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

[NJ49]

This morning I received this email reply from Senator Humason:

Hi Norman,
Thank you for contacting me.

I had a lot of conversations with fellow pro-2A Senators today about the House version of the bill.

We anticipate the Senate version to come out next Wednesday and votes to happen Thursday. Maybe.

We all agreed the House bill was better than it used to be but not as good as it should be. I hope the Senate bill improves upon what the House passed.

If it doesn't I have no qualms voting against it.

Thanks so much for your email.

Don

Sent from my iPhone

Notice he says "We anticipate the Senate version to come out next Wednesday and votes to happen Thursday. Maybe."

We need to keep up the pressure. It is good to know that the Senators are talking about this and not just voting on it without reading it.

 

[TOM1960]

I don't like certain aspects of this bill, but being a political realist, this is as good as we were going to get . . . and keep in mind that retirement of a couple of senior legislators who were pro-2A leaves a void that will likely be filled with anti moonbats at the next election so any bill proposed next year probably would have been terrible and no chance of stopping it . . . and the antis were not going to go away until they finally got something passed this year or next. Now legistraitors can point to this and say "see we gave you an anti-gun bill, now go away". At least this year we still had some political clout to remove some of the worst parts of the bill.

Something that really sticks in my craw is the "no guns for aliens" BS in the bill. Even after committee members were advised that the state already lost Fletcher v. Haas a few years ago. Net result will be that Comm2A could go back into USDC and have the judge hammer the state over this if they try to enforce it. Regardless it is malfeasance at its finest to put it into a new law knowing that you already lost that battle in court.

The discretionary FID may actually work out in our favor and here is why. I recall Comm2A reporting that the state claimed that denial of a LTC to someone on suitability was NOT a 2A violation since they could always obtain an FID (shall issue) and own low-cap long guns. Well H.4278 will blow that line of reasoning out of the water and I'm wondering if Comm2A can then use it to overturn the entire discretionary LTC/FID scheme in USDC as a direct violation of 2A??

I agree with you, Len. Problem is, it is going to get very expensive very quickly. Remember, the antis have a lot more dough at their disposal than we do. The chiefs of police, judges, prosecutors, legislators and their state attorneys are paid for by the tax dollars that us poor saps are forced to cough up out of our paychecks each year!

 

[TOM1960]

No. You either didn't read the bill, you misunderstood it, or are going off what others are saying. Youth shooting programs are protected in this bill

What happens if police chiefs decide, at their annual convention, that anyone under the age of 21 is "unsuitable" for an FID? Sure, we will still have Juniors program. The shooting will be conducted with match-grade air rifles, since these kids will not be eligible for FIDs. That is how I am reading it. Of course, an angry parents could always pool their money and appeal it in court. If they have the thousands in petty cash to spare.
We

 

[Mike-Mike]

What happens if police chiefs decide, at their annual convention, that anyone under the age of 21 is "unsuitable" for an FID? Sure, we will still have Juniors program. The shooting will be conducted with match-grade air rifles, since these kids will not be eligible for FIDs. That is how I am reading it. Of course, an angry parents could always pool their money and appeal it in court. If they have the thousands in petty cash to spare.
We

Kids don't need a license to participate in shooting sports. In MA you can get an FID at 15. There are many 8-14yo's that participate all the time.

 

[whacko]

What happens if police chiefs decide, at their annual convention, that anyone under the age of 21 is "unsuitable" for an FID? Sure, we will still have Juniors program. The shooting will be conducted with match-grade air rifles, since these kids will not be eligible for FIDs. That is how I am reading it. Of course, an angry parents could always pool their money and appeal it in court. If they have the thousands in petty cash to spare.
We

THe new language states the chief had to provide evidence that the applicant is a threat to public safety if issued a card........."supposedly" that means chief's cannot arbitrarily refuse to issue the card like they do with LTCs in some BS towns.......but......we'll see how that all works out in reality if the bill is passed by the senate and signed by the devil. My thought.......first chief that starts not issuing FIDs in any way shape or form related to arbitrary "denial" should be sued so fast his/her head explodes!!!!!

 

[whacko]

Kids don't need a license to participate in shooting sports. In MA you can get an FID at 15. There are many 8-14yo's that participate all the time.

TOM 1960 didn't really think this one out........the CMP program does not require the minor to have any "credentials" at all........they start those kids out at 13 I believe.......just need a parent or guardian there. Also I don't know any club that reaquires a kid to have an FID to shoot in a trap, skeep, or bullesey tourney.

 

[xcom]

TOM 1960 didn't really think this one out........the CMP program does not require the minor to have any "credentials" at all........they start those kids out at 13 I believe.......just need a parent or guardian there. Also I don't know any club that reaquires a kid to have an FID to shoot in a trap, skeep, or bullesey tourney.

