House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
oldsoldier29 said:
Not a safe bet. But-and, this is only for the dept I work for-i don't think to 2 many police want to create a second class of citizenry. I think this is more a legislators dream of a well armed paramilitary class they can draw from in the event the gun owners rise up against them. Catch 22: most of them, are us :)
Click to expand...


Yup, they'll be much better shots with their collapsible stocks, flash hiders, and bayo lugs. [hmmm]
 
oldsoldier29 said:
No, well, let my try to explain as I see it. The writing for suitability is now only for ltc. They must provide a valid reason for denial-actual proof, not just because they don't like guns. The burden of proof lies with the chief now, as well as valid evidence. FID remains as it was. Don't protest the AWB clause-honestly, I think the path of this could, ultimately, do away with it altogether. But, IANAL, I'm just hypothesizing. This bill should just be rubber stamped and passed as is, as it really doesn't have any teeth against us.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
The what's in / what's out had my head spinning.
 
oldsoldier29 said:
No, well, let my try to explain as I see it. The writing for suitability is now only for ltc. They must provide a valid reason for denial-actual proof, not just because they don't like guns. The burden of proof lies with the chief now, as well as valid evidence. FID remains as it was. Don't protest the AWB clause-honestly, I think the path of this could, ultimately, do away with it altogether. But, IANAL, I'm just hypothesizing. This bill should just be rubber stamped and passed as is, as it really doesn't have any teeth against us.
Click to expand...


OK, I may have missed this. I thought when FID suitability went away, the whole amendment was scrapped and nothing was added to require a chief to explain suitability for an LTC? Hopefully I am mistaken.
 
Billsail said:
OK, I may have missed this. I thought when FID suitability went away, the whole amendment was scrapped and nothing was added to require a chief to explain suitability for an LTC? Hopefully I am mistaken.
Click to expand...

Yes you are mistaken. There were a number of positive changes made to the LTC/Suitability language. First the definition has changed from "suitable" to "unsuitable" this is significant in that it places the burden of proof upon the CLEO to prove the person unsuitable. (instead of forcing the applicant to prove he is suitable). This is something we've been wanting for ages. In addition to this, the CLEO now has to provide a letter stating the reasons for denial.

These are positive steps towards the end goal of "shall issue" LTC's to anyone that is not a prohibited person and eventually doing away with the licensing process all together.
 
Called my rep who originally voted no to urge support. 430 on a Friday is tough to get anyone so I left a voicemail.
 
Mike S said:
Yes you are mistaken. There were a number of positive changes made to the LTC/Suitability language. First the definition has changed from "suitable" to "unsuitable" this is significant in that it places the burden of proof upon the CLEO to prove the person unsuitable. (instead of forcing the applicant to prove he is suitable). This is something we've been wanting for ages. In addition to this, the CLEO now has to provide a letter stating the reasons for denial.

These are positive steps towards the end goal of "shall issue" LTC's to anyone that is not a prohibited person and eventually doing away with the licensing process all together.
Click to expand...


WOO HOO !!!! We don't want to lose this one! Thanks Mike!
 
wolfenkraft said:
So, the question I have is related to LTC-As with restrictions. .... For example, the town I live in is super red.....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...

"WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR, YES, I DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

(and, if this bill passes, "SEE YOU IN COURT")
 
Looking at GOAL's positive changes list from the original H4121 - Holy Crap! Too early to celebrate, I know, but damn, I'm really happy with what's been accomplished so far!!

Question on one item
"We were successful in legalizing the purchase and possession of self defense sprays for anyone over 18 years of age."
Does this mean you don't even need an FID to buy pepper spray anymore?
 
as encouraged as I am, you know the house will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I'll bet a beer that they do not vote to concur, and force this to the committe. I'll bet another beer the committee already has the compromise drafted, and ready for the bum rush vote next week.

All that said, I would bet less than 1% of all the registered gun owners were responsible for creating this shift in the legislature so far. (cue Alice's restaurant music) Could you image what would happen if 250,000...I say 250,000 people a day called up, sang the second amendment blues and hung up? Friends, it would be revolution. The Mass sheeple take-your-government-back revolution, and you you have to do to join is DO SOMETHING!

I confess, I had too many beers at Smokestack for lunch today......
 
