House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, they are going to roll this "grand compromise" out in the next half hour and vote on it at 1pm?
 
71montess said:
Clench what or who ?
Click to expand...

Uranus2.jpg
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
As I read the bill we would gain better access to appeals as delays past the 40 day mark and restrictions are all reasons for appeal. The bill also opens the door to submitting applications by mail and requires the chiefs to be more specific as to their reason(s) for denying a license.

However, the standard for judicial review doesn't change. There is no de novo review and chiefs still do not bear the burden of justifying their denial. A disctrict court cannot substitute its own judgement of suitability for that of the chief. They can only overturn a denial if the court determines that there is no reason for the chief's denial - much as it is now. It doesn't have to be a good reason in the eyes of the court.

All that said, it will be easier to start the appeal process and that works very well for putting together a good suitability challenge.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this bill open the doorto challenges on restrictions and require the same standard as denials? (Which isn't "no" but more "arbitrary and capricious") and it would eliminate blanket restrictions? Or did I mmisinterpret a discussion here?
 
Quiet said:
Doesn't this bill open the doorto challenges on restrictions and require the same standard as denials? (Which isn't "no" but more "arbitrary and capricious") and it would eliminate blanket restrictions? Or did I mmisinterpret a discussion here?
Click to expand...

no you're correct. The statue reads 'no reason' same as now I think, but the case law is 'arbitrary and capricious'. So while the doors to appeal are open a little farther, the standard of judicial review looks like it will remain the same.
 
Quiet said:
Doesn't this bill open the doorto challenges on restrictions and require the same standard as denials? (Which isn't "no" but more "arbitrary and capricious") and it would eliminate blanket restrictions? Or did I mmisinterpret a discussion here?
Click to expand...

Lets see as of right now it takes nearly a year to 1.5 years to get an actual hearing for a traffic violation in this State beyond the magistrate process, I know I just waited three years for a hearing which I won. So all this will do is cause a Back log in the Court hearing process that could go on for years, and guess what, your still unlicensed and unable to practice your 2a rights until further notice because the Chief said you look funny.

Read between the lines, not the lines they are giving us, these Nazis know exactly what they are doing.
 
Is the senate/house stuck with doing only what is listed as the orders of the day on their calendar? Or can the clerk add other things as the day goes on?
 
Quiet said:
Doesn't this bill open the doorto challenges on restrictions and require the same standard as denials? (Which isn't "no" but more "arbitrary and capricious") and it would eliminate blanket restrictions? Or did I mmisinterpret a discussion here?
Click to expand...

Knuckle Dragger said:
no you're correct. The statue reads 'no reason' same as now I think, but the case law is 'arbitrary and capricious'. So while the doors to appeal are open a little farther, the standard of judicial review looks like it will remain the same.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The other half of the question (which I really kind of buried) is the one about restrictions rather than denials. Doesn't this bill for the first time impose the same level of requirement on restrictions as it does for denials, *perhaps* eliminating the ability for chiefs to issue blanket restrictions on licensees?

If that's true, I think it does just a bit more than crack open the door for appeals, I think it opens the box for a much easier challenge on blanket restrictions. Easier in the sense of finding excellent litigant representatives.
 
Last edited:
Quiet said:
Thanks. The other half of the question (which I really kind of buried) is the one about restrictions rather than denials. Doesn't this bill for the first time impose the same level of requirement on restrictions as it does for denials, *perhaps* eliminating the ability for chiefs to issue blanket restrictions on licensees?

If that's true, I think it does just a bit more than crack open the door for appeals, I think it opens the box for a much easier challenge on blanket restrictions. Easier in the sense of finding excellent litigant representatives.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find anything which increased the requirements for applying restrictions.
The requirement for a clearly stated reason for denial don't seem to be extended to restrictions.
The restricted person is, however, entitled to a judicial review.

ETA: this was S.2284 only
 
Last edited:
rlee said:
The restricted person is, however, entitled to a judicial review.

