Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[ntomsw]

I don't understand this whole, "tell us what you bought since last time" isn't this just a bid redundant considering we have that system essentially in place already? If I buy three guns from a dealer, and two through private sales with eFa10s, they already ****ing know, so why do I need to hand in a list? That just seems odd as shit to me.

They want it triple checked, so all their bases are covered. So they know what you have at all times.

 

[jasons]

I don't understand this whole, "tell us what you bought since last time" isn't this just a bid redundant considering we have that system essentially in place already? If I buy three guns from a dealer, and two through private sales with eFa10s, they already ****ing know, so why do I need to hand in a list? That just seems odd as shit to me.

The bill says:

The form for renewal shall include an affidavit whereby the applicant shall verify that the applicant has not lost any firearms or had any firearms stolen from the applicant’s possession since the date of the applicant’s last renewal or issuance.

I don't see anything in there about providing an inventory of guns owned or purchased. Not quite sure where that's coming from, unless I'm missing something somewhere else in the bill.

 

[soam]

The bill says:



I don't see anything in there about providing an inventory of guns owned or purchased. Not quite sure where that's coming from, unless I'm missing something somewhere else in the bill.

The summary Deleo's office provided said a list was required. Obviously a case of someone not fully reading the text of the bill before summarizing it.

 

[Pants]

This whole thing is giving me a headache. Ughhh!

 

[DarthRevan]

The bill says:



I don't see anything in there about providing an inventory of guns owned or purchased. Not quite sure where that's coming from, unless I'm missing something somewhere else in the bill.

Is a misread thats been commented on enough to be thought its in the bill. Starts around post 960

 

[HKdrummer]

The bill says:



I don't see anything in there about providing an inventory of guns owned or purchased. Not quite sure where that's coming from, unless I'm missing something somewhere else in the bill.

I thought I saw somewhere earlier in this thread someone posted that. I might just be wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Is a misread thats been commented on enough to be thought its in the bill. Starts around post 960

Sorry didn't get a chance to go through this thing front to back. I thought I saw it earlier, I take it someone misunderstood the text.

 

[Admin]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the mandatory DNA sample database for all LTC renewals.

 

[jasons]

I thought I saw somewhere earlier in this thread someone posted that. I might just be wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



Sorry didn't get a chance to go through this thing front to back.

Actually I think it was mis-reported and people latched on. Not that it matters really.

The summary Deleo's office provided said a list was required. Obviously a case of someone not fully reading the text of the bill before summarizing it.

Ahh, well there you go.

 

[spider murphy]

Does this drop the permanent Fed DQ?
"(i) ...whichever is last occurring, not less than 5 years immediately preceding such application, such applicant's right or ability to possess a non-large capacity rifle or shotgun shall be deemed restored in the commonwealth with respect to such conviction or adjudication and such conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify such applicant for a firearm identification card;"

 

[DarthRevan]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the mandatory DNA sample database for all LTC renewals.

Source?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the mandatory DNA sample database for all LTC renewals.

 

[ntomsw]

.

 

[Admin]

It was a joke, yet totally believable.

 

[HKdrummer]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the mandatory DNA sample database for all LTC renewals.

Do I get to choose the DNA source?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Does this drop the permanent Fed DQ?
"(i) ...whichever is last occurring, not less than 5 years immediately preceding such application, such applicant's right or ability to possess a non-large capacity rifle or shotgun shall be deemed restored in the commonwealth with respect to such conviction or adjudication and such conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify such applicant for a firearm identification card;"

No, since it only restores some gun rights, not all (see Caron v. US)

 

[Bill Katt]

It was a joke, yet totally believable.

Not a very funny one though. I've heard people (using that term loosely) crying for that bullshit as well.

 

[Lank]

It was a joke, yet totally believable.

I almost pissed myself when I read this. Please dont give MA overseer's any bad ideas.

 

[cmcgraw2]

Doesn't look to be a permanent disqualifier.


"(i) has ever, in a court of the commonwealth, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child, both as defined in section 52 of chapter 119, for the commission of: (a) a felony; (b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year; (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; (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances, as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C including, but not limited to, a violation under said chapter 94C; or (f) a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(33); provided, however, that except for the commission of a felony, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances, if the applicant has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever is last occurring, not less than 5 years immediately preceding such application, such applicant's right or ability to possess a non-large capacity rifle or shotgun shall be deemed restored in the commonwealth with respect to such conviction or adjudication and such conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify such applicant for a firearm identification card;"

So many LTC-holders with 1+ year misdemeanors (including some LEOs I suspect) will now be FID-holders on renewal, the way I'm reading it. It's tough to holster a bolt-action rifle..

 

[jasons]

Does this drop the permanent Fed DQ?
"(i) ...whichever is last occurring, not less than 5 years immediately preceding such application, such applicant's right or ability to possess a non-large capacity rifle or shotgun shall be deemed restored in the commonwealth with respect to such conviction or adjudication and such conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify such applicant for a firearm identification card;"

That wording is already in the existing FID law, so I don't think anything changes there.