Rekonn said:
Looking at GOAL's positive changes list from the original H4121 - Holy Crap! Too early to celebrate, I know, but damn, I'm really happy with what's been accomplished so far!!

Question on one item
"We were successful in legalizing the purchase and possession of self defense sprays for anyone over 18 years of age."
Does this mean you don't even need an FID to buy pepper spray anymore?
Click to expand...

Yes, once the bill becomes law, no license will be required to purchase/possess unless the person is under 18. Baby steps.

- - - Updated - - -

Friday said:
as encouraged as I am, you know the house will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I'll bet a beer that they do not vote to concur, and force this to the committe. I'll bet another beer the committee already has the compromise drafted, and ready for the bum rush vote next week.

All that said, I would bet less than 1% of all the registered gun owners were responsible for creating this shift in the legislature so far. (cue Alice's restaurant music) Could you image what would happen if 250,000...I say 250,000 people a day called up, sang the second amendment blues and hung up? Friends, it would be revolution. The Mass sheeple take-your-government-back revolution, and you you have to do to join is DO SOMETHING!

I confess, I had too many beers at Smokestack for lunch today......
Click to expand...

You know what's weird? I just got an email, for the first time from my state rep (Peisch) who is as anti as they come. The email was putting a positive spin on the bill as if she is hoping to vote for it and not get hammered.
 
I don't think there will be any changes. When it gets to the house, they have a week. Any drastic changes (adding amendments) can delay that, and speaker, prez, and gov want this done. If it's changed, a committee will have to redraft a bill. That takes time. And, they will have to agree on it. Which, fortunately, we'll have allies on the 6 member panel. Hence, I think this gets rubber stamped, as is.
 
Just got an email from my senator, Senator Joyce. He was one of the 28 who voted to remove suitability for an FID. I think he is pretty sure that FID is suitability is not going to happen. We shall see.

Dear Neighbors,

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding recent gun safety legislation. I appreciate your input, and wanted you to know that I reviewed your comments.

As you likely know, the Senate debated and passed S.2265, An Act Relative to the reduction of gun violence on Thursday, June 18, after the bill was revised to reflect the areas upon which there was a consensus. I voted yes, as I believe that the final bill will help improve safety in the Commonwealth without putting undue burdens on gun owners.

An issue of particular concern expressed by gun owners was the provision allowing police discretion in issuing Firearm Identification Cards, which was removed from the bill.

The Senate bill contains provisions to tighten security and increase communication and training in events of emergency in our schools. School districts will be required to develop plans to more effectively address the mental health needs of students and faculty, including the potential need for emergency and acute treatment as a result of a tragedy or crisis.

The bill removes pepper spray and mace from the Firearms Identification Card requirements for those ages 18 or older, but still requires persons between the ages of 15 and 18 to obtain a firearms identification card, with the permission of a parent or guardian, to possess pepper spray. The bill enhances penalties for those possessing firearms illegally.

The Senate and House will now work to produce a compromise bill for final passage and consideration of the Governor.


Best,
Brian
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rekonn said:
Looking at GOAL's positive changes list from the original H4121 - Holy Crap! Too early to celebrate, I know, but damn, I'm really happy with what's been accomplished so far!!

Question on one item
"We were successful in legalizing the purchase and possession of self defense sprays for anyone over 18 years of age."
Does this mean you don't even need an FID to buy pepper spray anymore?
Click to expand...

Thanks to the good work you and many many others have done!!!
 
I'm going to send a very short email per the action alert - let me know if this is right. Today is the first I've heard the word "concurrence" so I want to make sure I'm using it right.

Subject: Support S2265 Concurrence
Body:
Dear Representative Sean Garballey:

Please support S2265 with a positive vote when it comes up for concurrence.

Thanks,
Name and Address

 
Rekonn said:
I'm going to send a very short email per the action alert - let me know if this is right. Today is the first I've heard the word "concurrence" so I want to make sure I'm using it right.

Subject: Support S2265 Concurrence
Body:
Dear Representative Sean Garballey:

Please support S2265 with a positive vote when it comes up for concurrence.

Thanks,
Name and Address
Click to expand...
That sounds perfect. Short, to the point.
 
Friday said:
as encouraged as I am, you know the house will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I'll bet a beer that they do not vote to concur, and force this to the committe. I'll bet another beer the committee already has the compromise drafted, and ready for the bum rush vote next week.
Click to expand...

