Massachusetts Bill HD.4420 "An act to modernize gun Laws"

Correct.

Here's the relevant section from the HD.4420


This is similar language to the current language of 131M


So transfer and possession of legitimate pre-bans would still be possible. One needn't have personally possessed it in 94 to be safe.
Maybe it's my reading comprehension that is failing but, everything you posted says it must have been in your possession prior to the 94 ban in order to keep it.
 
I used chatgpt to write a letter, hit the whole committee, and so did about 6 other people here where I work, feel free to use it.

Dear Joint Committee on Public Safety,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed gun control measures outlined in House Bill HD. 4420 currently under consideration. As a concerned citizen and advocate for the preservation of our constitutional rights, I believe it is essential to voice my concerns regarding the potential negative impact these measures may have on law-abiding citizens.

First and foremost, I want to emphasize the importance of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The proposed bill appears to undermine this fundamental right by creating restrictions that would turn thousands of law abiding gun owners into felons overnight. It is crucial to recognize that responsible gun ownership is a cornerstone of our democratic society, allowing citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the proposed bill does not adequately address the root causes of gun violence and instead imposes burdensome restrictions on law-abiding citizens. We must focus our efforts on addressing mental health issues, improving access to quality education, and promoting community-based initiatives to prevent crime. Merely increasing regulations on law-abiding gun owners disproportionately affects those who adhere to the law, while criminals will continue to find ways to obtain firearms illegally.

It is also worth noting that Massachusetts already has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country. These existing laws have not only infringed upon the rights of law-abiding citizens but have also failed to effectively curb criminal activity. Instead of burdening responsible gun owners with additional regulations, we should focus on enforcing existing laws to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and ensuring effective penalties for those who commit crimes using firearms.

Moreover, I believe that the proposed bill overlooks the importance of self-defense and personal safety. Firearms provide an equalizing force for individuals who may be physically vulnerable, allowing them to protect themselves from harm. By limiting access to firearms and imposing additional hurdles on law-abiding citizens, we risk compromising the ability of individuals to defend themselves and their loved ones in dangerous situations.

Lastly, I would like to draw attention to the potential unintended consequences of stricter gun control measures. Studies have shown that areas with more restrictive gun laws often experience an increase in violent crime rates, as criminals are emboldened by the knowledge that law-abiding citizens are less likely to be armed. It is crucial to consider the potential impact on public safety and the individual's ability to protect themselves when evaluating proposed gun control measures.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge you to oppose any additional gun control measures outlined in House Bill HD. 4420. It is important to safeguard the rights of law-abiding citizens, preserve our constitutional liberties, and focus our efforts on addressing the root causes of violence. I trust that you will take into consideration the concerns expressed by your constituents and act in their best interests.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to further discuss this issue if you deem it appropriate. It is through open dialogue and collaboration that we can find effective and balanced solutions to the challenges we face as a society.

Sincerely,
 
TBH, I think these sort of "letters" fall on deaf ears. Personal opinion. I would write your own letter. "Hey, this is a bad bill. It punishes law abiding people for crimes committed or may-be-committed by criminals. This law will do zero to reduce the risk of a future shooting in Massachusetts yet will restrict the rights of thousands of gun owners. It would be best if this bill just quietly disappeared before it reached the floor and you are forced to vote on it."

Oh, and be sure to mention you are VOTING constituent. Not just some d-bag that wants to complain.
I sent a personal email to my Senator asking him if he is aware of/read the Bruen Decision and why he wants to make me a felon. I informed him the bill is illegal and will be challenged in court and asked him why he wants to waste Millions of taxpayer's money defending a bill that he knows will be struck down and no reply. My Rep is a left wing Socialist and she never replies.
 
I used chatgpt to write a letter, hit the whole committee, and so did about 6 other people here where I work, feel free to use it.

Dear Joint Committee on Public Safety,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed gun control measures outlined in House Bill HD. 4420 currently under consideration. As a concerned citizen and advocate for the preservation of our constitutional rights, I believe it is essential to voice my concerns regarding the potential negative impact these measures may have on law-abiding citizens.

