House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
continue to contact your reps regarding FID suitability. You can be sure Rosenthal and crew are mounting a full court press to get the house to non-concur with the senate version and to get the bill changed (for the worse) in the joint committee.
 
Billsail said:
Re: FID suitability

The amendment was likely defeated as a result of MA State Senators actually thinking for once. An important part of the amendment was a requirement that those denied be given the reason for denial in writing. This would be potentially beneficial to us in the long run and I think they saw that. Their killing of the amendment was to help them, not us. I'm sure this was discussed in depth during the numerous recesses.

I seriously doubt it won't be accepted by the House, now that the Reps have had time to digest the possible ramifications. Yes, I realize it could be stripped of the "in writing" provision, but that would open the state to federal lawsuits just as easily as the original would.
Click to expand...

What is in the bill passed by the senate?
Current status quo for FIDs, or denials with reasons in writing?
 
Billsail said:
Re: FID suitability

The amendment was likely defeated as a result of MA State Senators actually thinking for once. An important part of the amendment was a requirement that those denied be given the reason for denial in writing. This would be potentially beneficial to us in the long run and I think they saw that. Their killing of the amendment was to help them, not us. I'm sure this was discussed in depth during the numerous recesses.

I seriously doubt it won't be accepted by the House, now that the Reps have had time to digest the possible ramifications. Yes, I realize it could be stripped of the "in writing" provision, but that would open the state to federal lawsuits just as easily as the original would.
Click to expand...


So, the question I have is related to LTC-As with restrictions. In the House bill, it stated that they needed to provide proof or reasons regarding us being dangers to society or something equally onerous to restrict or deny a license. Is that still part of the legislation? For example, the town I live in is super red, so less than 1/3 of LTC-As are unrestricted. And our COP is very happy to tell you it's because you don't NEED an unrestricted license, capitalization is theirs and included in the written denial for lifting of restrictions.
 
Squib308 said:
Ummm.....if we feel that LEO favoritism might help get the MA-AWB tossed out, then why in the world should we fight it?

with as much infringement as we face, I personally don't see some LEO having a flash hider and collapsible stock as our primary issue....especially if we can use that situation to help get our statewide AWB ripped up in federal court.
Click to expand...
zero chance a LEO exemption gets AWB thrown out
they are a different class than you and I and this shows your senators think so as well

this isn't a 2a issue for me, it's a general "some are more equal than others" issue

- - - Updated - - -

wolfenkraft said:
So, the question I have is related to LTC-As with restrictions. In the House bill, it stated that they needed to provide proof or reasons regarding us being dangers to society or something equally onerous to restrict or deny a license. Is that still part of the legislation? For example, the town I live in is super red, so less than 1/3 of LTC-As are unrestricted. And our COP is very happy to tell you it's because you don't NEED an unrestricted license, capitalization is theirs and included in the written denial for lifting of restrictions.
Click to expand...

good question, because they removed the FID suitability, not sure if they removed the reasoning requirement with it, I will check
 
sevenMMmag said:
continue to contact your reps regarding FID suitability. You can be sure Rosenthal and crew are mounting a full court press to get the house to non-concur with the senate version and to get the bill changed (for the worse) in the joint committee.
Click to expand...

and seeing as the house clearly voted FOR fid suitability, and DeLeo very much wanted it, this could certainly happen
 
I haven't heard any mention of it, so I'll ask and someone who's better at absorbing this stuff can answer:

There was a bunch of nonsense in the house bill (I think) about totally changing the way approved safety courses were run/taught/approved, I remember it being totally onerous in that it basically made all the current trainers start over and have to learn a new course that the State Police created... or something like that.

Is that all gone?
 
Squib308 said:
none of us are arguing in support of LEO favoritism. the question is not whether we support LEO favoritism, but rather how can we get rid of LEO favoritism? if the moonbats are willing to take the favoritism a step further and put it directly into the MGL, we should be grateful to have them open up the entire AWB for higher review.

the solution to the problems in MA will never come from the MA legislature and almost never come from a MA court so we can forget about MA fixing our 2A infringements. if there are ever fixes, they will come from a federal court or possibly congress. therefore, ANYTHING the MA moonbats write that can provide a basis for a federal case should be welcomed.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, but it still makes sense to try to extract an early stage malignant tumor, even if you think aggressive chemotherapy will treat it if it spreads.

Plus, it's the principle that .gov can make themselves special, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution ( Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.)

The legislators need a good pummeling for considering themselves and their mongrels so special.
 
milktree said:
I haven't heard any mention of it, so I'll ask and someone who's better at absorbing this stuff can answer:

There was a bunch of nonsense in the house bill (I think) about totally changing the way approved safety courses were run/taught/approved, I remember it being totally onerous in that it basically made all the current trainers start over and have to learn a new course that the State Police created... or something like that.

Is that all gone?
Click to expand...

I am 99% certain that was completely removed from the house bill, and was not mentioned in the senate bill.
 
milktree said:
I haven't heard any mention of it, so I'll ask and someone who's better at absorbing this stuff can answer:

There was a bunch of nonsense in the house bill (I think) about totally changing the way approved safety courses were run/taught/approved, I remember it being totally onerous in that it basically made all the current trainers start over and have to learn a new course that the State Police created... or something like that.

