Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[Medic-554]

So 6hrs ago a revised bill went to vote, 30 odd amendments made and withdrawn and roughly 800 posts here on NES. So I'm confused. We are back to what we started with at 12:30 today with some very little positive changes?


Ma LTC-A
GOAL Member

 

[92G]

So is there any major reason I am missing to not be overly concerned with the passage of this bill? FID seems to be the biggest thing but judicial review over LTC restrictions seems to be a much bigger win.

I'm convinced they're doing this to avoid getting raped in a federal court or SCOTUS.
sounds more like CYA policy and not so much a win for us.

I would love to hear Knuckle Dragger or Terraformer's opinions on this.

 

[rchap36]

DeLeo: put on the music that way they will think we are doing something
Linsky: I hope my wife don't find out about us

 

[6Gears1Speed]

Well transfers haven't been "private" in this state for a while, because they still need to be done with a permission slip.... but to answer your question there will still be "private" sales of a sort - you will need to register them through a web portal or something, and will not need to go to an FFL.

That was on my biggie list. Having everything go though an FFL in my opinion would have been the beginning of state controlled firearms sales. First no private sales. After that they get rid of FFL's all together and you can only get a gun through a state run firearms outlet. If that's dead then it's a HUGE win.

 

[jasons]

Of the 5 amendments left, I don't see any that we should be concerned about. Unless I am misreading something.

#19 has to go. If we're stuck with the AWB so should off-duty cops.

 

[dennism]

I'm convinced they're doing this to avoid getting raped in a federal court or SCOTUS.
it's CYA policy, not a win for us.

I would love to hear Knuckle Dragger or Terraformer's opinions on this.

From my non expert view it seems to me that this makes them more apt for a rape via federal court.

 

[mattyw]

I'm convinced they're doing this to avoid getting raped in a federal court or SCOTUS.
it's CYA policy, not a win for us.

compared to what we have now I would have to classify it as a win, but one of those ones where you really don't play well and you win on a last minute throwing error by the kid in right field who may not be quite right

- - - Updated - - -

#19 has to go. If we're stuck with the AWB so should off-duty cops.

and on duty ones

 

[92G]

#19 has to go. If we're stuck with the AWB so should off-duty cops.

off duty cops should be immune to the AWB, as should off-duty Brinks security guards, state house custodians and all zookeepers.

 

[Win]

Section 20 of the bill, FYI
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4278/History

I'm convinced they're doing this to avoid getting raped in a federal court or SCOTUS.
sounds more like CYA policy and not so much a win for us.

I would love to hear Knuckle Dragger or Terraformer's opinions on this.

May not be a win for us but also appears not to be the devastating loss that I feared.

 

[92G]

compared to what we have now I would have to classify it as a win, but one of those ones where you really don't play well and you win on a last minute throwing error by the kid in right field who may not be quite right

Hey! I was that kid in the right field who wasn't quite right!!

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Springfield_trapdoor]

DeLeo: put on the music that way they will think we are doing something
Linsky: I hope my wife don't find out about us

Don't tell on them there's a new law against that

- - - Updated - - -

Finally down to 1............

 

[Quiet]

All but 1 amendment withdrawn

Print
[h=2]Amendment #20 to H.4278[/h] [h=3]An Act to Provide Mental Health Services to Prevent School Violence[/h] Representatives Garballey of Arlington, Scaccia of Boston and Rogers of Norwood move that the bill be amended by adding the following sections:

SECTION XX. Section 22 of Chapter 32A of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out the last paragraph, inserted by section 1 of chapter 80 of the acts of 2000, and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:—

For the purposes of this section, “licensed mental health professional” shall mean a licensed physician who specializes in the practice of psychiatry, a licensed psychologist, a licensed independent clinical social worker, a licensed mental health counselor, a licensed nurse mental health clinical specialist, or a licensed educational psychologist within the lawful scope of practice for such educational psychologist.