ETA: this was S.2284 only
Click to expand...
That begs the question.

Judicial review of what standard?

Currently there is no appeal about anything related to restrictions.

Under the new law (if it passes) an individual can appeal. If an individual can appeal, then there is no way a blanket policy can survive unless there is some difference in places a person may carry (or a difference in a person's character and/or abilities) based on where they live.

That's my reasoning. Is it flawed?
 
exodious said:
This. I don't understand why some folks here believe that they won't come back for more of our rights as soon as they feel like it?
Click to expand...

They will unless we make sure that they lose the taste for it.
They just want to cruise through on their merry way with no bumps.
Work is a four letter work to most of these parasites.
That's where we come in.
Make em struggle and sweat it. and they will avoid it next time around.
 
Just got this,


Dear Mike:

Thank you for your email with comments and feedback on Senate Bill 2265, An Act Relative to Reducing Gun Violence. This issue has generated a great deal of correspondence to my office, and has been the subject of lengthy debate, research and consideration, and rightfully so, as the question of reducing gun violence involves a delicate balance between appropriate regulation for public safety, and our obligation to respect one of the fundamental rights established in our Constitution.

With Senate bill 2265 – which passed by voice vote on July 17 and had my support – we have accomplished what no other state has accomplished in recent memory. We have avoided reactionary legislation, have had a lengthy, reasonable and productive conversation, and have produced a bill that had broad support both from gun owner advocates and advocates for gun-violence reduction. The bill passed with both Democrat and Republican support.

The bill offers significant reforms in the interests of protecting lawful gun ownership. It would eliminate the outdated and duplicative Class B License, bring greater standardization to the “suitability” criteria employed by local licensing authorities, and eliminate the “90 day grace period” provisions that have caused law-abiding gun owners to lose their licenses simply because of an administrative backlog in processing renewal applications.

Further, two key amendments supported by gun owners and second amendment protection groups were offered during debate on the Senate bill. I supported both of these amendments.

The first was to remove a “suitability” standard for issuance of an FID card. I supported this with the understanding that weapons authorized by an FID are of the sort most commonly associated with sport and recreational use, and that are rarely found to be associated with crime and violence. I also feel comfortable that our framework of automatic disqualifiers based on criminal and mental health history, along with federal regulation on the same subject, provides adequate regulation over these weapons without the need for any further “suitability” determination at the local level.

The other amendment, which I co-sponsored and helped to draft, removed the ability of local police departments to seize and dispose of weapons without sufficient due process for the owners, with the caveat that any weapon identified as having been actually used in a crime could not be sold at auction and returned to circulation.

The bill also offers significant reforms to, first, better understand the nature of gun violence, and to begin to address the causes of gun violence. It would strengthen our cooperation with the National Instant Criminal Backgroud Check System, providing greater information and assurance that firearms are not sold to those with a violent background or with a history of mental illness, habitual addiction, or drug trafficking. The bill also would require the creation of a real-time web portal to facilitate private sales, making it easier to verify identity and eligibility, without creating any unreasonable obstacle to legal transactions.

We have often heard that a key to reducing gun violence is to enforce the laws currently on the books. To that end, the bill would establish a special unit within the State Police to investigate and combat gun trafficking. It would also demand that the Public Safety Secretary publish a report every two years with detailed information on gun crimes, and the enforcement and prosecution of these crimes. The bill also increases penalties associated with several gun-related crimes, and establishes new penalties for certain crimes if they are committed through the use of a firearm.

I am also particularly proud that we have now shifted our conversation, and have given significant attention to an aspect of gun violence that is often forgotten – suicide prevention. The bill includes several suicide prevention measures, which came about as a result of collaboration with harm reduction experts and the Gun Owners’ Advocate League. I believe these provisions will help steer future conversation away from how to restrict gun ownership and confiscate weapons – and towards a more collaborative approach that works with training and safety advocates to reduce the incidence of the least visible yet most prevalent aspect of firearms violence.