Is that all gone?
Click to expand...

jefftk said:
I am 99% certain that was completely removed from the house bill, and was not mentioned in the senate bill.
Click to expand...

That was all removed when HB 4121 was scrapped. The only new training requirement right now is some discussion and a handout on suicide prevention in Hunter Safety Courses.
 
mattyw said:
This. Call your reps. Tell them you don't approve of the Senate taking their bill and sneaking in a favor to police that does nothing but clearly treat us as an inferior class of constituents.
Click to expand...

Where is that part? I can't find it in the amendments or in the bill's text. I'd like to be able to say, "amendment xx is totally bogus!"


Make sure you also say you support the FID amendment. Remember, the house approved FID suitability and the Senate removed it
Click to expand...


Same question, but s/bogus/awesome/
 
mbullism said:
You didn't say this previously, you indicated it went directly to committee... the threads get bogged down and confusing with partial or incorrect information...
Click to expand...

No, I did not indicate that. See http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...Suitability)?p=4031913&viewfull=1#post4031913 where I quoted the GOAL FB page saying that the House votes to concur or not and if they do not vote to concur it does to the Conference Committee. I did say I was assuming (and still do) that the House will indeed vote not to concur.
 
My email to my reps today!

Mr. Dempsey/Mrs. DiZoglio,
Greetings. I know you have both been hearing a great deal from me lately regarding the gun bill that is in process. This bill is important for fire arms owners in this state. I would like to take a moment to point out that Senator O'Connor Ives voted in favor of amendment #6 that will keep police chiefs from having the power to deny an FID card for standard hunting rifles and shotguns to a citizen without due process. I have already sent a letter of my thanks to her and am forwarding the message to all my friends and fellow supporters of the 2A that she is a believer in not only the 2A but also the right to due process when taking a right away from a citizen! SHe has earned my respect and my support in the future at the ballot box! I hope both of you as my representatives can now vote in favor of the bill when it comes back to the house now that the infringements against law abiding gun owners have properly been pulled from the bill.

I look forward to reading the roll call after the house votes.

Thank you as always for your time.
 
I'm confused about FID suitability. I thought the amendment to remove it from S2265 was withdrawn (#6), right? Was there another amendment for S2265 that removed FID suitability that was approved?
 
Friday said:
go here: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2265/Amendments?filter=Senate&pg=2&perPage=50

Some talking points about the LEO favoritism: why should police receive favoritism? remember the Waltham COP who beat his wife, The Worcester cop on bail for home invasion and A&B? The statie that drove drunk and whacked people? Just peruse the latest police misconduct.org for more examples.
Click to expand...

While I agree that "special protections" for animals more equal is morally repugnant, I say leave it in there. It would seem to up some potential avenues around an equal protection challenge.
 
Funny how last week the Lowell sun in particular was all over the House gun law bill, now that the Senate has had their run and stripped out the most Unconstitutional amendments not a single word can be found on yesterdays secession.

More proof that the Media is a major cause of what ills this Country today. I already did my part, Year three no Tv **** you comcast.

Great work by everyone, I'M Emailing and still making calls today. no rest when it comes to Liberty and Freedom.
 
Rekonn said:
I'm confused about FID suitability. I thought the amendment to remove it from S2265 was withdrawn (#6), right? Was there another amendment for S2265 that removed FID suitability that was approved?
Click to expand...

I read #6 passed 28 yea 10 nae. It was on GOALS website
 
at least my Senator, who I still haven't heard from, supported removing FID suitability
 
Rekonn said:
I'm confused about FID suitability. I thought the amendment to remove it from S2265 was withdrawn (#6), right? Was there another amendment for S2265 that removed FID suitability that was approved?
Click to expand...

Amendment 63.1 was approved at the end by a roll call vote. It removed FID suitability
 
Bfatz said:
Funny how last week the Lowell sun in particular was all over the House gun law bill, now that the Senate has had their run and stripped out the most Unconstitutional amendments not a single word can be found on yesterdays secession.

More proof that the Media is a major cause of what ills this Country today. I already did my part, Year three no Tv **** you comcast.

Great work by everyone, I'M Emailing and still making calls today. no rest when it comes to Liberty and Freedom.
Click to expand...
Media perpetuates the perception by the Sheeple that Lawmakers and LEOs are special, and that it is somehow righteous to sacrifice individual rights for the greater good. Ayn Rand's dystopian societies are becoming reality (in this case, media glorifying individual sacrifice and oppression).
 
I think it may be very funny (and I am hoping it occurs) that Massachusetts may be listed as one of the states that loosened gun controls in the wake of Sandy Hook.
 
Quiet said:
I think it may be very funny (and I am hoping it occurs) that Massachusetts may be listed as one of the states that loosened gun controls in the wake of Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...

what did they loosen? the whole thing was pretty much a circle jerk to maintain the status quo but call it "gun control"

Rosenthal is right really, this bill is completely useless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shooting At Northborough House Party Leaves One 16 Y/O Dead
2
Replies
52
Views
1K
Token_Black_Guy
T
House Republicans sell us out
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
EJFudd
EJFudd
ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL
3 4 5
Replies
144
Views
4K
PappyM3
PappyM3
ATF at the behest of the White House attempt to ban all private firearm transactions
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
spt_1955
spt_1955
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
Back
Top Bottom