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

PaulD said:
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.
Click to expand...

[rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl]

A state for the lawyers, by the lawyers, run by the lawyers, benefits...?

You guessed it!

That is why I typically jump all over people when they talk about "Interpreting" the Constitution. That $hit is written in plain English. Our laws these days are written in legalese that only someone with a JD can understand!

You are correct that the laws should be written in plain English so that average people understand.
 
Squib308 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are so right.

It is unbelievable how asinine the legislative practice has become. Talk about a bunch of complete idiots running this state. Holy shit. It's like they have ADD. Oh look shiny thing...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
PaulD said:
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.
Click to expand...
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
James Madison


Emailed my rep again, calling when I am done pooping
 
Last edited:
30Mauser said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a feature, not a bug. It's in the current law. Spitballs fit the definition and air soft guns have been prosecuted under the law. Yes, it is already this bad here. Regardless, the term "weapon" is a catchall that would get a BB gun or anything they want to get under the law.

30Mauser said:
Section 70: unacceptable that they want to transmit to NICS information regarding expired 209A orders.
Click to expand...

So, once they expire you want them to be forever in NICS barring sales?

GOAL sent a list of talking points. I would suggest people use them.
 
terraformer said:
GOAL sent a list of talking points. I would suggest people use them.
Click to expand...

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.

Talking points:

Oppose - Expansion of suitability to the issuance of FID cards. Currently there is no evidence that the suitability clause does anything to prevent or reduce crime. Giving MA chiefs of police more power over an already widely abused law is not acceptable.

Oppose - Pepper Spray Language as written. This langauge is very convoluted and needlessly restrictive. Pepper Spray/Mace shouldn't be regulated any more than common Wasp/Bee insect repellant sprays are. GOAL is currently working with the Senate to replace the current language with Rep. Kim Ferguson's H.4038. Please encourage your Senator to support this change! Reminder: MA is the ONLY state in the country that requires a license to purchase/possess pepper spray/mace.

Oppose - Changes to MA Firearms Firearms Seizure laws (MGL c140 - s129D). The proposal would now deny a person who has his/her firearms seized the ability to have the firearms (pesonal property) transferred within 10 days to a lawfully licensed individual of their designation. Instead the seizing authority would keep them, sell them after a year and profit from the sale! For more on the current law, see GOAL's page here.

Please note that amendments are due before 5:00 pm tomorrow, so please encourage your Senator to input changes ASAP.

Contact your State Senator here.
 
terraformer said:
That's a feature, not a bug. It's in the current law. Spitballs fit the definition and air soft guns have been prosecuted under the law. Yes, it is already this bad here. Regardless, the term "weapon" is a catchall that would get a BB gun or anything they want to get under the law. .
Click to expand...

I knew that, but like the alien wording it's an opportunity to fix it.

.
So, once they expire you want them to be forever in NICS barring sales?

GOAL sent a list of talking points. I would suggest people use them.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of that being the point of transmitting expirations. The abuse and lack of due process around 209a irks me to no end.
 
Sent this to all of the Senators and called their offices.

Dear Senator XXXXX,
I urge you to vote against the bill but you also need to fight the following three amendments. This flawed legislation will probably pass but the following three amendments need to be thrown out. Please make every effort to see this is done.

Oppose - Expansion of suitability to the issuance of FID cards. Currently there is no evidence that the suitability clause does anything to prevent or reduce crime. Giving MA chiefs of police more power over an already widely abused law is not acceptable.

Oppose - Pepper Spray Language as written. This language is very convoluted and needlessly restrictive. Pepper Spray/Mace shouldn't be regulated any more than common Wasp/Bee insect repellant sprays are. GOAL is currently working with the Senate to replace the current language with Rep. Kim Ferguson's H.4038. Please encourage your Senator to support this change! Reminder: MA is the ONLY state in the country that requires a license to purchase/possess pepper spray/mace.

Oppose - Changes to MA Firearms Firearms Seizure laws (MGL c140 - s129D). The proposal would now deny a person who has his/her firearms seized the ability to have the firearms (pesonal property) transferred within 10 days to a lawfully licensed individual of their designation. Instead the seizing authority would keep them, sell them after a year and profit from the sale! For more on the current law, see
Thanks You!
XXXXXXX
 
terraformer said:
GOAL sent a list of talking points. I would suggest people use them.
Click to expand...