The matter is now in a conference committee, where the differences between the versions passed by the House and Senate will be reconciled. A final bill, i.e. a bill that cannot be further amended and which prompts an as-is yes or no vote, will likely be presented to the Legislature within the next 48 hours. Please be assured I will review the final bill, and will weigh whether overall it strikes the delicate balance between appropriate regulation for public safety and our obligation to respect one of the fundamental rights established in our Constitution.

I thank you, again, for contacting my office, and for your advocacy throughout this session. I hope you will see that, despite early fears of reactionary and overly-burdensome regulation, the step that Massachusetts is poised to take is a meaningful and bi-partisan effort to reduce the impact of the unlawful misuse of guns, while simultaneously respecting and promoting your fundamental 2nd amendment rights.

I am always happy to hear from constituents, and look forward to any further comments or questions you may have on this matter.

Sincerely,


John F. Keenan, State Senator
State House, Room 413-B | (617) 722-1494
[email protected]
 
Mike-Mike said:
Just got this,


Dear Mike:

Thank you for your email with comments and feedback on Senate Bill 2265, An Act Relative to Reducing Gun Violence. This issue has generated a great deal of correspondence to my office, and has been the subject of lengthy debate, research and consideration, and rightfully so, as the question of reducing gun violence involves a delicate balance between appropriate regulation for public safety, and our obligation to respect one of the fundamental rights established in our Constitution.

With Senate bill 2265 – which passed by voice vote on July 17 and had my support – we have accomplished what no other state has accomplished in recent memory. We have avoided reactionary legislation, have had a lengthy, reasonable and productive conversation, and have produced a bill that had broad support both from gun owner advocates and advocates for gun-violence reduction. The bill passed with both Democrat and Republican support.

The bill offers significant reforms in the interests of protecting lawful gun ownership. It would eliminate the outdated and duplicative Class B License, bring greater standardization to the “suitability” criteria employed by local licensing authorities, and eliminate the “90 day grace period” provisions that have caused law-abiding gun owners to lose their licenses simply because of an administrative backlog in processing renewal applications.

Further, two key amendments supported by gun owners and second amendment protection groups were offered during debate on the Senate bill. I supported both of these amendments.

The first was to remove a “suitability” standard for issuance of an FID card. I supported this with the understanding that weapons authorized by an FID are of the sort most commonly associated with sport and recreational use, and that are rarely found to be associated with crime and violence. I also feel comfortable that our framework of automatic disqualifiers based on criminal and mental health history, along with federal regulation on the same subject, provides adequate regulation over these weapons without the need for any further “suitability” determination at the local level.

The other amendment, which I co-sponsored and helped to draft, removed the ability of local police departments to seize and dispose of weapons without sufficient due process for the owners, with the caveat that any weapon identified as having been actually used in a crime could not be sold at auction and returned to circulation.

The bill also offers significant reforms to, first, better understand the nature of gun violence, and to begin to address the causes of gun violence. It would strengthen our cooperation with the National Instant Criminal Backgroud Check System, providing greater information and assurance that firearms are not sold to those with a violent background or with a history of mental illness, habitual addiction, or drug trafficking. The bill also would require the creation of a real-time web portal to facilitate private sales, making it easier to verify identity and eligibility, without creating any unreasonable obstacle to legal transactions.

We have often heard that a key to reducing gun violence is to enforce the laws currently on the books. To that end, the bill would establish a special unit within the State Police to investigate and combat gun trafficking. It would also demand that the Public Safety Secretary publish a report every two years with detailed information on gun crimes, and the enforcement and prosecution of these crimes. The bill also increases penalties associated with several gun-related crimes, and establishes new penalties for certain crimes if they are committed through the use of a firearm.

