S 2265 (aka HB4285, 4278, 4121) out of Senate Ways and Means (FID Suitability)

Looks like the web portal license check for FTF transfers doesn't take effect until March 1, 2015.

Could even occur later than that if they don't have their shit together in time...

SECTION 101. Sections 26 and 27 shall take effect on March 1, 2015; provided, however, that the chief information officer of the commonwealth, in conjunction with the secretary of public safety and security, shall procure any necessary information technology services to implement the real time web portal pursuant to said section 27 by October 1, 2014
.
 
Looks like the web portal license check for FTF transfers doesn't take effect until March 1, 2015.

Could even occur later than that if they don't have their shit together in time...

.
can NES try and win the contract for the portal? then deliver a shitty project and get paid 30mil to cancel the contract, just like the state healthcare website?
 
Uh oh. It looks like they want to register the sale of large cap feeding devices?

SECTION 26. Section 128A of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by
395 striking out, in lines 26 to 38, inclusive, the words “; and provided, further, that such resident 96 reports within seven days, in writing to the commissioner of the department of criminal justice
397 information services on forms furnished by said executive director, the names and addresses of
398 the seller and the purchaser of any such large capacity feeding device, firearm, rifle or shotgun,
399 together with a complete description of the firearm, rifle or shotgun, including its designation as
400 a large capacity weapon, if applicable, the calibre, make and serial number and the purchaser's
401 license to carry firearms number, permit to purchase number and identifying number of such
402 documentation as is used to establish exempt person status in the case of a firearm or the
403 purchaser's license to carry number or firearm identification card number or said document
404 identity number, in the case of a rifle or shotgun”.
 
This language actually helps us, I think? No reasonable ground is a fairly good standard.

Any applicant or holder aggrieved by a denial, revocation, suspension or restriction placed on
814 a license, unless a hearing has previously been held pursuant to chapter 209A, may, within either
815 90 days after receiving notice of the denial, revocation or suspension or within 90 days after the
816 expiration of the time limit during which the licensing authority shall respond to the applicant or,
817 in the case of a restriction, any time after a restriction is placed on the license pursuant to this
818 section, file a petition to obtain judicial review in the district court having jurisdiction in the city
819 or town in which the applicant filed the application or in which the license was issued. If after a 820 hearing a justice of the court finds that there was no reasonable ground for denying, suspending,
821 revoking or restricting
the license and that the petitioner is not prohibited by law from possessing
822 a license, the justice may order a license to be issued or reinstated to the petitioner or may order
823 the licensing authority to remove certain restrictions placed on the license
.
 
can NES try and win the contract for the portal? then deliver a shitty project and get paid 30mil to cancel the contract, just like the state healthcare website?

Why bother... the State is perfectly capable of ****ing it up even worse on their own than we could ever do on purpose.

Look at how they mismanaged and screwed up the eFA-10's.
 
This just in...

GOAL has learned that a new version of the gun bill is being fast tracked through the Massachusetts State Senate.

The bill is now known as S.2265 and will be on the Senate floor for debate/vote this Thursday, July 17th.

Please call your State Senator TODAY and ask them to oppose this legislation as written.

The current version of the bill now has 105 sections, it has become a behemoth!

In particular we are opposed to multiple sections regarding suitability for FID cards, egregious changes to C140 s129D regarding seized firearms, and poorly written language regarding the legalization of Pepper Spray/Mace.

We are still going through the bill and will post more information soon.

Please note that amendments are due before 5:00 pm tomorrow, so please encourage your Senator to input changes without haste.
 
This just in...

In particular we are opposed to multiple sections regarding suitability for FID cards, egregious changes to C140 s129D regarding seized firearms, and poorly written language regarding the legalization of Pepper Spray/Mace.

Ugh, leave it to MA to screw up removing a law.

Please note that amendments are due before 5:00 pm tomorrow, so please encourage your Senator to input changes without haste.


We need to get some bullet points ASAP. I won't have time to go through the text myself before tomorrow so any suggested changes or comments to senators are helpful.

 
Can someone elaborate on what GOAL is talking about? What specifically is wrong with the pepper spray portion and the seized guns part?
 
HB4285 (aka 4278, 4121) Going to the Senate (FID Suitability)

I just had a 12 minute conversation with Shawn Collins in Senator Richard T. Moore's office.

He is in the middle of reviewing the bill at the Senator's request, has discussed same with GOAL, and voiced support for the concerns noted by GOAL and also by me as follows. He took note of these and will be considering them in their response to the committee.

Section 87: this still leaves open the possibility that an air propelled BB gun can be considered a firearm. I recommended language setting a reasonable threshold specific to muscle energy, such as is used in most European firearms laws.

Section 70: unacceptable that they want to transmit to NICS information regarding expired 209A orders.

