mike hit the nail on the head. Screaming and yelling, taking a "come and take them" stance gets you dismissed as a lunatic. If you think we'll magically get everything we want, all at once, I've got a unicorn that farts rainbows for you. We've shown that we can come together and put the brakes on this stuff. Jim Wallace and goal have done an amazing job. If they didn't-we'd have 5 round magazines and no long guns. Period. If you think you can do better, go do it. Keep this in mind though: wars aren't won overnight, note 2 are they won by a single person.
 
As Ive said from the start, Ill withold judgement until I read the final bill and see who votes on it... but Im pretty convinced some of you are either overly unrealistic or don't have a clue how this works.

If it ends up that some school safety requirements are put in place, some funding is moved around, AND we have police chiefs prevented from having blanket ban policies as well as an indefinite renewal grace period, AND on top of that gun owners and GOAL are seen as having worked accross the isle to make the state safer, I think you'd be a damn fool to have rather stood up kicking and screaming and been raped regardless or made our image worse among the Ds who will always rule the state. We could actually get a political win out of this both in legislation and image. I dont understand how some of you dont get that.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
crazymjb said:
To all you no compromise guys... doesn't it at least seem that this bill keeps the status quo and actually makes license denials in the future harder, and provides a safety for renewals?

No its not OUR bill, but at least from the articles Im seeing does it not seem this makes us a little better off than we were before? Remember this started out as an attempt to make a SAFE ACT 2.0 for MA, I wouldn't be so quick to burn your reps for stripping virtually every "anti-gun" measure from the bill on top of adding in a few safetys for gun owners.

Those of you screaming "no compromise," all I can say is that will get us absolutely nowhere ever on gun issues in this state. Period. Ever. This isnt a "last stand," this is an anti-gun hardcore lib state with very few gun owners, most of whom are fudds. Your "no compromise" crap won't do anything but hurt us.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "hurt", but I know that running around stomping and braying "no compromise" means "no seat at the table". We don't really have a gun to hold to their head politically where "no compromise" would actually mean something. We don't have the votes. Additionally, this state is pretty much a cesspool of corruption and one party politics. So then we face the obvious fork in the road- either play their ****ed up game and get the best deal we can, or roll technicals on the common, and lets face some facts, none of the mall ninjas here have the balls (or resources) to do the latter. Anyone who thinks braying "no compromise" is a choosable option in this game is missing a few brain cells. That option means you'll feel good for a total of 3 seconds- then promptly lose the game when the wrong
people are the only ones who get to determine the ENTIRE course of the legislation.

Also, at least as this bill seems to be being redrafted as, it isnt a compromise.... we are making very small gains at what looks like no expense to lawful gun owners.... on a bill that was originally intended to be unimaginabely awful.
Click to expand...

[rofl] Whatever you say, but there is always a catch. We always get screwed from this crap, about the only thing you can do is try to mitigate the damage as much as possible or confine it to things that don't matter. I don't see anything "good" about this bill, but if we can "disarm all of the obvious nuclear weapons" in its payload, then the damage won't be nearly as bad.

-Mike
 
LenS said:
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!
Click to expand...

This is the same (paid) advice I got from two of the top firearms lawyers licensed to practice in MA - you can go to district court to attack suitability based decisions, but the chance of winning are basically 0 since the law sets the burden of proof on the part of the plaintiff so high that even the worst chiefs can skate away with a win.
 
drgrant said:
I don't know about "hurt", but I know that running around stomping and braying "no compromise" means "no seat at the table". We don't really have a gun to hold to their head politically where "no compromise" would actually mean something. We don't have the votes. Additionally, this state is pretty much a cesspool of corruption and one party politics. So then we face the obvious fork in the road- either play their ****ed up game and get the best deal we can, or roll technicals on the common, and lets face some facts, none of the mall ninjas here have the balls (or resources) to do the latter. Anyone who thinks braying "no compromise" is a choosable option in this game is missing a few brain cells. That option means you'll feel good for a total of 3 seconds- then promptly lose the game when the wrong
people are the only ones who get to determine the ENTIRE course of the legislation.



[rofl] Whatever you say, but there is always a catch. We always get screwed from this crap, about the only thing you can do is try to mitigate the damage as much as possible or confine it to things that don't matter. I don't see anything "good" about this bill, but if we can "disarm all of the obvious nuclear weapons" in its payload, then the damage won't be nearly as bad.

-Mike
Click to expand...


What focking table?! We weren't invited to the table in the first place or this bill would look the way it does. Reps to goal and everyone who was vocal but it's not over. This would be a win for us with the one further step of removing the fid suitability. At that point basically every issue NES has had (and I've read this thread all the way through) would be accounted for.
 
hv55maxx said:
What focking table?! We weren't invited to the table in the first place or this bill would look the way it does. Reps to goal and everyone who was vocal but it's not over. This would be a win for us with the one further step of removing the fid suitability. At that point basically every issue NES has had (and I've read this thread all the way through) would be accounted for.
Click to expand...

A WIN???

Stop deluding yourself: successfully begging for a smaller loss is not a win. It is a better outcome than the original bill, but calling it a win is a painful admission of utter powerlessness and complete demoralization.

The anti's have ran this play before: make outrageous demands, negotiate them to a smaller loss for our side that advances the anti's agenda to where they really wanted it anyway, allow the losers to pretend they won something. Rinse, lather, repeat, and in a few decades the war has been completely and thoroughly lost... even though our side keeps getting those "wins".

