Couldn't the legislature pass a bill amending the consumer protection law (93A) to specifically prohibit the AG from regulating handguns with it?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo
- Thread starter Satcom
- Start date
- Status
Couldn't the legislature pass a bill amending the consumer protection law (93A) to specifically prohibit the AG from regulating handguns with it?
A start would be not even concerning ourselves with issues that aren't even infringements... such as putting the suicide hotline number on LTC's/FID's, suicide prevention signage in gun stores, CORI checks for gun store employees.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,824
Yes, they could. But they never would.
Right, just saying that the legislative branch could force the executive (AG) to undo their regs by making them illegal by statute. Of course you're correct that they never would.
Why do they insist in proposing laws based on nothing.....has there been some barrage of gun shop clerks comiting crimes where a cori check will help? Unreal
Don't be so sure...
Positive rep inbound, and a donation to Comm2a.
You have to consider the panel of "experts" that put this pile of shit together.
I have no idea what's the hiring policy for any MA FFL's, and why any of them wouldn't conduct a CORI check anyways.
Rest assured there will be no "trades"... they are on this witch hunt because they feel what they have is inadequate, doesn't go far enough... It'll go something like this:
Mugger: Gimme your wallet!
Victim: You took my wallet last time
Mugger: Gimme your watch, then...
Victim: Please dont take my watch, it was my fathers... take my gold ring instead-
Mugger: Gimme your watch, your ring...and those shoes...
What in the name of Sam Hill has given anyone the idea you're getting your wallet back?
They've intentionally padded the bill so there is what they want, veiled in asking for too much, such that they can "give" and "compromise" back to what they wanted anyway... the suicide/CORI crap is just fluff to gum up the works and/or cut to streamline things as needed.
Your wallet is gone... your father's watch is in peril...![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
Mugger: Gimme your wallet!
Victim: You took my wallet last time
Mugger: Gimme your watch, then...
Victim: Please dont take my watch, it was my fathers... take my gold ring instead-
Mugger: Gimme your watch, your ring...and those shoes...
What in the name of Sam Hill has given anyone the idea you're getting your wallet back?
They've intentionally padded the bill so there is what they want, veiled in asking for too much, such that they can "give" and "compromise" back to what they wanted anyway... the suicide/CORI crap is just fluff to gum up the works and/or cut to streamline things as needed.
Your wallet is gone... your father's watch is in peril...
Amazing how they were so quick to push this down our throat late Friday afternoon as every stinking politician does when they know what they do is wrong, but it takes them so long to provide roll call.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,617
- Likes
- 20,018
Don't be so sure...
I'm a "political realist". No change to C. 140 could undo the AG Regs, the legislature could not force the AG to do anything (exc. 93A modification-read on), and the AG would never do it voluntarily either. That leaves a change to C. 93A as the only way to kill this . . . which will never happen as it would be political suicide. Thus my comment was worded as it was.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
We ARE going to get a gun bill, the only question is what will be taken out (very little) and what will be added (could be 1 a month etc. who knows)
I am hoping they put the 1 year misdemeanor as a "rabbit garden" so that they could take it out and say "see we did what you wanted" the scary thing is if they really want that in there, then the next time we may see "if you have ever gotten a speeding ticket or parking ticket you lose your LTC/FID"
Not being a pessimist just a realist - they are going to push the envelope all they can
I am hoping they put the 1 year misdemeanor as a "rabbit garden" so that they could take it out and say "see we did what you wanted" the scary thing is if they really want that in there, then the next time we may see "if you have ever gotten a speeding ticket or parking ticket you lose your LTC/FID"
Not being a pessimist just a realist - they are going to push the envelope all they can
Win
NES Member
Wouldn't they lose the entire police force if they did that?
We all know that the representatives are beholden to DeLeo, so the full house is probably a lost cause. But what about the Senate? Does anyone know how the committee senators voted for this? It was reported earlier in this thread that Timilty was voting "no". Do we know how the other Senators voted (except Chang-Diaz). Maybe the way to stop this monstrosity is through the Senate.
We could see that as a "suitability" thing from the 'committee' that will decide who the 'suitable' people are.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 602
- Likes
- 352
Let's put it to a vote:
There looks to be 13 items that are particularly irritating / unconstitutional / BS to us in this BILL.
YES, I know there are many more, but when you remove the suicide prevention stuff, carrying on school property, etc, it seems to boil down to these.
Perhaps we could each pick our top 4 to get an overall consensus?
Just a post with your personal top four bolded numbers below. We could then start to tally them - see our overall top 4 with a number 5 being dishonorable mention.
This to help focus our attack on the most important issues.
