Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that they are trying to ramrod this through without giving anyone a chance to read it tells me volumes about the content....[thinking]
 
Squib308 said:
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.
Click to expand...




I would certainly think so, especially in light of the "good cause" Peruta ruling in the 9th circuit.
 
Mass. gun bill up for debate by House today

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BOSTON — House lawmakers are planning to debate a bill intended to tighten Massachusetts' gun laws.

The bill up for debate Wednesday would require police chiefs to give reasons for denying gun licenses to individuals seeking them. Those denials would have to be based on public safety and could be appealed.

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.

It would also stiffen penalties for some gun-based crimes and create a firearms trafficking unit within the State Police.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo says the bill is fair.

Gun rights advocates say they are concerned House lawmakers would have less than 24 hours to read the final version of the bill, which was released Tuesday evening.

House and Senate and onto Gov. Deval Patrick's desk by July 31, the end of the Legislature's formal session.
Click to expand...

Is the last line "reporting"?
 
crazymjb said:
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...
Click to expand...

This is 1 problem in your head we will never win .....Problem 2 just remember the AWB (we compromised) how did that work out for us ....Problem 3 gun owners on this board and glock talk to name a few CAN NOT GET TOGETHER AS ONE VOICE ........just my 2 cents
 
Is there any official word on how the section regarding misdemeanors is really written. It will affect many, including a relative of mine, if it isn't left at "over 2 years" and not "two years or over."
 
Bob J said:
The fact that they are trying to ramrod this through without giving anyone a chance to read it tells me volumes about the content....[thinking]
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is what's so objectionable at this moment. It's what the lobbying groups and everyone calling needs to be screaming about.
 
new guy said:
Exactly. This is what's so objectionable at this moment. It's what the lobbying groups and everyone calling needs to be screaming about.
Click to expand...

The powers that be are tired of being questioned. They have "given" us little people enough time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
UPDATE
I just called the clerk of the house. Secretary told me at 10:30 they wil update the website with the new draft of the bill.It still hasnt been filed. She said it will have a new number but be in the bill history list for h.4121

I have to take my engine apart(blew headgasket) so if someone wants to call them later the number is 617 722 2356
 
30Mauser said:
Comm2A has already noted in another thread (probably multiple threads) that having suitability applied to FIDs doesn't actually change their/our ability to bring a 2A case to trial based on Heller, because a) Heller concluded that possession of handguns is an individual right, b) in MA you need an LTC to possess a handgun (FID won't cut it), and c) the LTC is already suitability based.

They have noted that it isn't the FID being "shall issue" that is holding them back from pursuing that line of litigation, but rather having the right (and willing) person who has been denied solely on suitability grounds. They cannot simply challenge a bad law, but need a victim of that law to bring suit.
Click to expand...

This isn't entirely true. You filled in some gaps from what we said. True that FID going may issue is not a factor. While an issue in the past, needing willing persons today is not an issue, even some good ones (the discipline the CLEOs showed between 2010 and 2013 has disappeared and they are back to their old tricks). We have a pool right now we are working with and were working on something (which we will continue to work on while this stupidity is in play). The issue is a larger legal one that when the judges aren't impartial and are working on behalf of one side's goals, they can manipulate the legal landscape in ways that we can't predict or control. So we need to play very carefully and use to our advantage some of these bad cases fame seeking attorneys who think they can fix everything in one large swoop.
 
Last edited:
Let me make something really clear to all you "compromise gets us nothing" types. The ONLY MEANINGFUL HEADWAY in this state will come from litigation. Period. The best we can work to do on the legislative side is hold the line and maybe get some minor procedural wins under our belt.

The no compromise stuff works on a national stage, and in some other states, but is useless here. All that will do in Massachusetts is further alienate us and maybe even cause the MAJORITY to ignore us all together.

For the chest thumpers... they can't take what you don't give them.


Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
terraformer said:
This isn't entirely true. You filled in some gaps from what we said. True that FID going may issue is not a factor. While an issue in the past, needing willing persons today is not an issue, even some good ones (the discipline the CLEOs showed between 2010 and 2013 has disappeared and they are back to their old tricks). We have a pool right now we are working with and were working on something (which we will continue to work on while this stupidity is in play). The issue is a larger legal one that when the judges aren't impartial and are working on behalf of one side's goals, they can manipulate the legal landscape in ways that we can't predict or control. So we need to play very carefully and use to our advantage some of these bad cases fame seeking attorneys who think they can fix everything in one large swoop.
Click to expand...

which caliber of ammo are you hoarding? [cheers]
 
scouter-rick said:
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)
Click to expand...

This is exactly what Jim Wallace told me when I spoke with him briefly outside the statehouse at the last rally.
 
