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

I'm hearing from a lot of people that the MA .gov www is not tablet/mobile device friendly, if you're browsing it from one of those that might be the issue. Try going to the computer if you can.
 
site is working fine on my laptop....some of these orders of business seem almost trivial for a state senate. Why would not the towns be free to make these decisions? Statist, indeed.
 
Rekonn said:
GOAL's amendments analysis is up: http://goal.org/Documents/S2265Amendents[3].pdf

7/16/14 Alert:

GOAL S.2265 Alert Update.

GOAL has received the full list of amendments made to S.2265, please see below:

Please support - Call your State Senator TODAY and ask them to sign onto and support amendment #'s 6 & 56.

#6 - Removes the FID Suitability clause - Ask Your Senator to sign on and support.

#56 – Fixes the language in sections 39-43 regarding seized firearms – Ask your Senator to sign on and support.


Opposed amendments to note:

There are many amendments that we strongly oppose, some of the most egregious include #11 & #20 which would criminalize the private sale of firearms, #57 which is, among other things a one gun a month bill and #60 which would ban many common use firearms and magazines. (Renewed AWB).

Other opposed amendments:

There are many other amendments that we oppose, please call your State Senator today and ask that they oppose amendment #s: 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 40, 46, 48, 57, 59, and 60.
Click to expand...

No mention of (courtesy of mattw)?:


#19, crossbow/bow clarification: to the best of my knowledge this is a gain over the way it is currently written
#29 de novo hearingwithdrawn
#30 collectors can buy relics, etc
#58, makes pepper spray more accessible, not treated as ammunition


Edit: I see the PDF has a full list of support/oppose / no position (not 2a related).
 
Last edited:
DRAFT LETTER - PLEASE STEAL/COPY/MODIFY - USE AS A CUE SHEET FOR YOUR CALL
GET YOUR S/O TO CALL

Hat tip to mattyw and GOAL.

Dear Senator XXX:

Regarding S. 2265 An Act Relative to the reduction of gun violence



Please support the following amendments that are crucial to protecting civil rights in the commonwealth:


#6 Removes the FID Suitability clause.
#19 crossbow/bow clarification
#30 protections for licensed collectors to buy relics
#58 makes pepper spray more accessible
#56 Fixes the language in sections 39-43 regarding seized firearms.

Please oppose the following amendments:
Some of the most egregious include #11 & #20 which would criminalize the private sale of firearms, #57 which is, among other things a one gun a month bill and #60 which would ban many common use firearms and magazines.

Other opposed amendments:
There are many other amendments that I oppose #s: 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 40, 46, 48, 57, 59, and 60.

Best regards,
YOUR NAME


YOUR ADDRESS
YOUR PHONE
YOUR EMAIL
Click to expand...
 
JJ4 said:
DRAFT LETTER - PLEASE STEAL/COPY/MODIFY - USE AS A CUE SHEET FOR YOUR CALL
GET YOUR S/O TO CALL

Hat tip to mattyw and GOAL.

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

This is great, but will for the most part be ignored. CALL CALL CALL CALL and CALL again.
 
So, I just called my senator's office, Kenneth Donnelly at 617-722-1432. I asked the woman who answered to pass on which amendments to support and which to oppose. She said should would do so, but sounded very rushed, and didn't even ask my name and address. She either 1) recognized me from when I called yesterday OR 2) is overwhelmed and trying to answer as many calls as possible. If #2, feel free to call, even if you don't live in his district. [wink]
 
Just got off the phone with Jennifer at Sen. Barry Finegold's office. She has already received my email regarding the amendments, as per GOAL's list, and will be sure to pass it on to the senator. I further explained that Senators Creem and Eldridge's amendments were way over the top and particularly offensive.
 
I added this personal note. I think if you can add even one line of a personal note at the top it may actually be read. Cookie cutters are good to show how much interest there is but they are not read.

I am in opposition to any bill that reduces the freedom and rights of law abiding citizens who posses a license to carry firearms in the state of MA. I am an avid shooter who enjoys the hobby very much. As a disabled cancer survivor who survived late stage cancer, shooting has provided me with a wonderful pass time and has allowed me to meet many people whom I never would have met if it were not for my shooting hobby.
 
jsh said:
link?
Click to expand...

From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"

It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
 
6Gears1Speed said:
From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"

It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
Click to expand...

Your powers of "assumption" just amaze me.
 
6Gears1Speed said:
From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"

It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
Click to expand...

It was a mistake to say neutral, I think that like everyone else, GOAL was shocked at how different (less egregious) the final House Bill was (except the suitability).

Luckily, the batshit Senate has added plenty of assaults on liberty, so neutrality was easy to rescind.
 
6Gears1Speed said:
From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"

It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
Click to expand...


Um, sorry but you're incorrect. The NRA has NOTHING to do with it.
 
6Gears1Speed said:
From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"

It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
Click to expand...


not even close, dude.
 
Is there any document which gives the actual text of these proposed amendments? I saw the high level summary from goal, but would like to see the actual language.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
TheTrueQuaid said:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2265/Amendments
Click to expand...

cmcgraw2 said:
Click on each amendment's number, and a pop up window will show the text

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2265
Click to expand...

Thanks guys.

What's the deal with #60 (called a renewed AWB by GOAL)? Sounds like you would be stuck with any preban assault weapons and high cap mags and be unable to sell them unless you had possession pre 1994. Am I interpreting that correctly? Post ban compliant models seem unaffected.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Just called Creem's office, unfortunately I am a constituent. The staffer that answered the phone wrote down all of my information in full detail, then asked what I was calling about. She didn't know what I meant when I said Senate bill 2265, so I told her the bill regarding gun violence and she seemed unenthused when I told her I don't support any of the senator's amendments.
 
MrJones79 said:
Thanks guys.

What's the deal with #60 (called a renewed AWB by GOAL)? Sounds like you would be stuck with any preban assault weapons and high cap mags and be unable to sell them unless you had possession pre 1994. Am I interpreting that correctly? Post ban compliant models seem unaffected.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I wonder if that means you had to posses it or anyone did, what is the date of the current AWB especially regarding magazines? wasn't it Oct 1994?
 
wolfenkraft said:
Just called Creem's office, unfortunately I am a constituent. The staffer that answered the phone wrote down all of my information in full detail, then asked what I was calling about. She didn't know what I meant when I said Senate bill 2265, so I told her the bill regarding gun violence and she seemed unenthused when I told her I don't support any of the senator's amendments.
Click to expand...

Senator Creem seems like a moonbat's moonbat. I called and asked if the senator knew that straw purchases are illegal and that one gun a month won't affect illegal guns not bought in MA.
 

Similar threads

MA Out of state LTC
Replies
19
Views
366
drgrant
drgrant
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
NEW 2A group comes out SWINGING
Replies
0
Views
230
Gidge
Gidge
Here's a list of states suing the BATFE/FEDS in opposition to the new ruling of who's a dealer and who's not.
Replies
5
Views
319
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Back
Top Bottom