First and foremost, I want to emphasize the importance of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The proposed bill appears to undermine this fundamental right by creating restrictions that would turn thousands of law abiding gun owners into felons overnight. It is crucial to recognize that responsible gun ownership is a cornerstone of our democratic society, allowing citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the proposed bill does not adequately address the root causes of gun violence and instead imposes burdensome restrictions on law-abiding citizens. We must focus our efforts on addressing mental health issues, improving access to quality education, and promoting community-based initiatives to prevent crime. Merely increasing regulations on law-abiding gun owners disproportionately affects those who adhere to the law, while criminals will continue to find ways to obtain firearms illegally.

It is also worth noting that Massachusetts already has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country. These existing laws have not only infringed upon the rights of law-abiding citizens but have also failed to effectively curb criminal activity. Instead of burdening responsible gun owners with additional regulations, we should focus on enforcing existing laws to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and ensuring effective penalties for those who commit crimes using firearms.

Moreover, I believe that the proposed bill overlooks the importance of self-defense and personal safety. Firearms provide an equalizing force for individuals who may be physically vulnerable, allowing them to protect themselves from harm. By limiting access to firearms and imposing additional hurdles on law-abiding citizens, we risk compromising the ability of individuals to defend themselves and their loved ones in dangerous situations.

Lastly, I would like to draw attention to the potential unintended consequences of stricter gun control measures. Studies have shown that areas with more restrictive gun laws often experience an increase in violent crime rates, as criminals are emboldened by the knowledge that law-abiding citizens are less likely to be armed. It is crucial to consider the potential impact on public safety and the individual's ability to protect themselves when evaluating proposed gun control measures.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge you to oppose any additional gun control measures outlined in House Bill HD. 4420. It is important to safeguard the rights of law-abiding citizens, preserve our constitutional liberties, and focus our efforts on addressing the root causes of violence. I trust that you will take into consideration the concerns expressed by your constituents and act in their best interests.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to further discuss this issue if you deem it appropriate. It is through open dialogue and collaboration that we can find effective and balanced solutions to the challenges we face as a society.

Sincerely,
Very nice letter but the Ma. critters are hardcore anti's and the only thing they understand is money, votes and threat of losing their namby, pamby jobs. They hate us with a passion and most of them would support the authority's going door to door and "relieving" us of our firearms and ammo. As we know this is about the Bruen decision and the threat to their authority.
 
I agree the taxes are slightly higher but again unless you’re on the sea coast the cost of living is low. Hell if you own a few hundred acres you could easily live almost free…..as I do 😉
Owning a few hundred acres ain’t scaleable for many of us hahaha but keep living that dream for us will ya?
 
Maybe it's my reading comprehension that is failing but, everything you posted says it must have been in your possession prior to the 94 ban in order to keep it.
I would try reading it again. The text is functionally identical.

Here's an abridged version of the relevant controlling phrases from the current law and the proposed bill

Chapter 140, Section 131M:
No person shall [...] sell [...] an assault weapon [...] that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.

HD.4420:
No person may [...] sell [...] an assault-style firearm [...] that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.


If a so-called "assault weapon" was lawfully possessed on 9/13/94, one can "sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess" it.
Similarly, if a so-called "assault-style firearm" was lawfully possessed on 9/13/94, one will be able to "possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer [it] in the commonwealth or import [it] into the commonwealth."
 
I used chatgpt to write a letter, hit the whole committee, and so did about 6 other people here where I work, feel free to use it.

Dear Joint Committee on Public Safety,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed gun control measures outlined in House Bill HD. 4420 currently under consideration. As a concerned citizen and advocate for the preservation of our constitutional rights, I believe it is essential to voice my concerns regarding the potential negative impact these measures may have on law-abiding citizens.

First and foremost, I want to emphasize the importance of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The proposed bill appears to undermine this fundamental right by creating restrictions that would turn thousands of law abiding gun owners into felons overnight. It is crucial to recognize that responsible gun ownership is a cornerstone of our democratic society, allowing citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their property.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the proposed bill does not adequately address the root causes of gun violence and instead imposes burdensome restrictions on law-abiding citizens. We must focus our efforts on addressing mental health issues, improving access to quality education, and promoting community-based initiatives to prevent crime. Merely increasing regulations on law-abiding gun owners disproportionately affects those who adhere to the law, while criminals will continue to find ways to obtain firearms illegally.

