So did the cop exemption stay in?
-
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***
House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
- Status
????????????????????????????????
I can only assume so since most people on here told me it was no big deal and I was wrong to be upset by it as it just maintains status quo
StevieP
NES Member
I didn't go so far as to call my rep. Better to remain silent/neutral at this point.
As mentioned by many, it could have been a LOT worse. Anyone who's really worried about their FID being denied due to suitability issues either probably ought not to have guns (assuming the PD is correct), or has the ability to challenge it in a court of law (go Comm2A!!).
Everyone else (everyone who's 'suitable') should be unaffected. If we're serious about gun safety (safety from people who shouldn't have guns ) even we can be behind this, at least a little bit. I won't be vocal about it, calling it either a win or a loss.
And, as mentioned, by passing THIS, it may help keep any further ideas from the gun grabbers on the back burner for a while. If they couldn't get it into THIS bill, after all the meetings, hearings, comment period, etc., they won't have a chance to put it in anything else for a while. If it was a valid position, it would have been considered/debated in THIS bill. IOW - I don't think we'll see another "one gun a month" bill for the foreseeable future (Unless Grossman gets his way).
You dont get it. It's not going to affect you so what's the big deal right?
You are delusional.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
Wtf is this? Hope they will go away? It will never stop and people like you feed into it by compromising our rights one phone call at a time
Last edited:
still regarded as second (third, fourth?) class citizens... no surprise there
I can't support this bill or even be neutral on it based on that alone
Thats too bad, I guess Comm2A will just have to sue and get that reversed once it happens a few times. I can't see that passing muster in Federal Court at all.
What a waste of time and money to do so.....and I guess the taxpayers get to foot the defense bill in court too.
What a waste of time and money to do so.....and I guess the taxpayers get to foot the defense bill in court too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,616
- Likes
- 20,010
Valid question. EOPS has a history of trying to "invent law" in their draft CMRs. And if that doesn't work, they do it in memos/opinions/etc. It's easy for them to skate by unless someone sifts thru the words with a fine tooth comb in time, plus CMR drafts by EOPS are NOT put anywhere where the public has access to them, you have to know they exist and call the EOPS Legal Dept to request them . . . I had to do that for a bunch of them a few years ago. Cockroaches don't like the light shining on them, so they hide the info from public sight as long and often as they can.
Agreed.
This passing will take the wind out of their sails so that legistraitors won't give serious consideration to more anti-gun bills (which will be filed every session) for a number of years to follow. If this bill is killed, you can bet that next year there will be even greater pressure to "pass something" and that something will be a lot worse due to our losing some key players to retirement. That is not a chance that I'd like to take and I consider that to be a sure bet.
You guys continue to compromise. There is no bet that another one won't be down the pipe next year. All it takes is for something to hit the news.
You guys are crazy to be fine with this.
"Well yeah I got mugged, but it could have been worse and he's not going to do it for another couple of years so I'm fine with it..."
Wow
pastera
NES Member
The only plus in this bill is that it forces police departments to document their activities in order for com2A to use against them.
We have won nothing except that our loss was not as large as our enemy desired.
If I'm not mistaken FID's were shall issue prior to this. This is a lose regardless of how much money you have for an attorney.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,352
- Likes
- 386
This
pastera
NES Member
Turn around Derek, you're preaching to the choir.
We are taking a significant hit here - my assertion was that the hit would have been a death blow without the effort organized here and by GOAL.