Also reiterated my assertion that FID cards should not be subject to suitability judgments, and my concern that changes to the storage laws will result in confiscation without due process. He actually articulated well the concern that any kind of "suitability" guidelines expose lawful gun owners to the slippery slope of how they will be interpreted in the future.

He also agreed that the pepper spray language is unnecessarily convoluted and should be revisited to more clearly deregulate its purchase and possession.
 
Can someone elaborate on what GOAL is talking about? What specifically is wrong with the pepper spray portion and the seized guns part?

Paul, not being flip, here's the language, I'm sure you'll see the issues

Pepper Spray:

Section 122D. No person shall purchase or possess self-defense spray who:
(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child as defined in section 52 of chapter 119 for the commission of: (A) a felony; (B) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years; (C) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (D) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (E) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession or sale of a controlled substance as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C including, but not limited to, a violation under said chapter 94C; provided, however, that except for the commission of a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances, if the person has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever occurs last, for 5 or more years immediately preceding the purchase or possession, that person may purchase or possess self-defense spray;
(ii) in another state or federal jurisdiction, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of: (A) a felony; (B) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years; (C) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (D) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (E) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession or sale of a controlled substance as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C; provided, however, that, except for the commission of a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of weapons or controlled substances, if the person has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever occurs last, for 5 or more years immediately preceding the purchase or possession and that applicant's right or ability to possess a rifle or shotgun has been fully restored in the jurisdiction wherein the subject conviction or adjudication was entered, then that person may purchase or possess self-defense spray;

(iii) has been committed to any hospital or institution for mental illness unless the person obtains, prior to purchase or possession, an affidavit of a registered physician attesting that such physician is familiar with the applicant's mental illness and that in the physician's opinion the applicant is not disabled by such an illness in a manner that should prevent the applicant from possessing self-defense spray;

(iv) is or has been under treatment for or committed based upon a finding that the person is a person with an alcohol use disorder or a substance abuser, or both unless a licensed physician deems such person to be cured of such condition, in which case, such person may purchase or possess self-defense spray after 5 years from the date of such confinement or treatment; provided, however, that prior to such purchase or possession of self-defense spray, the applicant shall submit an affidavit issued by a licensed physician attesting that such physician knows the person’s history of treatment and that in that physician's opinion the applicant is deemed cured;

(v) at the time of the application, is younger than 15 years of age;

(vi) at the time of the application, is at least 15 years of age but less than 18 years of age unless the applicant submits with the application a certificate from the applicant’s parent or guardian granting the applicant permission to apply for a card;

(vii) is an alien who does not maintain lawful permanent residency;

(viii) is currently subject to: (1) an order for suspension or surrender issued pursuant to section 3B or 3C of chapter 209A or section 7 of chapter 258E; or (2) a permanent or temporary protection order issued pursuant to chapter 209A or section 7 of chapter 258E; or

(ix) is currently the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction.

Whoever purchases or possesses self-defense spray in violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 years or both such fine and imprisonment.

The proposed change to the seized firearms/storage law will, among other things, remove a persons ability to have their seized firearms (personal property) transferred to a duly licensed individual. It will also tweak the law so that the seizing authority can sell/profit from the siezure of arms/ammo.
 
Can someone elaborate on what GOAL is talking about? What specifically is wrong with the pepper spray portion and the seized guns part?

SECTION 40. Said section 129D of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word “means”, in line 21, the following words:- and at any time, including weapons involved in a domestic violence case under chapter 209A,.

Present law:
The licensing authority, after taking possession of any firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or ammunition by any means, may transfer possession of such weapon for storage purposes to a federally and state licensed dealer of such weapons and ammunition who operates a bonded warehouse on the licensed premises that is equipped with a safe for the secure storage of firearms and a weapon box or similar container for the secure storage of other weapons and ammunition; provided,
 
Also reiterated my assertion that FID cards should not be subject to suitability judgments, and my concern that changes to the storage laws will result in confiscation without due process. He actually articulated well the concern that any kind of "suitability" guidelines expose lawful gun owners to the slippery slope of how they will be interpreted in the future.

He also agreed that the pepper spray language is unnecessarily convoluted and should be revisited to more clearly deregulate its purchase and possession.

One thing that strikes me whenever I try to read these bills is that the very idea of "ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law" is absolute BS. How is a lay person supposed to be able to understand MGL in a real and meaningful way? There ought to be a movement for plain english in crafting laws. Of course, lawyers would object to that.
 
Sorry, late to the party.

So basically, whatever all the committees worked and agreed on, now the Senators change it?!
 
The whole "self defense spray" thing is so complex that it would seem that the intent is to make licensed seller of ammunition so skittish that they will opt to require a FID or LTC. The language of prohibitions is very similar to the disqualifiers for an LTC and proposed disqualifiers for a FID.