It is also worth noting that Massachusetts already has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country. These existing laws have not only infringed upon the rights of law-abiding citizens but have also failed to effectively curb criminal activity. Instead of burdening responsible gun owners with additional regulations, we should focus on enforcing existing laws to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and ensuring effective penalties for those who commit crimes using firearms.

Moreover, I believe that the proposed bill overlooks the importance of self-defense and personal safety. Firearms provide an equalizing force for individuals who may be physically vulnerable, allowing them to protect themselves from harm. By limiting access to firearms and imposing additional hurdles on law-abiding citizens, we risk compromising the ability of individuals to defend themselves and their loved ones in dangerous situations.

Lastly, I would like to draw attention to the potential unintended consequences of stricter gun control measures. Studies have shown that areas with more restrictive gun laws often experience an increase in violent crime rates, as criminals are emboldened by the knowledge that law-abiding citizens are less likely to be armed. It is crucial to consider the potential impact on public safety and the individual's ability to protect themselves when evaluating proposed gun control measures.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge you to oppose any additional gun control measures outlined in House Bill HD. 4420. It is important to safeguard the rights of law-abiding citizens, preserve our constitutional liberties, and focus our efforts on addressing the root causes of violence. I trust that you will take into consideration the concerns expressed by your constituents and act in their best interests.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to further discuss this issue if you deem it appropriate. It is through open dialogue and collaboration that we can find effective and balanced solutions to the challenges we face as a society.

Sincerely,

I am glad you contacted them, thank you. But I would note something I see with these AI generated letters, they are high on platitudes and light on direct references to the elements of the bill and how they will impact you and people like you.

Not a criticism just hopefully a constructive observation.

Again thank you.

🐯
 
I would try reading it again. The text is functionally identical.

Here's an abridged version of the relevant controlling phrases from the current law and the proposed bill

Chapter 140, Section 131M:
No person shall [...] sell [...] an assault weapon [...] that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.

HD.4420:
No person may [...] sell [...] an assault-style firearm [...] that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.


If a so-called "assault weapon" was lawfully possessed on 9/13/94, one can "sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess" it.
Similarly, if a so-called "assault-style firearm" was lawfully possessed on 9/13/94, one will be able to "possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer [it] in the commonwealth or import [it] into the commonwealth."
Thx!
So, it doesn't matter WHO owned it, as long as it was owned by SOMEBODY on 9/13/94?
How the hell is that proven? lol
I'd assume the burden would be on the current owner to prove that?
...not that I'd expect you to know the answers to those questions...
 
forgive the nature of this, I had to glean multiple sources and years of data. I hope someone with a better understanding of how to market these points to both legal and non-legal audiences can shine it up. That said, here are some interesting facts that might make some law makers start to think that our current laws might be good enough (no you can't have what I'm taking)

I can't vouch 'for in 2023', since I don't know exactly when those figures were determined, but they should be good enough for debate points.
In Massachusetts, the rate of gun deaths stayed the same from 2011 to 2020, compared to a 33% increase nationwide. The rate of gun suicides increased 6% and gun homicides decreased 6% compared to a 12% increase and 70% increase nationwide, respectively

Last available year for suicide data (2015) 631 total

Only 111 /631 were by gun or 18%

In Massachusetts, 56% of gun deaths are suicides and 41% are homicides but only 18% of suicides are by gun, not gonna do much about that, they find a way -> 51% were by hanging or suffocation. And you only need a single shot weapon to do so anyway.

Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2021, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328), while 43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were accidental (549), involved law enforcement (537) or had undetermined circumstances (458).

Massachusetts has the 42nd highest rate of gun homicides and gun assaults in the US.

Massachusetts has the second lowest rate of gun violence in the US

Massachusetts has the lowest societal cost of gun violence in the US



In Massachusetts, 65% of all homicides involve a gun, compared to 76% nationwide but

There were ‘only’ 157 TOTAL homicides in Massachusetts in 2023 so far, or about 100 by gun (less than the daily rate of the rest of the country)



So far in 2023

26,000 total homicides

184 mass shootings / 248 deaths and 744 injuries/

13,960 total guns deaths/115 day - this is more than all of Massachusetts YTD

The majority of these deaths have occurred in Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois and Louisiana.

