Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
What does that mean? Do they have to vote?
Click to expand...

Don't think so - just like Markey's "profiles in courage" stance during the Syrian debate:

In an unexpected twist, Senator Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat, voted “present,” choosing not to register his position on the highest-profile issue to come before him since he was sworn in.

The measure in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations passed by a 10-to-7 vote.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What I sent my Rep. on Friday:

Dear Rep. Jennifer Benson,

I'm writing with regard to a recent article [1] I saw with some quotes from Rep. DeLeo about bill H.4121. There were a few things that caught my attention....

DeLeo said that some of the 1 year misdemeanor rules are open for discussion - this is a good (small) step, but it would be delusional to think that this is the only major problem with this bill.
  • Lowering the statutory disqualification for any license from 2 years to 1 year needs to be removed from the bill. (Sections 19, 26)
  • Expansion of the suitability rules granting police chiefs arbitrary discretion needs to be removed from the bill and should be rewritten to remove all suitability standards from the current law. (Sections 19, 26)
  • Any language making FID cards "may issue" needs to be removed from the bill and should be rewritten to make LTCs "shall issue." (Section 19, 26)
  • The current law needs to be changed to remove any/all suitability standards and should put the burden of proof upon the licensing authority who wants to deny a license. A person's civil rights should not be denied without due process!
  • Expansion of the Attorney General's power over which firearms can be sold needs to be removed from the bill and should be rewritten to abolish the current AG and EOPSS roster (Section 32)
  • Banning private sales between licensed individuals needs to be removed from the bill. Private sales already undergo background checks due to the fact that all gun owners are licensed and all transaction must be submitted to the state via FA-10 forms! (Section 18)
  • Any changes to the current training guidelines needs to be removed from the bill. (Section 34)
  • Increasing penalties for carrying a firearm on school grounds needs to be removed from the bill. (Section 41)
  • Increasing penalties for storage violations needs to be removed from the bill. (Section 33)

In the same article DeLeo claimed:
"There is nothing in this bill that hurts Smith & Wesson"
This statement is laughable on its face. Expansion of the Attorney General's power over which firearms can be sold, by creating a roster of approved "large capacity" rifles and shotguns and granting veto power over any item on the roster, will most certainly harm Smith & Wesson, or any other manufacturer! But, perhaps more importantly, it will hurt the consumers - citizens of the commonwealth.

"We are talking about criminal background checks, the mental health aspect of this, suicide prevention."
Look at the several points I listed above. Do they have anything to do with mental health, suicide prevention, or background checks? The answer is: No! Those sections need to be removed from the bill!

I hope I can count on your support to work to get these issues resolved.

Thank you,
jefftk

[1] http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/massachusetts_house_speaker_ro_12.html
Click to expand...

and response I received a minute ago:

Thank you for contacting Representative Benson regarding An Act relative to the reduction of gun violence (H4121). Representative Benson appreciates all constituent contact and will be grateful that you have contacted her regarding gun control. Although some areas of the bill need reworking, Representative Benson believes House Bill 4121 is a workable starting place, and contains necessary mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide prevention aspects. The Representative is working with her colleagues to improve the other sections of the bill. The Rep. will be working with colleagues to file amendments to improve aspects of the bill, if they are not changed in the Committee. I will certainly pass along your concerns to Representative Benson for consideration when making decisions concerning H4121 in the future.

Thank you again for reaching out.
Click to expand...
 
Hey folks we have shaken up the State House. I have recieved positive emails from 4 Pols. I spent quite a bit of time on the phone today with Sen. Ross's Chief Aide. They are stunned with the calls, emails and letters from all over the state. Not just Ross but all of them. They have heard it but most follow party lines. They are all angry over the behind the back email vote over the weekend. The aide said keep up the contacts they are hearing it. The big thing would be to make some one pay for it. Naughton is the most at risk lets see if we can help knock him out. So all pessimism aside keep up the heat and maybe this would work out alright. We need to get the 330,000 license holders to get off their lazy buts and VOTE!
 
dixidawg said:
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.....
Click to expand...

I found this. Can some of our lawyerly types please interpret?

9. If such a poll is requested, each member shall be so polled, in the manner agreed to and prescribed by the Chairs, to determine the committee’s recommendation. A majority vote is required to establish the will of the committee. Only those votes received prior to the deadline set by the Chairs shall be included in the tally.

I believe the "vote" was described as an electronic poll.

Does abstain count as a vote?

https://malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J22
 
i would caution against feeling like "our voice is heard".

they want us to feel this way so they can proceed with passing HB4121 with minimal resistance.
 
xcom said:
I wonder who the 3 cowards are in a 1 vote margin abstaining.
Click to expand...

This. I'll never understand it. Legislators are paid to form an opinion and cast your vote...and they can't even do that.

Who knows, maybe they were caught off guard by the weekend vote too!
 
I would laugh my ass off if DeLeo's prize bill somehow never made it out of the first committee.

I would celebrate by buying a new gun
 
goodzilla said:
This. I'll never understand it. Legislators are paid to form an opinion and cast your vote...and they can't even do that.

Who knows, maybe they were caught off guard by the weekend vote too!
Click to expand...
which is why Justin Amash is my new favorite politician (oxymoron), he has made every vote while he has been in office and explains every single one in detail as well

he has even voted against his own bills or amendments he sponsored when they were amended to add spending
 
I just called everyone on the committee again. Nobody would confirm the vote results. Some would say they voted NO. One staffer told me that the results could not yet be made public as there "are still some open matters before the committee". Whatever that means.
 