#1 - Sec 7 - Physicians can discuss firearms
#2 - Sec 7 - Mental Hospitalization & Evaluation
#3 - Sec 18 - Ban Face to Face Transfers
#4 - Sec 19&26 - FID: Shall Issue vs May Issue
#5 - Sec 19&26 - Suitability: 1yr Misdemeanor DQ
#6 - Sec 19&26 - Suitability: EOPSS establishing
#7 - Sec 22&30 - Registration "list" upon renewal
#8 - Sec 22&30 - "Late" renewal penalty
#9 - Sec 25 - Failure to report loss/theft penalties
#10 - Sec 32 - AG & EOPSS "approved lists"
#11 - Sec 33 - Increased storage violations
#12 - Sec 50 - Class B License discontinue
#13 - Sec 34 - Restructuring of Firearms Training
(used the GOAL summary for order and Sections, so please don't critique too unneccessarily)
- Squib308, I did not want to jump all over your thread with this, but it might be better there?
There looks to be 13 items that are particularly irritating / unconstitutional / BS to us in this BILL.
YES, I know there are many more, but when you remove the suicide prevention stuff, carrying on school property, etc, it seems to boil down to these.
Perhaps we could each pick our top 4 to get an overall consensus?
Just a post with your personal top four bolded numbers below. We could then start to tally them - see our overall top 4 with a number 5 being dishonorable mention.
This to help focus our attack on the most important issues.
#1 - Sec 7 - Physicians can discuss firearms
#2 - Sec 7 - Mental Hospitalization & Evaluation
#3 - Sec 18 - Ban Face to Face Transfers
#4 - Sec 19&26 - FID: Shall Issue vs May Issue
#5 - Sec 19&26 - Suitability: 1yr Misdemeanor DQ
#6 - Sec 19&26 - Suitability: EOPSS establishing
#7 - Sec 22&30 - Registration "list" upon renewal
#8 - Sec 22&30 - "Late" renewal penalty
#9 - Sec 25 - Failure to report loss/theft penalties
#10 - Sec 32 - AG & EOPSS "approved lists"
#11 - Sec 33 - Increased storage violations
#12 - Sec 50 - Class B License discontinue
#13 - Sec 34 - Restructuring of Firearms Training
(used the GOAL summary for order and Sections, so please don't critique too unneccessarily)
- Squib308, I did not want to jump all over your thread with this, but it might be better there?
Last edited:
I don't like our rights being infringed any further either. But given the fact, and I think we all agree, that something will be passed, doing away with FTF transfers would give the antis a huge victory. They have closed the imaginary "gun show loophole". As long as they do away with the EOPS and AG lists, I see this as more of a victory than a loss. Without the EOPS and AG lists, I just don't understand what a big deal it is to have to go through a FFL to transfer a firearm. I understand that right now, FTF is the only way for people to obtain off list firearms. But if the lists are done away with, that would change. Now if the EOPS and AG lists remain, than I am absolutely against doing away with FTF transfers.
You forgot the restructuring of the firearms training program in the state. Huge problem for me.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
What makes you think they would trade one for the other?
It's a big deal to me for two reasons:
- Why should I have to pay a 3rd party to transfer my legally owned property?
- What makes the Speaker think that making legal transfers more difficult and expensive will cause fewer people to do them illegally?
Last edited:
From GOAL -2:30 PM Update:
H.4121 will not be moved today. GOAL has learned that 3 of the committee members abstained from voting, we do not have a roll call yet, but will publish it when and if it is made available.
Look for more news on this legislation tomorrow as well as a call to take action once we know where the bill is.
H.4121 will not be moved today. GOAL has learned that 3 of the committee members abstained from voting, we do not have a roll call yet, but will publish it when and if it is made available.
Look for more news on this legislation tomorrow as well as a call to take action once we know where the bill is.
I wonder who the 3 cowards are in a 1 vote margin abstaining.
Do they have to vote for it to proceed or something?
Liberals don't negotiate - they only erode your rights one piece of legislation at at a time.
Hank will be one Ill bet
pastera
NES Member
Or they are currently negotiating a new office
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
I don't understand what one has to do with the other.
dixidawg
NES Member
Maybe it needs a majority of the full committee, and with the 3 abstainers, they don't yet have it? Could be some serious arm twisting going on behind closed doors.....
This was a committee hearing. They voted to let the bill proceed to the regular session. It will need to be passed there before it can become law. Fight isn't over.
Medic-554
NES Member
What does that mean? Do they have to vote?
Ma LTC-A
GOAL Member
Ma LTC-A
GOAL Member
I don't think so. Think of it, if a bill was going through and you had a pecuniary interest (similar to judges) there has to be a way to get out of voting. However, I am sure you can just vote "present" like Obama as well...
- Status
Similar threads