66 suicides a day or 57% or 8,011

13,960 x 43% = 6002 gun homicides vs 26,031 total or less than 24% of all homicides were by gun

248/26000= Less than 1% of homicides were mass shootings

There are NO statistics related gun deaths to licensed vs unlicensed shooters
Based on this analysis, you and I would be friends. People say that it's all about feelings and facts no longer count in comparison. My experience is that data doesn't lie and sometimes you need to choke them with facts until they can't help but acknowledge them. Remember, if brute force isn't working, then you aren't using enough.
 
Maybe it's my reading comprehension that is failing but, everything you posted says it must have been in your possession prior to the 94 ban in order to keep it.
no, your reading comprehension is failing you. it says "lawfully possessed," it doesn't state by whom, just that the stuff was "lawfully possessed."
 
Just off my second call with an actual human in government. Very pleasant conversation (nothing committal from them of course but they did emphasize the bill will be in revision cycles). They suggested calling the Judiciary Committee @ 617-722-2396. Again, I'm going to recommend a cool headed approach emphasizing the most relatable concerns: Cost to implement. Cost to defend in the courts. Missed opportunities to do other more immediate good (Mental health, community outreach, the 'breach of promise' vs the 2016 memo, major pragmatic problems with implementation for both the state and us as individuals as currently framed etc..) And, or course, that we get as MANY calls in as we can.
 
Thx!
So, it doesn't matter WHO owned it, as long as it was owned by SOMEBODY on 9/13/94?
How the hell is that proven? lol
The easy lift is to get born on date info from the manufacturer. Obviously, this only works if they are still in business and willing to help. So Colt is probably easier than some small shop that shuttered in 2000, which would still be easier than an 80% build. That PSA in the safe? Right out.

I'd assume the burden would be on the current owner to prove that?
Philosophically, it's always on the state. Practically speaking, this will become an affirmative defense to show the item in question was "otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994."

...not that I'd expect you to know the answers to those questions...
Giving you my best SWAG is more interesting than working, though. :)

He said if it's purchased after 1994. That's the part I don't believe is correct.
Right. It can be NOS discovered in a warehouse this morning. If it was "otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994" it's good to go.
 
Based on this analysis, you and I would be friends. People say that it's all about feelings and facts no longer count in comparison. My experience is that data doesn't lie and sometimes you need to choke them with facts until they can't help but acknowledge them. Remember, if brute force isn't working, then you aren't using enough.
This is all GREAT but to be most effective when sending emails, citing sources, especially if it's state sources, is enormously important.
 
All these “but the Constitution seyz” letters are going to make great rolling papers for the cigars the antis are going to smoke when this passes.

If you want to write an impactful letter, personalize it and make it concise. Again, some concepts to build upon:

- the burden on police departments; difficulty to interpret and training cost

- the added burden on the court systems for gun-owners unknowingly becoming felons; disproportionately affecting older citizens

- further erosion of trust between communities and their police departments

- cost of legal challenges

- disproportionately affects women and minorities, the fastest growing cc demo

- “outside money” affecting local communities

Offer to meet or discuss concerns.
 
Very nice letter but the Ma. critters are hardcore anti's and the only thing they understand is money, votes and threat of losing their namby, pamby jobs. They hate us with a passion and most of them would support the authority's going door to door and "relieving" us of our firearms and ammo. As we know this is about the Bruen decision and the threat to their authority.
I get that, but if enough people put pressure on them maybe we can get this bill to stall out.
 
I am glad you contacted them, thank you. But I would note something I see with these AI generated letters, they are high on platitudes and light on direct references to the elements of the bill and how they will impact you and people like you.

Not a criticism just hopefully a constructive observation.

Again thank you.

🐯
I agree, I could take the time to reference the bill, but the whole bill is shit, chatgpt wrote it so its basically the same meaningless crap and buzzwords they use to push their agenda. They probably aren't going to read it anyway so let it clog up the works and it didn't take more than a couple minutes out of my day to write something that probably won't be read.
 
