-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
S 2265 (aka HB4285, 4278, 4121) out of Senate Ways and Means (FID Suitability)
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
I've gotten no recent replies to my latest (Richard T., not Michael O.), and earlier email generated a boilerplate letter of support. His track record is largely on our side, though... I do feel kinda funny calling and asking that he support #6 and #56, seeing as how he co-sponsored one and self sponsored the other
Last edited:
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,446
- Likes
- 109,914
Just sent texts to 5 of my pro-2a neighbors. at least 3 have already called eldridges office
fyi... the video feed now says it will start at 12:30, not at 12:45 as before (Even though the session still says 1:00pm)
Probably just more elevator music...
Probably just more elevator music...
Catoperat
NES Member
Just talked to an aide at Senator Chandler's office. According to her, the Senator has not officially taken a position as of yet. The Senator and Legislative Director were not available to speak to. She has been fielding many calls. Many against, some for.
Email reply from Sen Robert Hedlund:
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,446
- Likes
- 109,914
if that happens, retreat and start to work on the committe vote...and the house members on the concurrence vote again. And hope 7-31 comes before it happens
one of the good guys
Last edited:
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Marc Pacheco can suck it. I never heard back from him. He has been in office way too long
Mike S
NES Member
I've gotten no recent replies to my latest (Richard T., not Michael O.), and earlier email generated a boilerplate letter of support. His track record is largely on our side, though... I do feel kinda funny calling and asking that he support #6 and #56, seeing as how he co-sponsored one and self sponsored the other
if that's the case, just thank him for his support and ask that he urges his colleagues to stand with him. Remember, he is a "D" and has lots of pull, a good friend to have in the Senate.
Scheduled to start at 1 PM now.
https://malegislature.gov/Events/EventDetail?eventId=962&eventDataSource=Sessions
https://malegislature.gov/Events/EventDetail?eventId=962&eventDataSource=Sessions
I think that's a popular opinion here, I dropped off 4 letters just to Pacheco.
I just sent a doctored version of the letter i found here and called pacheco's office. A little passive aggressive but whatever i am sick of these A holes...
Dear Senators Pacheco, Murray and Tarr
I, along with my wife Gina, am writing you today to ask that you oppose bill S. 2265 as it is currently written. As a law abiding and responsible gun owner I have many concerns with this bill. We support efforts to make the state a better place to live and any measures that may actually decrease violent crime. However, I feel many proposed solutions will do little/nothing to support that goal and will do more to inconvenience and alienate Massachusetts legal gun owners. The Commonwealth already has some of the harshest gun laws in the country. Our justice system often squanders the opportunity to enforce them against people who choose to break the laws in regards to firearms. You need to pass laws that stop gang violence and fix the family unit, these two things go hand in hand and lead to what probably amounts to 95% of all crimes committed with a firearm.
Specifically I am very much opposed to the expansion of suitability to FID cards. I cannot support a proposition to have the practice of a constitutional civil right be subject to standards that are NOT clearly defined, written in law or consistently applied. The idea that an UNELECTED party will determine what constitutes suitability after the fact is ludicrous. Therefore I ask that you support Amendment #6 which would remove this language from the bill. In addition, I oppose any of the amendments proposed with Cynthia Creem.
I am also strongly opposed to the section in the bill regarding changes to the seizure laws:
The proposal would now deny a person who has his/her firearms seized the ability to have the firearms (personal property also protected by the CONSTITUTION) 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 could profit from the sale.
To have the state profiting from seizure of personal property like that is something I simply cannot support. Under the current law, the accused will not have access to the firearms regardless. How does the proposed change decrease violence in the Commonwealth?
Therefore I ask that you support amendment #56 filed by Sen Moore, which would apply a much more honorable yet still safe procedure for confiscated firearms.
I strongly oppose amendments #11, 17, 20, 57, 60. They will do nothing to increase the safety of any person in the Commonwealth and are designed to further stigmatize and inconvenience gun owners.
In summary, I support these amendments and ask that you do as well:
6, 19, 30, 56, 58
I oppose, and ask that you do as well, amendments:
3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 40, 46, 48, 57, 59, and 60
We would like to know where you stand on this bill and the proposed amendments. I am also curious as to the feedback you have had to this point. If you disagree with any of my stances I would love the opportunity to discuss them further.
Fattman and MrsFattman
Middleborough, MA 02346
We are both lawful gun owners and hoping you will look at what your constituents really want and not doing this for your own political agenda's. I thought we made progress with the house bill then the Senate has sent proposed amendments that violate the Constitution of the United States and also of Massachusetts. It is not a compromise if only one party gives up ground. Just in case any of you forgot what you swore to protect you can find it here... http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Dear Senators Pacheco, Murray and Tarr
I, along with my wife Gina, am writing you today to ask that you oppose bill S. 2265 as it is currently written. As a law abiding and responsible gun owner I have many concerns with this bill. We support efforts to make the state a better place to live and any measures that may actually decrease violent crime. However, I feel many proposed solutions will do little/nothing to support that goal and will do more to inconvenience and alienate Massachusetts legal gun owners. The Commonwealth already has some of the harshest gun laws in the country. Our justice system often squanders the opportunity to enforce them against people who choose to break the laws in regards to firearms. You need to pass laws that stop gang violence and fix the family unit, these two things go hand in hand and lead to what probably amounts to 95% of all crimes committed with a firearm.