SECTION XX. Section 47B of Chapter 175 of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out the next to the last paragraph, inserted by section 2 of chapter 80 of the acts of 2000, and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:—

For the purposes of this section, “licensed mental health professional” shall mean a licensed physician who specializes in the practice of psychiatry, a licensed psychologist, a licensed independent clinical social worker, a licensed mental health counselor, a licensed nurse mental health clinical specialist, or a licensed educational psychologist within the lawful scope of practice for such educational psychologist.

SECTION XX. Section A of Chapter 176A of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out the next to the last paragraph, inserted by section 4 of chapter 80 of the acts of 2000, and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:—

For the purposes of this section, “licensed mental health professional” shall mean a licensed physician who specializes in the practice of psychiatry, a licensed psychologist, a licensed independent clinical social worker, a licensed mental health counselor, a licensed nurse mental health clinical specialist, or a licensed educational psychologist within the lawful scope of practice for such educational psychologist.

SECTION XX. Section 4A of Chapter 176B of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out the next to the last paragraph, inserted by section 6 of chapter 80 of the acts of 2000, and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:—

For the purposes of this section, “licensed mental health professional” shall mean a licensed physician who specializes in the practice of psychiatry, a licensed psychologist, a licensed independent clinical social worker, a licensed mental health counselor, a licensed nurse mental health clinical specialist, or a licensed educational psychologist within the lawful scope of practice for such educational psychologist.

SECTION XX. Section 4M of Chapter 176G of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out the next to the last paragraph, inserted by section 10 of chapter 80 to the acts of 2000, and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:—

For the purposes of this section, “licensed mental health professional” shall mean a licensed physician who specializes in the practice of psychiatry, a licensed psychologist, a licensed independent clinical social worker, a licensed mental health counselor, a licensed nurse mental health clinical specialist, or a licensed educational psychologist within the lawful scope of practice for such educational psychologist.

SECTION XX. This act shall apply to all policies, contracts, agreements, plans and certificates of insurance issued or delivered within or without the commonwealth on or after March 1, 2006, and to all policies, contracts, agreements, plans and certificates of insurance in effect before that date upon renewal or after March 1, 2006.

 

[exo]

Don't tell on them there's a new law against that

- - - Updated - - -

Finally down to 1............

Yep everything else withdrawn rejected or adopted. Linsky's "LEOs are better than you" #19 withdrawn as is his suicide stat stuff.

 

[NewGuyRay]

Looks like only amendment 20 left to go. #35, Linsky's suicide prebention/reporting amendment withdrawn too.

 

[Springfield_trapdoor]

Bring back amendment 11........

 

[jefftk]

I think it does "constitute the sale" because they struck out all the other parts of 128A that talked about how you're supposed to report the transaction (FA-10).

Hmm, I guess you may be correct (section 19 is what you're referring to).

Section 19 strikes out the language that requires the transaction be reported to the state, but then Section 20 sort of adds it back. Its not really one-to-one though...

What section 19 strikes out:

and provided, further, that such resident reports within seven days, in writing to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services on forms furnished by said executive director, the names and addresses of the seller and the purchaser of any such large capacity feeding device, firearm, rifle or shotgun, together with a complete description of the firearm, rifle or shotgun, including its designation as a large capacity weapon, if applicable, the calibre, make and serial number and the purchaser’s license to carry firearms number, permit to purchase number and identifying number of such documentation as is used to establish exempt person status in the case of a firearm or the purchaser’s license to carry number or firearm identification card number or said document identity number, in the case of a rifle or shotgun.

What 20 requires:

The department of criminal justice information services shall require each person selling or
transferring a firearm, shotgun or rifle pursuant to this section to electronically provide though
the portal such information as is determined to be necessary for the purposes of verifying the
identification of the seller and purchaser and ensuring that the sale or transfer complies with the
provisions of this section. Upon submission of the required information, the portal shall
automatically review such information and display a message indicating whether the seller may
or may not proceed with the sale or transfer and shall provide any further instructions for the
seller as determined to be necessary by the department of criminal justice information services.