I'm far from an expert on parliamentary procedure, but my understanding is that the joint committee couldn't redraft, they can only agree to yank existing amendments or not. No new amendments and no new bill. My amateur prognostication is that this thing passes and is on the Governor's desk by next week.
 
why is everyone on here (me especially) under the impression that pepper spray was still FID only but GOAL and that rep say it's now not?

we were pretty on the ball on everything, how did we miss that?

also I agree that the house will not vote positively on this. FID suitability was DeLeo's baby
 
I personally feel - and this is just one man's opinion - that it's a major MAJOR mistake for any of us, GOAL, Jim, anyone...to "crow" or proclaim anything a "great day for the 2nd Amendment" blah blah.

Especially when this thing is still floating back and forth between chambers of that Golden upside-down urinal atop Beacon Hill...A place inhabited by at least 8 or 10 of the most dishonest, scurrilous, untrustworthy, scumballs I've ever met on this planet (and those are just the ones that I've met!!)

If it were me I wouldn't say ANYTHING that gives or even MIGHT possibly give, in any way, the Anti's the idea that we pro-2A citizens have "won" anything in their looney, left-wing, liberal, communist, wingnut hellhole that they call home.

I would have, instead, been "crying" about how this bill falls FAR short of what GOAL and/or the NRA is seeking here. I would be absolutely LIVID about Section ______ (whatever, fill in the blank with something that the Libs wouldn't even understand, maybe something about "supressors" or whatever).

I would let them think we are HUGELY DISAPPOINTED in our legislature for having failed to _____ (whatever) and that we are "very disheartened" over _____ (some innocuous, irrelevant, non-2A related issue).

If the Starbucks crowd thinks they've "won" something, thinks that gun owners and 2A supporters are "unhappy and disheartened", the friggin' coffee there will be free for a week in celebration of their "win" (even though they really hadn't "won" anything).

I wouldn't "let them in" on anything, that we are "satisfied" or anything even remotely close. I'd just keep it "our secret". And, being Irish, I live by the old saying that my grandfather taught us many years ago: "Three people can keep a secret - if two of them are dead"......

I wouldn't even put anything on GOAL's website about this, nor anywhere else.

"Pleased"???
We'll be "pleased" when our gun laws are those of Arizona, Florida etc.
As of now, we are "furious over the passing of this legislation and....."

[wink]
 
Last edited:
mattyw said:
why is everyone on here (me especially) under the impression that pepper spray was still FID only but GOAL and that rep say it's now not?

we were pretty on the ball on everything, how did we miss that?

also I agree that the house will not vote positively on this. FID suitability was DeLeo's baby
Click to expand...
The FID removal is written into another part of the bill.
To the other point, DeLeo wants a bill. Moreso, he needs reps to start covering his backside, and this is a huge distraction from that. I'm thinking they he will let it go as is, to be done with it. He has a case to build right now, and this isn't helping ;)
 
jasons said:
I'm far from an expert on parliamentary procedure, but my understanding is that the joint committee couldn't redraft, they can only agree to yank existing amendments or not. No new amendments and no new bill. My amateur prognostication is that this thing passes and is on the Governor's desk by next week.
Click to expand...

Let me be not quite so subtle in my comments- This is grandstanding, so everybody looks like they gave it every effort, to appease the moonbats. The house does not concur, it goes to yet another layer of scrutiny (which is very likely predetermined in its outcome). and after another session of hand-wringing, out pops pretty much what we already have.

Libtards get to proclaim their vigilance and success, cause everybody gets a trophy these days, and they can can cast evil eyes upon the scornful NRA and unfaithful pols who dare to let the mere subjects determine their own destiny and government.

We,the NRA, and GOAL can go slap ourselves silly on actually making progress on a gun control bill.

ETA: In all of this, my experience has been that the Senate listens a bit more acutely than the House to its constituents.
 