I am also particularly proud that we have now shifted our conversation, and have given significant attention to an aspect of gun violence that is often forgotten – suicide prevention. The bill includes several suicide prevention measures, which came about as a result of collaboration with harm reduction experts and the Gun Owners’ Advocate League. I believe these provisions will help steer future conversation away from how to restrict gun ownership and confiscate weapons – and towards a more collaborative approach that works with training and safety advocates to reduce the incidence of the least visible yet most prevalent aspect of firearms violence.

The matter is now in a conference committee, where the differences between the versions passed by the House and Senate will be reconciled. A final bill, i.e. a bill that cannot be further amended and which prompts an as-is yes or no vote, will likely be presented to the Legislature within the next 48 hours. Please be assured I will review the final bill, and will weigh whether overall it strikes the delicate balance between appropriate regulation for public safety and our obligation to respect one of the fundamental rights established in our Constitution.

I thank you, again, for contacting my office, and for your advocacy throughout this session. I hope you will see that, despite early fears of reactionary and overly-burdensome regulation, the step that Massachusetts is poised to take is a meaningful and bi-partisan effort to reduce the impact of the unlawful misuse of guns, while simultaneously respecting and promoting your fundamental 2nd amendment rights.

I am always happy to hear from constituents, and look forward to any further comments or questions you may have on this matter.

Sincerely,


John F. Keenan, State Senator
State House, Room 413-B | (617) 722-1494
[email protected]
Click to expand...

Just got the same response. Only took him a month
 
mbullism said:
House in formal session (since 11am?), video feed says roll calls at 1:00pm... senate scheduled for formal session at 1:00pm... Joint committee meeting between the two- Ya ever notice how you never see Bruce Wayne and Batman at the same time?
Click to expand...

You wanna bet the Governor has a press conference as soon as the vote is taken? The pro side should be arranging one right now, and getting reporters ready to go, and Senators and reps ready with some good sound bites! We should also have Comm2A ready to offer up some quotes about how the DC gun laws are making a challenge here easier and more imminent. We need to hit them not only with both barrels, but an entire FUSILLADE, a regular broadside! No prisoners.


yanici said:
Whatever the outcome, it won't be all bad.
Click to expand...

So, a vote comes out. Either way, what's next? We STILL need to support candidates in the Fall election. Not only will it mean we replace the bad ones with good ones, but that also lessens the chances of bad bills and increases the chances of GOOD BILLS.

EITHER WAY the vote turns out, we should do this!
 
Coyote33 said:
You wanna bet the Governor has a press conference as soon as the vote is taken? The pro side should be arranging one right now, and getting reporters ready to go, and Senators and reps ready with some good sound bites! We should also have Comm2A ready to offer up some quotes about how the DC gun laws are making a challenge here easier and more imminent. We need to hit them not only with both barrels, but an entire FUSILLADE, a regular broadside! No prisoners.




So, a vote comes out. Either way, what's next? We STILL need to support candidates in the Fall election. Not only will it mean we replace the bad ones with good ones, but that also lessens the chances of bad bills and increases the chances of GOOD BILLS.

EITHER WAY the vote turns out, we should do this!
Click to expand...
This, what you are saying, is 100% on target.
 
71montess said:
Note to our legislature, READ THIS !!
Click to expand...

I just SENT IT to my two guys (Mike Moore and Paul Frost). I will send to the entire conference committee a bit later, along with the article on police and home domestic violence, and ask why they get AW exemption, and everyone else gets discretion!
 
Coyote33 said:
I just SENT IT to my two guys (Mike Moore and Paul Frost). I will send to the entire conference committee a bit later, along with the article on police and home domestic violence, and ask why they get AW exemption, and everyone else gets discretion!
Click to expand...

With any luck, our legal beagles on NES will immediately rush forward to dispel this myth and let everyone know that our 2A rights rest in the LTC and not the FID... right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

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
125
Views
3K
Uzi2
U
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
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: Democrat House Member Pushes ‘Zombie Gun’ Ban
Replies
10
Views
442
quinnjalan
quinnjalan
Back
Top Bottom