It is an interesting nuance though - technically you could be a federally prohibited person by still qualify for an FID. (Not that it would do you any good.)

 

[WBspectrum]

This is true. Currently MGL ch 140 section 131 (d) (i) (b) is 2 years. This bill makes it 1.

I know a few LEOs with pre-1994 DUIs. Wonder how many of these will get hung out to dry?

 

[spider murphy]

So many LTC-holders with 1+ year misdemeanors (including some LEOs I suspect) will now be FID-holders on renewal, the way I'm reading it. It's tough to holster a bolt-action rifle..

I never understood how some changes in law can be applied retroactively.

 

[Squire]

They will trumpet that they conceded Smart Guns to the "gun lobby" in this bill.

None of this shit is valid until they change the 2A to say "...shall not be infringed, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

 

[spider murphy]

That wording is already in the existing FID law, so I don't think anything changes there.

It is an interesting nuance though - technically you could be a federally prohibited person by still qualify for an FID. (Not that it would do you any good.)

Ah ok, I thought that the subtle change in wording would make a difference.

The current wording.
"not less than five years immediately preceding such application, and such applicant’s right or ability to possess a rifle or shotgun has been fully restored in the jurisdiction wherein the subject conviction or adjudication was entered, such conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify such applicant for a firearm identification card;"

The proposed wording...
"not less than 5 years immediately preceding such application, such applicant's right or ability to possess a non-large capacity rifle or shotgun shall be deemed restored in the commonwealth with respect to such conviction or adjudication and such conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify such applicant for a firearm identification card;"

 

[LoginName]

I don't think there will be much bargaining on this one. I'm still reading but so far this one reads like it was written to pass quickly, unlike Linksy's bill that felt like more of a PR stunt. There's not a whole lot in there that a typical Beacon Hill politician would stick their neck out to oppose.

Unfortunately, you may be right... especially since the incident with the California Casanova just recently happened.

It'll be interesting to see how much (if), outside influence comes into play e.g. The Demanding Moms, Sandy Hook hand wringers, etc.

All of the other usual suspect states (NY, NJ, CT, CA, etc), have already passed some form of stricter gun control laws.

That only leaves MA to concentrate all their efforts on.

The UCSB incident will only invigorate them even more.

The only plus that might work in our favor, is if Bloomturd gets too personally involved.

Even in a Liberal shit hole like this, I can't imagine many MA legislators giving a (former), NYC Mayor the time of day... even if he was originally from Medford.

Ahh, yes. That's in the current FID law already if I recall correctly. (But not in the LTC law. That one is permanent.)

Kind of makes it moot if an FID becomes "may issue" and the committee that's setting the suitably standards can't come to an agreement.

And even if they do, I didn't see anything that would make their recommendations binding on the issueing authority.

 

[jasons]

Ah ok, I thought that the subtle change in wording would make a difference.

The current wording.
"not less than five years immediately preceding such application, and such applicant’s right or ability to possess a rifle or shotgun has been fully restored in the jurisdiction wherein the subject conviction or adjudication was entered, such conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify such applicant for a firearm identification card;"

The proposed wording...
"not less than 5 years immediately preceding such application, such applicant's right or ability to possess a non-large capacity rifle or shotgun shall be deemed restored in the commonwealth with respect to such conviction or adjudication and such conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify such applicant for a firearm identification card;"

You might be right. Looks like a mangled cut and paste to me, but IANAL.

 

[jasons]

Kind of makes it moot if an FID becomes "may issue" and the committee that's setting the suitably standards can't come to an agreement.

And even if they do, I didn't see anything that would make their recommendations binding on the issueing authority.

Looks like EOPS gets to make the final call, and they do have rule-making authority. (Unfortunately.)

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 purposes of issuing a card pursuant to this paragraph.

Translation:
"A collection of Deval Patrick lackies and other assorted sycophants get to decide what suitable means."

This is bad for those of us in green towns. (Obviously.)

 

[ntomsw]

How can they possibly make suitability worse? They think it needs to be tougher? Wow.

 

[jasons]

How can they possibly make suitability worse? They think it needs to be tougher? Wow.

They want to let EOPS (with input from MCOPA and the GCAB) define what "suitable person" means for each and every town across the board. Even if the local chief still ~technically~ has discretion, he's not going to go against MCOPA. It'll be very clinical I'm sure.

 

[Cabin Fever]

What really bugs me about this is that it is so obviously targeted at licensed owners. Nothing to target gang members who always seem to be in the Herald despite a lifetime of gun/robbery/drug/assault convictions. Like someone else said, gun violence in this state is confined to just a few zip codes. If they really wanted to reduce gun violence they need to end the catch and release of those who "were turning their life around"!

 

[Chevy 2 65]

So many LTC-holders with 1+ year misdemeanors (including some LEOs I suspect) will now be FID-holders on renewal, the way I'm reading it. It's tough to holster a bolt-action rifle..

No not the LEO's it will be written to exclude them.