Last edited:
Glockjock, good point, but look beyond this state. It's a huge slap in the face to the anti crowd. It's like our own co recall election. They spent millions here. They got all the press. Everything. Yet, we got all the anti stuff removed. This isn't like a Starbucks victory-this one hurt them. It shouldn't have happened here. But, at least so far, it did. And, even though the current bill increases safety, increases criminal penalties, etc-they're angry because we didn't lose our rights. That pretty much lays bare any claims of "its for safety, and not about guns". Nationally, this hurts them. Big time.
 
oldsoldier29 said:
Glockjock, good point, but look beyond this state. It's a huge slap in the face to the anti crowd. It's like our own co recall election. They spent millions here. They got all the press. Everything. Yet, we got all the anti stuff removed. This isn't like a Starbucks victory-this one hurt them. It shouldn't have happened here. But, at least so far, it did. And, even though the current bill increases safety, increases criminal penalties, etc-they're angry because we didn't lose our rights. That pretty much lays bare any claims of "its for safety, and not about guns". Nationally, this hurts them. Big time.
Click to expand...

Very well said, sir!
 
GlockJock said:
I personally feel - and this is just one man's opinion - that it's a major MAJOR mistake for any of us, GOAL, Jim, anyone...to "crow" or proclaim anything a "great day for the 2nd Amendment" blah blah.

Especially when this thing is still floating back and forth between chambers of that Golden upside-down urinal atop Beacon Hill...A place inhabited by at least 8 or 10 of the most dishonest, scurrilous, untrustworthy, scumballs I've ever met on this planet (and those are just the ones that I've met!!)

If it were me I wouldn't say ANYTHING that gives or even MIGHT possibly give, in any way, the Anti's the idea that we pro-2A citizens have "won" anything in their looney, left-wing, liberal, communist, wingnut hellhole that they call home.

I would have, instead, been "crying" about how this bill falls FAR short of what GOAL and/or the NRA is seeking here. I would be absolutely LIVID about Section ______ (whatever, fill in the blank with something that the Libs wouldn't even understand, maybe something about "supressors" or whatever).

I would let them think we are HUGELY DISAPPOINTED in our legislature for having failed to _____ (whatever) and that we are "very disheartened" over _____ (some innocuous, irrelevant, non-2A related issue).

If the Starbucks crowd thinks they've "won" something, thinks that gun owners and 2A supporters are "unhappy and disheartened", the friggin' coffee there will be free for a week in celebration of their "win" (even though they really hadn't "won" anything).

I wouldn't "let them in" on anything, that we are "satisfied" or anything even remotely close. I'd just keep it "our secret". And, being Irish, I live by the old saying that my grandfather taught us many years ago: "Three people can keep a secret - if two of them are dead"......

I wouldn't even put anything on GOAL's website about this, nor anywhere else.

"Pleased"???
We'll be "pleased" when our gun laws are those of Arizona, Florida etc.
As of now, we are "furious over the passing of this legislation and....."

[wink]
Click to expand...


I agree. Unfortunately they have already read our comments and reactions. Their internet transparency comes at a price...our transparency.
 
oldsoldier29 said:
Glockjock, good point, but look beyond this state. It's a huge slap in the face to the anti crowd. It's like our own co recall election. They spent millions here. They got all the press. Everything. Yet, we got all the anti stuff removed. This isn't like a Starbucks victory-this one hurt them. It shouldn't have happened here. But, at least so far, it did. And, even though the current bill increases safety, increases criminal penalties, etc-they're angry because we didn't lose our rights. That pretty much lays bare any claims of "its for safety, and not about guns". Nationally, this hurts them. Big time.
Click to expand...

I agree with you totally soldier....All I'm saying is we should be WAITING until the "Shelter in Place" Nitwit's signature is dry on the FINAL bill before declaring a "2nd Amendment Victory".

We'll have plenty of time to enjoy this, just don't be so quick to rub it in the tinfoils' faces, or the little Nitwit will veto the friggin' thing in its entirety and pull the State House Parking Pass from anyone who tries to override it.

Let the "new laws" become law, before "jumping the gun" (pun definitely intended) and open-carrying at our victory party outside the Boston Globe headquarters .... [smile]
 
Last edited:
And wait, we will. I, for one, am optimistic. Antis have folded up their tents and left. We keep calling and emailing our reps, until this is done, then we have a lot to be proud of. For now. Then, we work in the AWB silliness :).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Weapons Sales Forums.
2
Replies
41
Views
448
42!
42!
3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
T-Unit
T
Shooting At Northborough House Party Leaves One 16 Y/O Dead
2 3
Replies
78
Views
3K
MAGA99
MAGA99
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
4 5 6
Replies
151
Views
5K
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
Back
Top Bottom