Are these the three worst issues in the bill? I am at work and am trying to sneak glances at the bill. Haven't gone through the whole thing yet.

Are there any other amendments/modifications that are particularly egregious?
 
I know this thread is now on the senate portion. But.....I received a response from my rep DiZoglia and I liked her response. She may get my vote when she is up for re-election. Anyway.....she voted no and I thanked her in an email and asked her reasoning behind the no vote....response below:

I felt we were in a rush to pass legislation that legislators received insufficient time to read over in detail. Given my strong concerns with the restrictions in the prior legislation, I was inclined to vote no on the revised bill. As for what may happen on the Senate side, should they take the legislation up in the future, it is possible additional amendments may be added on, thus again revising the bill. I would suggest reaching out to your Senator, Kathleen O’Connor Ives, if you have any questions or concerns about what may happen with the gun bill on the Senate side. Her office’s number is 617-722-1604.

As always, never hesitate to let me know if you have questions or need assistance on this or any other issue.

Best,

Diana
 
Can someone school me on what generally happens when two very different versions of a bill passed in their respective chambers get "modified" in conference committee???

I'm putting pressure on my state senator right now just like everyone else is, but I have to wonder what typically happens when a 125-section bill passed in one chamber has to be reconciled with a bill that passed in the other chamber with just 85 sections.

Does only the "common" language survive, or does the committee basically have free reign to pretty much do whatever the hell it wants?
 
sevenMMmag said:
Are these the three worst issues in the bill? I am at work and am trying to sneak glances at the bill. Haven't gone through the whole thing yet.

Are there any other amendments/modifications that are particularly egregious?
Click to expand...

they are the most glaring and probably the most egregious ones that need amending before it is released to the floor if possible, and the deadline for amendments in the ways and means committee is tomorrow at 5pm
 
inerlogic said:
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....
Click to expand...


RIIIGHT!! Ignore your constituents, and vote for what YOU think is best for us!!
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
So what does this have to do with H.4285? We need to deal now with what is currently before the legislature. What may or may not happen in the future with a new Governor, new AG, etc. isn't actionable today. What I do know is that if DeLeo can't claim credit for doing something, gun control WILL be on the legislative agenda next term. In it's current form, H.4285 has a number of important, but subtle changes which will benefit every gun owner in Massachusetts and no major shortcomings that can't be address elsewhere. We won't get another chance like this to come out on top.
Click to expand...

I need help understanding this.
Not being belligerent believe me, I respect the work you guys do.
But how does allowing the same chiefs that abuse the system now, power to strip you of all gun rights benefit us?
We get hung up on ltc's here alot, but there are plenty of people who have no interest in handguns or carrying in this state.
They basicly can just zero out any firearms ownership in their town.
If your denied an fid , your sure as hell not getting an ltc
Yes you can appeal, you always could take it to court, provided you have the money.
No doubt once it starts Comm2a will take it to court, and probably , hopefully win.
In a few years.
Am I being dense and missing the upside?
 
Dadstoys said:
I need help understanding this.
Not being belligerent believe me, I respect the work you guys do.
But how does allowing the same chiefs that abuse the system now, power to strip you of all gun rights benefit us?
We get hung up on ltc's here alot, but there are plenty of people who have no interest in handguns or carrying in this state.
They basicly can just zero out any firearms ownership in their town.
If your denied an fid , your sure as hell not getting an ltc
Yes you can appeal, you always could take it to court, provided you have the money.
No doubt once it starts Comm2a will take it to court, and probably , hopefully win.
In a few years.
Am I being dense and missing the upside?
Click to expand...
Lawyers don't think like normal human beings. They think like poorly programmed robots who adhere to rules in spite of the consequences. Once you get your brains wrapped around that, the above makes perfect sense. [grin]
 
jefftk said:
With these changes, won't the bill need to be sent back to the house?
Click to expand...

Yes. Actually I think it has to go to a Joint Conference Committee to hammer out the differences. Both houses want to get something done because they don't want to hear from the liberal constituents (which is most of them) about how they did nothing on gun violence. It's better that they pass something now while they are getting hit by both sides in the run up to the elections. If they do nothing until after the November elections, it's going to be worse for us.
 