I word smithed my 'background' somewhat and sent it to my reps. They said thank you and you're welcome to call. We'll see if they actually pay attention and respond in a meaningful fashion.
 
Here is my note I just free-wrote, Anyone can copy and paste if they so choose

re- Bill HD.4420 - An Act modernizing firearm laws

Representative Berthiaume

As a loyal constituent of yours, I feel compelled to take a moment and voice my concerns over the language in the above proposed piece of legislation making its way through the legislature in Boston. I assume you are aware of the extreme limits its aiming to place on law abiding gun owners so I wont bother rehashing to you the many concerns I have but I will ask that you protect my and many other of your constituents rights as law abiding citizens of this commonwealth and vote AGAINST such legislation. This is an extreme law set to only punish legal gun owners. It fails miserably at focusing on other ways to make our streets and cities safe. Virtually all the gun crime in this state is done by criminals who could care less about gun laws. HD.4420 would not improve the safety of our towns and cities, it would simply, with a stroke of a pen, make thousands of your constituents criminals overnight.

I would encourage any opportunity to further discuss my concerns if you need additional clarity from me. Please don't hesitate to reach back out. I trust I have your support in this matter.

Sincerely
Lxpony (name redacted)
This is the only response I have received so far.

Good afternoon,

Thank you for reaching out to our office.

As a licensed gun owner who supports the second amendment, Senator Fattman is strongly opposed to HD4420. Thank you for your advocacy on this matter, and feel free to reach out should you have any further questions or concerns.

All the best,

Josh



Joshua J. Tavares | Senior Legislative Aide

Senator Ryan Fattman | Worcester and Hampden

Massachusetts State House | Room 213-A

24 Beacon Street | Boston, MA 02133

Office: 617-722-1420 x1425
 
Do not make the mistake of underestimating the value of the FA-10 database to those in power who would bankrupt and imprison us. It is not about identifying a particular gun. It is all about identifying those who dare to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the leftist pol's Communist dictatorship-like state.
And remember how easy it was to see people who “owned” multiple scary guns on that list.
 
TBH, I think these sort of "letters" fall on deaf ears. Personal opinion. I would write your own letter. "Hey, this is a bad bill. It punishes law abiding people for crimes committed or may-be-committed by criminals. This law will do zero to reduce the risk of a future shooting in Massachusetts yet will restrict the rights of thousands of gun owners. It would be best if this bill just quietly disappeared before it reached the floor and you are forced to vote on it."

Oh, and be sure to mention you are VOTING constituent. Not just some d-bag that wants to complain.
And that You will vote these people out if they vote for this BS!
 
This sample was given by my club and sent to my local rep Kimberly Ferguson.

Her response was encouraging but the proposal is still of concern. Nothing to worry about until it is law. We all know this will not hold in court and hopefully blows up in the state's face. All we can do is continue to be law abiding and continue to exercise our rights and raise awareness to those who are not paying attention.

Thank you for your email regarding HD4420. I appreciate your comments. Although I am still trying to decipher this complex bill, I, too, have many concerns about it. At this time, I am awaiting the public hearing which has yet to be set, but I certainly have many more questions than answers. If the bill was put to a vote today, I would not be supporting it.

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear
Regarding HD.4420

I am writing you to request that you, as my elected representative, oppose HD.4420.

HD.4420 is ambiguous, unenforceable, and subject to interpretation. Below are just some of the undesirable results for licensed firearm owners and prospective applicants, educators, and retailers:

  • Restrict educational and recreation opportunities
  • Create significant challenges for uniform law enforcement
  • Increase the difficulty to understand all requirements, thus increasing the risk of
    becoming unintended felons and federally prohibited persons
  • Increase the risk of accidental injuries or deaths by preventing our youth from receiving safety training and education at an early age
    HD.4420 will not have any impact on reducing firearm related crimes because criminals do not follow laws.
    I strongly urge you to oppose HD.2240, and also H.2365, H.2361, H.2366, H.1619, H.1619, S.1529. Sincerely,
    ___________________________ Name
    ____________________________________ Street
    ____________________________ _______ City Zip
 
Back
Top Bottom