From my State Rep, (who I am actively working to un seat)

I will vote to require a week to continue to get engagement on this complex and important issue before we take the vote.
Click to expand...
In other words: any "compromises" that benefit gun owners will be amended out over the next week.
 
PennyPincher said:
yeah. to what cushy job though?




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?
Click to expand...

the bill updates the NCIS system to interact with the MIRCS, it doesn't do that presently. So, presently, a person has a criminal conviction from another state, which occurred after he obtained a LTC, he can still purchase a firearm. The NCIS interaction would prevent that.
 
do we have enough angry and annoying constituents to stall for 22 more days?

now is a good time to find who (if anyone) is running against your rep and mention them in your calls/letters about this
 
Palladin said:
the bill updates the NCIS system to interact with the MIRCS, it doesn't do that presently. So, presently, a person has a criminal conviction from another state, which occurred after he obtained a LTC, he can still purchase a firearm. The NCIS interaction would prevent that.
Click to expand...

Dealers already do a NICS check to comply with federal law. This changes nothing.
 
crazymjb said:
Let me make something really clear to all you "compromise gets us nothing" types. The ONLY MEANINGFUL HEADWAY in this state will come from litigation. Period. The best we can work to do on the legislative side is hold the line and maybe get some minor procedural wins under our belt.

The no compromise stuff works on a national stage, and in some other states, but is useless here. All that will do in Massachusetts is further alienate us and maybe even cause the MAJORITY to ignore us all together.

For the chest thumpers... they can't take what you don't give them.


Mike

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

Mike we can compromise : leave the 1 year BS in there it will not hurt me 2 add no more then 10 rounds I only shoot revolvers 3 keep background checks for all fire arm sales I have never sold FTF AND AS A SIDE NOTE KEEP THE AWB AND THE AG LIST (I like revolvers anyways)

- - - Updated - - -

crazymjb said:
Let me make something really clear to all you "compromise gets us nothing" types. The ONLY MEANINGFUL HEADWAY in this state will come from litigation. Period. The best we can work to do on the legislative side is hold the line and maybe get some minor procedural wins under our belt.

The no compromise stuff works on a national stage, and in some other states, but is useless here. All that will do in Massachusetts is further alienate us and maybe even cause the MAJORITY to ignore us all together.

For the chest thumpers... they can't take what you don't give them.


Mike

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

Mike we can compromise : leave the 1 year BS in there it will not hurt me 2 add no more then 10 rounds I only shoot revolvers 3 keep background checks for all fire arm sales I have never sold FTF AND AS A SIDE NOTE KEEP THE AWB AND THE AG LIST (I like revolvers anyways)
 
rchap36 said:
Mike we can compromise : leave the 1 year BS in there it will not hurt me 2 add no more then 10 rounds I only shoot revolvers 3 keep background checks for all fire arm sales I have never sold FTF AND AS A SIDE NOTE KEEP THE AWB AND THE AG LIST (I like revolvers anyways)

- - - Updated - - -

Mike we can compromise : leave the 1 year BS in there it will not hurt me 2 add no more then 10 rounds I only shoot revolvers 3 keep background checks for all fire arm sales I have never sold FTF AND AS A SIDE NOTE KEEP THE AWB AND THE AG LIST (I like revolvers anyways)
Click to expand...

This is not compromise. It doesn't hurt you so it doesn't hurt anyone else? The awb is already in effect?
 
rchap36 said:
Mike we can compromise : leave the 1 year BS in there it will not hurt me 2 add no more then 10 rounds I only shoot revolvers 3 keep background checks for all fire arm sales I have never sold FTF AND AS A SIDE NOTE KEEP THE AWB AND THE AG LIST (I like revolvers anyways)
Click to expand...

Is this sarcasm? Wow
 
rchap36 said:
Mike we can compromise : leave the 1 year BS in there it will not hurt me 2 add no more then 10 rounds I only shoot revolvers 3 keep background checks for all fire arm sales I have never sold FTF AND AS A SIDE NOTE KEEP THE AWB AND THE AG LIST (I like revolvers anyways)

- - - Updated - - -



Mike we can compromise : leave the 1 year BS in there it will not hurt me 2 add no more then 10 rounds I only shoot revolvers 3 keep background checks for all fire arm sales I have never sold FTF AND AS A SIDE NOTE KEEP THE AWB AND THE AG LIST (I like revolvers anyways)
Click to expand...

I'm confused by the last sentence. I'd like a Freedom Arms SA revolver which I can't purchase in MA because of the AG List. Am I missing something?

Ahh I missed the facetiousness.
 
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
137
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The 10 Commandments of Gun Safety
Replies
2
Views
388
deerdad
deerdad
Cerakote Color of the Month
Replies
1
Views
259
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