Whutmeworry said:
Can someone school me on what generally happens when two very different versions of a bill passed in their respective chambers get "modified" in conference committee???

I'm putting pressure on my state senator right now just like everyone else is, but I have to wonder what typically happens when a 125-section bill passed in one chamber has to be reconciled with a bill that passed in the other chamber with just 85 sections.

Does only the "common" language survive, or does the committee basically have free reign to pretty much do whatever the hell it wants?
Click to expand...

The committee has free reign to do pretty much what they want. What they want to do is come up with a bill that is acceptable to the leadership of both houses and can be passed and then sent on to the Governor. Who will sign it if he happens to be in town that day. It doesn't matter if he vetoes it because it's a question of mind over matter. The Legislature doesn't mind and at this point Deval Patrick doesn't matter.
 
If the bill is amended by the second branch, it will have to be returned to the first branch for a concurrence vote. If concurrence is rejected, a bi-partisan conference committee of three members from each branch is appointed to craft a compromise bill that will be sent to both legislative branches for a final vote. The conference committee’s report recommending the compromise bill is not subject to amendment.
Click to expand...

Taken from here

I really fear that if the Senate passes anything that is simply the house version but with MORE, there simply wont be enough votes in the house to stop it. In short, if the Senate passes anything, it will likely get rubber stamped (concurrence vote) at the House and sent on to the Governor...
 
Last edited:
mbullism said:
Taken from here

I really fear that if the Senate passes anything that is simply the house version but with MORE, there simply wont be enough votes in the house to stop it. In short, if the Senate passes anything, it will likely get rubber stamped (concurrence vote) at the House and sent on to the Governor...
Click to expand...

This

Sent from the blind
 
I took Goal's guide and added this to the end:

In fact, the following would allow gun confiscation for any reason! !


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;*


Please keep the lawful firearm owners in mind. We've done nothing wrong and penalizing us accomplishes nothing.*


Thank you
Click to expand...
 
Here's my letter, excuse some runon sentences, spelling too !sent to all Senators.

Dear Senator,


I'm writing you as a State Senator to express my sincere belief as a gun owner of 35 years who pays close attention to any Massachusetts gun bills being put on honest gun owners in a State that is one of the most restrictive gun owning states in America. Most legislators aren't gun owners and most legislators aren't aware of our states current gun laws. When a crime like a mass shooting occurs the first thought is to make more and tougher laws. This in a state with abnormally restrictive gun laws already.
I'm against this bill for many reasons but the most egregious of which are , the sections regarding Suitability for FIDs . There has never been a crime which these changes would make a difference, just more hoops for honest people to have to go through. To have the ability to appeal to our court system is an expensive and litigious avenue not financially proper for a resident of simple means.
There are bad changes to C140s129D regarding seized firearms and not beefing able to transfer them to another properly licensed individual which is basically taking without reimbursing property. These firearms could be worth thousands of dollars but a bonded warehouse charges huge amounts per day and usually ends up with these family heirlooms.
The hope that my daughter can buy Pepper spray/mace , as she lives in South Boston and recent crime has her in fear, SHE IS NOT A CRIMINAL. Some in this government are wanting her to get approval from our police department and file for a FID or equivalent just to buy this. The ease of going into a store and getting these defensive chemicals should out way the FEAR of criminals using them for there crimes. Just make use of these in committing a crime JAIL time
Don't restrict my daughters rights to self protection.
As I've said for these and many other reasons I explore you to vote against this punishing bill.
Thankyou, John
Sent from my iPad






Sent from my iPad
 
Last edited:
Ill update OP with Senate bill information and GOAL links later tonight. Email, call, visit your Senators!
 

Similar threads

Moving Out of MA - What Items Would You Buy?
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
2K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
MA Out of state LTC
Replies
19
Views
455
drgrant
drgrant
Cool. Shoots 9 AND 380.
Replies
8
Views
486
240Geezer
2
Fid requirements for minors
2
Replies
58
Views
1K
Ricky_Bobby
Ricky_Bobby
Plus and Minus of buying a Semi Auto Uzi?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
Road_Clam
R
Back
Top Bottom