I admit to not reading every page of this thread, but, in the majority I have read I have not seen an answer as to where the Senate stands on these issue. Once, and if, this bill passes the house, the state senate will have to vote on it and accept it as it was passed in the house or amend it and pass their own bill. Won't any changes made by the Senate require both houses to go to a conference committee and resolve the difference with a compromise bill.

Is there enough dissent in the Senate that the house bill does not go far enough that we get a compromise bill that doesn't pass the house?
 
dixidawg said:
I just called everyone on the committee again. Nobody would confirm the vote results. Some would say they voted NO. One staffer told me that the results could not yet be made public as there "are still some open matters before the committee". Whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Bunch of ****ing cowards.

I say, our best 'fight against' at this time is that if each one of us will go and buy another pistol/rifle/shotgun...anything. Just one. If one third of us do that, we'll respond to the Nazis in this state by another 100K privately owned firearms.
 
sbi said:
I say, our best 'fight against' at this time is that if each one of us will go and buy another pistol/rifle/shotgun...anything. Just one. If one third of us do that, we'll respond to the Nazis in this state by another 100K privately owned firearms.
Click to expand...


Well, since it's for the cause. Let me grab my wallet. [grin]

mattyw said:
4th gen glock, great idea
Click to expand...

You know what? I'm really not a Glock guy but I think I'll make an exception. Good idea.
 
NewGuyRay said:
I admit to not reading every page of this thread, but, in the majority I have read I have not seen an answer as to where the Senate stands on these issue. Once, and if, this bill passes the house, the state senate will have to vote on it and accept it as it was passed in the house or amend it and pass their own bill. Won't any changes made by the Senate require both houses to go to a conference committee and resolve the difference with a compromise bill.

Is there enough dissent in the Senate that the house bill does not go far enough that we get a compromise bill that doesn't pass the house?
Click to expand...


Don't know what the Senate will do, but the Senate Chair (Timilty) and Vice Chair (Moore) on the Committee both reportedly voted NO.
 
JZ1018 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because then the FFL 03 C&R you list in your profile signature will be a waste of paper inside the confines of the Commonwealth.
 
If this passes as written, all firearms not on the list will be not be abled to be transferred to anyone in this state. No more MilSurps at all. No more family heirlooms being passed down from parents to children. C&R would be useless anyway.

OfficerObie59 said:
Because then the FFL 03 C&R you list in your profile signature will be a waste of paper inside the confines of the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...
 
JZ1018 said:
If this passes as written, all firearms not on the list will be not be abled to be transferred to anyone in this state. No more MilSurps at all. No more family heirlooms being passed down from parents to children. C&R would be useless anyway.
Click to expand...

M1 Garands and other C&R long guns were never on the list to begin with.

Sure, have fun getting your guns without a roster; meanwhile, I have to go through a dealer to get my most recent CMP purchase.
 
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4121

Status: Referred to Joint Committee on Rules

It shall be the duty of the committees on Rules to establish and recommend policy procedures for the General Court; to consider all orders, resolutions and petitions referred thereto relating to recess studies, rules changes, etc.; and to consider such other matters as may be referred thereto or that the committees deem necessary for the expeditious actions of the General Court.
 
I just called everyone on the committee again. Nobody would confirm the vote results. Some would say they voted NO. One staffer told me that the results could not yet be made public as there "are still some open matters before the committee". Whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Did you happen to mention the tarring and the feathering? I can't believe we've allowed a democracy where your elected reps. won't reveal how they vote.

dixidawg said:
Don't know what the Senate will do, but the Senate Chair (Timilty) and Vice Chair (Moore) on the Committee both reportedly voted NO.
Click to expand...

Good info, thanks for checking.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
M1 Garands and other C&R long guns were never on the list to begin with.

Sure, have fun getting your guns without a roster; meanwhile, I have to go through a dealer to get my most recent CMP purchase.
Click to expand...

I've been telling this to C&R folks since the thing was released. The 03 C&R is useless for MA. No more door deliveries. No more walk into a store and walk out after handing them you FFL.
 
Does anyone know what this means?

StevieP said:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4121

Status: Referred to Joint Committee on Rules

It shall be the duty of the committees on Rules to establish and recommend policy procedures for the General Court; to consider all orders, resolutions and petitions referred thereto relating to recess studies, rules changes, etc.; and to consider such other matters as may be referred thereto or that the committees deem necessary for the expeditious actions of the General Court.
Click to expand...
 
dixidawg said:
I just called everyone on the committee again. Nobody would confirm the vote results. Some would say they voted NO. One staffer told me that the results could not yet be made public as there "are still some open matters before the committee". Whatever that means.
Click to expand...

It means that DeLeo has sent his goons to convince a few people to either vote his way or get their knee-caps broken. He needs time to make the rounds.


OfficerObie59 said:
M1 Garands and other C&R long guns were never on the list to begin with.

Sure, have fun getting your guns without a roster; meanwhile, I have to go through a dealer to get my most recent CMP purchase.
Click to expand...

Correct as of now. Re-read those sections. It gives the AG VETO power over any/all guns including long guns (called out specifically in the wording).
 
Other than a new set of "esteemed legislators" to contact:

https://malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J40

I'm not sure...these folks seem to deal with the interpretation of rules (of the House and Senate). So either they're evaluating how to interpret the vote from over the weekend (3 abstaining, and such), or they're tyring to ram this through for DeLeo, and shorten the timeline for amendments and bill readings.
 
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
133
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The 10 Commandments of Gun Safety
Replies
2
Views
382
deerdad
deerdad
Cerakote Color of the Month
Replies
1
Views
246
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