Specifically I am very much opposed to the expansion of suitability to FID cards. I cannot support a proposition to have the practice of a constitutional civil right be subject to standards that are NOT clearly defined, written in law or consistently applied. The idea that an UNELECTED party will determine what constitutes suitability after the fact is ludicrous. Therefore I ask that you support Amendment #6 which would remove this language from the bill. In addition, I oppose any of the amendments proposed with Cynthia Creem.
I am also strongly opposed to the section in the bill regarding changes to the seizure laws:
The proposal would now deny a person who has his/her firearms seized the ability to have the firearms (personal property also protected by the CONSTITUTION) 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 could profit from the sale.
To have the state profiting from seizure of personal property like that is something I simply cannot support. Under the current law, the accused will not have access to the firearms regardless. How does the proposed change decrease violence in the Commonwealth?
Therefore I ask that you support amendment #56 filed by Sen Moore, which would apply a much more honorable yet still safe procedure for confiscated firearms.
I strongly oppose amendments #11, 17, 20, 57, 60. They will do nothing to increase the safety of any person in the Commonwealth and are designed to further stigmatize and inconvenience gun owners.
In summary, I support these amendments and ask that you do as well:
6, 19, 30, 56, 58
I oppose, and ask that you do as well, amendments:
3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 40, 46, 48, 57, 59, and 60
We would like to know where you stand on this bill and the proposed amendments. I am also curious as to the feedback you have had to this point. If you disagree with any of my stances I would love the opportunity to discuss them further.
Fattman and MrsFattman
Middleborough, MA 02346
We are both lawful gun owners and hoping you will look at what your constituents really want and not doing this for your own political agenda's. I thought we made progress with the house bill then the Senate has sent proposed amendments that violate the Constitution of the United States and also of Massachusetts. It is not a compromise if only one party gives up ground. Just in case any of you forgot what you swore to protect you can find it here... http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Done several times already to this point, with note that he is one of the very few (D)'s I've ever voted for (specifically based on his track record of supporting sportsman and lawful gun owners...) After today's vote, either way, he'll be getting a thank you for the continued support (similar to that sent to Rep. Fattman for voting NO on 4121/4278/4285)
ETA: I'm going to be a little torn in the very near future, as Rep. Fattman is running for Sen. Moore's seat... and I had it good for a while.
Last edited:
Horrible
NES Member
Mike O. Moore or Richard T. Moore?
The former (Mike) is my State Senator. He voted against this mess coming out of Committee and is responsible for Amendment 6 (I think) which moves to strike FID Suitability from the bill!
Laderbuilt
NES Member
Sorry Richard T. Moore
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2012
- Messages
- 262
- Likes
- 101
I got a brush off response from him via email over 4121, and nothing over 2265. I'd be very surprised if he doesn't vote in favor of it. He's up for re-election, but sadly it looks like he's running unopposed.
pdm
NES Member
Couple of amendments have been redrafted, at least one more withdrawn.
Typical... give them 24hrs to read and digest 63 amendments, then change things at the last minute...
Am, what the heck? I step out to pick up a sammich, and we go from no session starting really late to now we're in recess? Did I miss anything other than what was posted above?
thorin
NES Member
I have had my earbud in, somebody came on about 1:10 and called a recess before anything else even happened. I believe the video is 'live', there just isn't anything currently happening. Not sure why its pointed at the flags instead of the floor.
Senate in recess subject to call of the Chair. Guess the are waiting for the chairman?
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
The feed came up, they notified the members they were in session subject to the call of the chair, and recessed, lol... I think they are wading through withdrawals and redrafts on the amendments
- - - Updated - - -
Number 1 (so 1, 29, 37 so far)
I've been refreshing this page every 15-20 minutes expecting even more to be withdrawn... https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2265/Amendments?filter=Senate&pg=1&perPage=50
So far...just the one
1 Michael O. Moore Interception of Wire and Oral Communications No Position Not 2A related
I suspect this is going to start out the same way the as House vote... spend at least an hour or more behind closed doors before
debates begin compromising, arguing, and weeding out any amendments that are a waste of time.
They don't want us to know what is really going on.
2, 4, 7, 13, 27, 34, 38, 49, 51, 53, 58 redrafted..
58 is defensive sprays... deletes language in S2265 and cites penalties for improper (non defensive) use
13 is web portal... still allows background checks beyond NICS to "other databases"
58 is defensive sprays... deletes language in S2265 and cites penalties for improper (non defensive) use
13 is web portal... still allows background checks beyond NICS to "other databases"
Last edited:
pdm
NES Member
But there's no exception for training purposes, so if you spray a buddy to test its effectiveness, you're breaking the law.