Call it whatever you want, but don't all it a win... this will be yet another significant net loss for the law-abiding MA citizens, and until you get enough muscle to kick the scumbags out of office, those losses will continue to mount.

Kicking them out of office needs to start somewhere - why not start with Hank?
 
Last edited:
They already stated the elimination of private sale has been removed. The suitability of FID is all that is left now.......hypothetically if that gets removes what is left that inhibits the law abiding gun owner? Serious question.......I come to nes for this Cruz I don't have time to read everything.
 
Compromise? I admittedly haven't read all 3,400+ posts on this thread, but I don't recall people yelling 'No Compromise'?

Also, while on the subject 'Compromise', that $hit is a 2-way street. I haven't read the re-written bill (only the beautiful people have that privilege), but what did the bill that was originally released provide for our side?

Compromise, does NOT mean bend over and take it! I understand that politics of this corrupt commiewealth, and therefore would not use the word 'compromise' to describe any of this. Just b/c lawful gun owners aren't getting bitch-slapped as hard as we could have doesn't change the fact that we are STILL GETTING BITCH SLAPPED!
 
jasons said:
Or at least until they publish a revised version. (Not holding my breath.)

Even if they add amendments, Patrick has line item veto and could just cross them out if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Line-item VETO only applies when it is appropriations and as long as appropriations are not part of a bill and it focuses entirely on law then there is no line-item veto. (Someone smarter than me correct if I am off base but I am reasonable certain of this)
 
mattyw said:
Thought he was retiring?
Click to expand...

yeah. to what cushy job though?


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.
Click to expand...

Look at how they are painting this. The bill AUTHORIZES? FFLs to access criminal histories? Most would read these to mean that even licensed gun dealers do not run background checks prior to a sale. What the hell does this statement even mean? Will FFL's now have direct access to criminal histories instead of calling in the background check?
 
Last edited:
crazymjb said:
To all you no compromise guys... doesn't it at least seem that this bill keeps the status quo and actually makes license denials in the future harder, and provides a safety for renewals?

No its not OUR bill, but at least from the articles Im seeing does it not seem this makes us a little better off than we were before? Remember this started out as an attempt to make a SAFE ACT 2.0 for MA, I wouldn't be so quick to burn your reps for stripping virtually every "anti-gun" measure from the bill on top of adding in a few safetys for gun owners.

Those of you screaming "no compromise," all I can say is that will get us absolutely nowhere ever on gun issues in this state. Period. Ever. This isnt a "last stand," this is an anti-gun hardcore lib state with very few gun owners, most of whom are fudds. Your "no compromise" crap won't do anything but hurt us. Also, at least as this bill seems to be being redrafted as, it isnt a compromise.... we are making very small gains at what looks like no expense to lawful gun owners.... on a bill that was originally intended to be unimaginabely awful.

Don't get me wrong, Im applying to grad school in free states everywhere and doubt very much Ill live out my life in MA, but it seems to me many of you/us are making unreasonable demands given this state is Massachusetts, that really will do nothing to actually help the situation.

ETA. Ive seen how some gun owners talk to GOAL and Jim Wallace, as well as their reps at these meetings. While I can sympathize with the take no prisoners mentality, that really doesn't accomplish anything in reality. Also, many of the more "vocal" people are clueless as to how the legislative process works in the first place.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...

Bow to the power..NO WAY keep comprising and comprising, soon there will be nothing left. ITS A RIGHT ! They need to know WE will never stop and will never stop fighting the BS laws
 
They're having a call in about the bill on WCRN 830 AM.
Wish I wrote down the number,too slow.
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

Two thoughts on this. Granted, no one's actually seen the new wording yet...

1. I have family in NJ. The state of NJ does background checks for point of sale, and sometimes it takes them DAYS to complete a sale because the state has underfunded the unit doing the checks (or some BS like that). Literallly, you go pick out your gun at the store, fill out your paperwork and then days later they call you to tell you that you can come get it. If this portal is done wrong, and there's a "man in the loop" to approve the transfer, there's a potential of a whole other sh-tstorm.

2. I think this is an excellent opportunity to make some headway for gun owners in the legislation. So, we have defacto registration for who owns what firearm by virtue of the way the FA-10's are set up. It might be a good opportunity, since the language is "in play" that's setting up the portal, to clean some things up. How about stipulating either that the sole purpose of the portal is the background check and how many weapons are being transfered (i.e. weapon type/serial # is not required and can be left blank...stop laughing), how about a legislative limit on how long transfer records are kept, what about database maintenance if they're going to keep one (I'm thinking of the threads where cops pull you over and see a list of 50 transfers and you only own 10 guns)? That sort of thing. Yes, I know chances of this are slim and none, and slim just left town...just trying to think proactively.
 
While I agree it's BS to expand the "suitability" system of MA, I have to wonder if pushing the suitability onto FID cards could possibly generate a very interesting case in federal court.

In other words, when a law-abiding clean-record kid gets denied an FID card (which we know will happen), then could this become the basis for the entire suitability system to be challenged in federal court? something similar to Davis v. Grimes but even more egregious? IANAL so I'm mostly asking, not stating.
 
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
384
deerdad
deerdad
Cerakote Color of the Month
Replies
1
Views
253
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