This is interesting,

The licensing authority, at its discretion, may at any time, trade or dispose of surplus, 636 donated, abandoned or junk firearms, rifles, shotguns or machine guns and ammunition to 637 properly licensed distributors or firearms dealers with the proceeds of the sale or transfer being 638 remitted or credited to the local police department in the municipality in which the licensing 639 authority presides to purchase weapons or related law enforcement equipment or supplies.

Not that I expect many will, but some chiefs must want to be able to do this.

Is this new?

This would seem to be different than the language in lines 610-640, which are subject to interpretation and possibly abuse. Very concerning.

SECTION 47. Said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further 712 amended by striking out paragraph (d) and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:- 713
(d) Any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing
714 authority or any law enforcement officer employed by the licensing authority or any person
715 residing in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction located within a city or town may submit to
716 the licensing authority or the colonel of state police, an application for a Class A license to carry
717 firearms, or renewal of the same, which the licensing authority or the colonel may issue if it
718 appears that the applicant is not a prohibited person, as set forth in this section, to be issued a
719 license and has good reason to fear injury to the applicant or the applicant’s property or for any
720 other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only, subject to
721 the restrictions expressed or authorized under this section.

Not that it really matters much, because I expect that the colonel of state police will just turf it back to the local chief.
 
Can someone elaborate on what GOAL is talking about? What specifically is wrong with the pepper spray portion and the seized guns part?

From my reading of the bill - and I really hope I am wrong - they have moved pepper spray out of the ammo category and into a newly created "defensive spray" category, but it still requires an FID and has all the same restrictions as before. In effect, they did nothing.

The siezed guns portion removes the ability to transfer your property to someone else and gives the state permission to sell them and pocket the money.

Someone please tell me I read that incorrectly.
 
SECTION 40. Said section 129D of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word “means”, in line 21, the following words:- and at any time, including weapons involved in a domestic violence case under chapter 209A,.

Present law:

Excellent. Thanks (and thanks Mike S).
 
This is interesting,


The licensing authority, at its discretion, may at any time, trade or dispose of surplus, 636 donated, abandoned or junk firearms, rifles, shotguns or machine guns and ammunition to 637 properly licensed distributors or firearms dealers with the proceeds of the sale or transfer being 638 remitted or credited to the local police department in the municipality in which the licensing 639 authority presides to purchase weapons or related law enforcement equipment or supplies.

Not that I expect many will, but some chiefs must want to be able to do this.


The way I'm reading that, it could mean firearms turned in to gun buybacks, could be sold by the "licensing authority" to

distributors/FFL's so they can be resold to the public... IOW, 'returned to the streets'.

The anti's won't be pleased with that prospect.
 
Nice process. Give a year of sporatic hearings then some BS to make it seem they are fixing only to jam it thru im 2 days...sweet.

Sent from the blind
 
This process of H.4121 morphing into S.2265 clearly demonstrates that the fine folks on Beacon Hill have no clue what they want to enact with regards to "gun control", but they want to enact something. There is no focus whatsoever. One day it's expansion of "suitability" and then they do an about-face and get all crazy about pepper spray again.

Essentially they want to grab whatever their slimy little hands can grab. If night sights or picatinny rails could be made illegal, they would take it in a heartbeat. Un-F'ing-believable.

I hope the rest of the USA gets a good look at what's going on in MA. This should be a clear signal to the other 49 states that once freedom is lost, it ain't coming back.
 
SECTION 56. "Said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in lines 317 to 320, inclusive, the words “meaning after 90 days beyond the stated expiration date on the license, but who shall not be disqualified from renewal upon application therefor under this section, shall be subject to a civil fine of not less than $500” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- not including licenses that remain valid under paragraph (i) because the licensee applied for renewal before the license expired, but who shall not be disqualified from renewal upon application therefor pursuant to this section, shall be subject to a civil fine of not less than $100."


Didn't we try to do away with penalties for carrying beyond the 90 day grace period???
 
Called Senator Montigny's office, the woman that answered wrote down my concerns she said that they have been getting a lot of calls on this and that the senator will have our comments when he goes in to vote.....
she said that they hadn't had the chance to read it yet, i commented on the fast-tracking this thing is getting and how it was "ridiculous" she said that it was because it's the speaker's bill and my comment that he is also ridiculous was well met by her

i've met Mark a few times while i was in HS and he was just getting started and he seems like a reasonable and fair guy..... we'll see....
he told me when NY was going full retard that if and when MA started to go FR (my words) he would look at both sides, do the research and make a decision on his own without influence from either side..... i guess that's the best you can ask for.... could've just been blowing smoke, we'll see....
 
Back
Top Bottom