The compromise issue is a tough one, it works in cases where there is not an overwhelming agenda on side not to compromise. My gut tells me in mass it will go:
1) Well they are only making me register the transactions
2) Well they only want to check who I am before giving me an FID
3) Well they only want me to have a certain type of gun
4) Well they only want me to have a certain # of Guns and Ammo (No need for an arsenal)
5) Well they want me to be safe and keep my firearms locked in my trunk even with an LTC, its for the kids safety
6) Well they want me to think about my purchases so they limit my purchases to 1 gun per year and 1776 Rounds of ammo
7) Well they want everyone to feel safe so they are givin me a sign for my yard that says GUNS ON PREMISES
8) Well they want my doctor to insure he feels Im ok to have a gun licenses and that Im not to stressed so I only have to get cleared every 3 months
9) Well I only hunt so I dont really need a handgun, they will give me 50.00 or I only need a firearm for defense, a pistol will suffice but they gave me 100 for each AR
10) Well to make everyone feel better I can now visit my gun at the local State Gun Range in Boston on Saturdays from 7:45am to 8:00am however I can still maintain my LTC for a lifetime at no costs
Compromise in massachusetts is the gift that keeps on giving.....sorta like gonorrhea
1) Well they are only making me register the transactions
2) Well they only want to check who I am before giving me an FID
3) Well they only want me to have a certain type of gun
4) Well they only want me to have a certain # of Guns and Ammo (No need for an arsenal)
5) Well they want me to be safe and keep my firearms locked in my trunk even with an LTC, its for the kids safety
6) Well they want me to think about my purchases so they limit my purchases to 1 gun per year and 1776 Rounds of ammo
7) Well they want everyone to feel safe so they are givin me a sign for my yard that says GUNS ON PREMISES
8) Well they want my doctor to insure he feels Im ok to have a gun licenses and that Im not to stressed so I only have to get cleared every 3 months
9) Well I only hunt so I dont really need a handgun, they will give me 50.00 or I only need a firearm for defense, a pistol will suffice but they gave me 100 for each AR
10) Well to make everyone feel better I can now visit my gun at the local State Gun Range in Boston on Saturdays from 7:45am to 8:00am however I can still maintain my LTC for a lifetime at no costs
Compromise in massachusetts is the gift that keeps on giving.....sorta like gonorrhea
pastera
NES Member
![[troll]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/016.gif "Troll [troll]")
GOAL did all the damage control that could be done here but anyone suggesting that their reps vote for this in hope that the bogeyman goes away is smoking crack.
Last edited:
goodzilla
NES Member
All I know is that I was up for an hour or so in the middle of the night, trying to fathom how rational people could think that (in any way, shape, or form), a COP should hold ANY sway on how a non-prohibited citizen of these United States protects himself and his family in his own home. This state is so fu*ked, I hope a federal lawsuit is brought as soon as possible.
When I can actually find decent work up there and not have to sit in 2+ hours of traffic daily to Mass....and deal with the out of state Mass LTC because I have to come back in daily. ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,616
- Likes
- 20,010
There are others with more "inside knowledge" than me wrt what went on at Bacon Hill, but I can tell you from a 1-on-1 discussion with my State Rep that he and they have no stomach for dealing with more anti-gun bills (or even pro-gun bills). They recognize it as a "third rail" much like the abortion issue and prefer to dodge the issue completely. They know that public opinion about guns has changed and numbers of applications have sky-rocketed, making this a dangerous topic for them to deal with. My Rep told me that if it died in committee and he never had to vote on it at all he'd be most pleased . . . and it wasn't because it had good or bad stuff in it.
Give them something that they can point to and say "we did it, we gave you an anti-gun violence bill, now go away and don't bother me" and future attempts (at least for a number of years to follow) will all die in committee.
The chiefs that like to deny people are like cockroaches, they do their dirty work in the "dark", and they avoid the light at all costs! Having to present a rational reason in front of a judge is NOT something that they want to do, thus the number of denials (that aren't statutory) will drop significantly. Given a good case, my IANAL reading of this bill is such that this is ripe for a USDC case (with the proper plaintiff) and would likely result in overturning the entire suitability scheme for both LTC and FID as being arbitrary and capricious and thus unconstitutional. This is a case where they may well have given us a "gift" by giving themselves enough rope for us to hang them in Federal Court. After it is signed into law, Comm2A said that they will probably have something to say about the law . . . it may be time for me to up my monthly contribution to them. I have high hopes about this, but acknowledge that it will take some years to be adjudicated.
Last edited by a moderator:
this, I am happy with the job done with what we had to work with but **** asking my reps to support this, that's not something I am capable of.
yanici
NES Member
In MA we'll always be waiting for the other shoe to fall. With the push from your forum and from GOAL we dodged getting terminal pneumonia and ended up with a very minor runny nose.
There are a lot of unhappy anti-gunners out there in both houses along with Whiney Rosenthal that are crying out loud.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,616
- Likes
- 20,010
I'm not making any calls, but I am looking at this as a lot better than it could have been without GOAL and some help from retiring legislators.
if they are that fed up with it they wouldn't have considered passing this one. next year will bring new legislators maybe even a new speaker, and all of them want to leave their mark on something I am sure
I personally can't back something now under nothing more than blind hope we avoid something in the future
you deal with the enemies you can see
this I agree with
pastera
NES Member
And I am rapidly approaching the same conclusion ...
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,836
- Likes
- 12,161
This. Sure some my look at it as not that bad. Could have been worse. At the end of the day people lose rights in a a state where you have very little rights to begin with.
They will continue to chip away until we have nothing.
The Senate version of the bill was 'acceptable'. This compromise version isn't. It goes May Issue on FID. It's better than he House language but it's merely the difference of Bubba using lube first.
- Status