Section 20 does not seem to require a description of the firearm being transferred. Of course, I would be shocked if the form didn't ask for that info anyways.... but still interesting.

 

[jefftk]

I'm convinced they're doing this to avoid getting raped in a federal court or SCOTUS.
sounds more like CYA policy and not so much a win for us.

I would love to hear Knuckle Dragger or Terraformer's opinions on this.

I would like to hear a better explanation of how this may work out, with regards to the de novo review. Will any of this actually put the burden of proof on the govt to say why they denied or restricted someone?

 

[exo]

Hmm, I guess you may be correct (section 19 is what you're referring to).

Section 19 strikes out the language that requires the transaction be reported to the state, but then Section 20 sort of adds it back. Its not really one-to-one though...

What section 19 strikes out:


What 20 requires:


Section 20 does not seem to require a description of the firearm being transferred. Of course, I would be shocked if the form didn't ask for that info anyways.... but still interesting.

You can bet your bottom dollar that they will "determine to be necessary" that you provide all the details about the firearm to be transferred. They'll probably also want to know how often you change your underwear and how big your junk is. That kind of language basically gives them carte blanche to ask for anything they want.

 

[JFR2]

I wrote a quick email to Shawn Dooley. He's not my Rep, but he is for some other precincts in my town. I thanked him for his attempted amendment to curtail the AG and EOPS over-reach. He personally replied back to thank me within 30 minutes, possibly from the State House. Cool.

 

[rchap36]

You can bet your bottom dollar that they will "determine to be necessary" that you provide all the details about the firearm to be transferred. They'll probably also want to know how often you change your underwear and how big your junk is. That kind of language basically gives them carte blanche to ask for anything they want.

I just hope that they start handing out KY jelly with each lic

 

[Horrible]

I wrote a quick email to Shawn Dooley. He's not my Rep, but he is for some other precincts in my town. I thanked him for his attempted amendment to curtail the AG and EOPS over-reach. He personally replied back to thank me within 30 minutes, possibly from the State House. Cool.

Good call. I did the same for my State Rep (Beaton) both for his testimony last month (exploding golf balls) and Amendment 11 today.

 

[yanici]

Nice music from Boston, eh?

 

[mbullism]

Nice music from Boston, eh?

Well they can't have us standing around watching them standing around, can they?

(The room is empty, they've gone to dinner.../sarc)

 

[Chisran]

My head hurts.

 

[DarthRevan]

Nice music from Boston, eh?

City hall plaza. Free concert. Come join us after stressing about 4121 all day.

 

[Quiet]

....and amendment #20 is Adopted.


Next up will be the vote for the whole bill, I assume.

 

[mbullism]

City hall plaza. Free concert. Come join us after stressing about 4121 all day.

Is that the city hall plaza with no load carrying capacity?

 

[terraformer]

I'm convinced they're doing this to avoid getting raped in a federal court or SCOTUS.
sounds more like CYA policy and not so much a win for us.

I would love to hear Knuckle Dragger or Terraformer's opinions on this.

We will have something to say when this is all said and done.

 

[DarthRevan]

Is that the city hall plaza with no load carrying capacity?

I believe concealed is concealed.

 

[Dadstoys]

Crossing my fingers and a few toes we come out on top with this.
Having been involved in LTC certification courses though I can tell you the scariest thing is the may issue FID.
Unless the law included any sort of penalty for the Chiefs arbitrarily denying, we're worst off than before.
So what if the Chief puts down " Because f*ck you, that's why", as reason for denial?
One of Haverhill's former Chiefs would not even give you an application!
He'd just smurk at you and tell you if you wanted it bad enough , see you in court.
Sure if you could come up with the $1500 in court fees and the judge was in a good mood , you might get a restricted LTC.
And that $1500 was way back when, I would think it's a lot more now.
It didn't cost him a dime and he got paid by the town for court time.
If it passes , the games have just begun , trust me.