Perhaps I am mistaken or missed it in the thread, but wouldn't a 16-21 year old need an FID to Hunt without sharing a rifle/shotgun?

 

[whacko]

Perhaps I am mistaken or missed it in the thread, but wouldn't a 16-21 year old need an FID to Hunt without sharing a rifle/shotgun?

It is my understanding (SOmeone like LENS may jump in here and correct me) that fire arms law and fish and game laws are separate and treated as such. WNeh purchasing a hunting license there is no requirement to prove the hunter has and FID. When a minor is hunting with an adult the only requirement according to fish and game law is that the minor needs a huntinig license to handle the fire armif the adult is also handling a fire arm......basically one license = one fire arm two licenses = two fire arms. THe minor only needs the FID to OWN the fire arm........using a fire arm owned by the parent does not require the minor to have and FID card.

I think about it this way......my son does not need an FID to handle a fire arm at a trap meet, at the club shooting, why would he need one when he is 16 to go hunting using one of my shotguns as long has he has the hunting license?

Anyone else may be able to prove me wrong.........but show the citation as I could not find one stating that a minor hunting needs an FID.

EDIT****************

Chapter and verse from fish and game:

All minors between 15 and 17 years of age must produce the following documentation in order to purchase any hunting or sporting license.

• A basic hunter education course certificate and a letter of consent allowing the minor to hunt from his or her parent or guardian OR
• A letter signed by the minor's parent/guardian affirming that the minor will be accompanied at all times by a licensed adult while hunting and a letter of consent allowing the minor to hunt from his or her parent or guardian.

No other documents may be accepted from any minor 15 -17 years of age (including a previous year's hunting license) for purchasing a hunting or sporting license.
Minors between 12 and 14 years of age may hunt with certain restrictions, but do not need a license. Hunters 12-14 years old must be accompanied by an adult licensed hunter and they must share one firearm or bow between the two hunters. Only one minor/adult is permitted. No one under age 12 may hunt.



Looks like at 18 you "might" have to have an FID but not sure as you dont' have to prove you have an FID to get a hunting license. So.....maybe an 18+ year old person can get a hunting license and borrow a long gun if the owner is present? LENS>>>>>>>HELP!!!!!!!!!!!! ......definately not a requirement from 15-17 thgough!

 

[Garys]

From the text of the bill.

SECTION 78. Section 20 shall take effect March 1, 2015; provided 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 20 on or before October 1, 2014.

Better than that... as an "emergency" bill, once signed, it goes into effect immediately. If that is the case, how do we do a face to face transfer in the 18+ months it will take to get a functional web site up and running?

Allow me to put on my tinfoil hat here...

What if it is never up and running? There are no penalties for failing to provide the tools we need to comply with the law. It could be a handy way to prevent non-dealer transfers.

 

[oldsoldier29]

What happens if police chiefs decide, at their annual convention, that anyone under the age of 21 is "unsuitable" for an FID? Sure, we will still have Juniors program. The shooting will be conducted with match-grade air rifles, since these kids will not be eligible for FIDs. That is how I am reading it. Of course, an angry parents could always pool their money and appeal it in court. If they have the thousands in petty cash to spare.
We

Credible, tangible evidence means it can't be arbitrary. For instance, in the town I work in, there are quite a few residents that, although they've never been arrested, our officers have been there quite a few times for civil disturbances. They have never been sectioned, but certainly aren't in their right mind. Could be a habitual drug user, but never arrested for that (if you aren't in possession of the substance, and aren't committing any other crimes, they can't just arrest you for being high). These instances are documented in our servers by the officers. Should they apply for a license, and the chief denies them, there is the evidence for denial. Contrast that with a large, tattooed, biker looking guy, long time resident, with no history with the dept at all. Denying him, there is no reason why-so, legally, he can't deny an ltc. In a better world, outside this state, it would be shall issue, and both could get one. The old system, both could be denied, with no legal recourse to correct it. This system at least allows a path to correct it.

 

[oldsoldier29]

Hahahaha +1
Not sure it's on par with the ouster of the British, so...
Easy there, Sam Adams... the job isn't quite finished yet. They are just over the horizon of the Habah (aka the Senate).

. That was the last time gun owners in this state won against an oppressive government though, was it not? And alas, we can't fix bayonets this time-the lugs are illegal

 

[whacko]

Credible, tangible evidence means it can't be arbitrary. For instance, in the town I work in, there are quite a few residents that, although they've never been arrested, our officers have been there quite a few times for civil disturbances. They have never been sectioned, but certainly aren't in their right mind. Could be a habitual drug user, but never arrested for that (if you aren't in possession of the substance, and aren't committing any other crimes, they can't just arrest you for being high). These instances are documented in our servers by the officers. Should they apply for a license, and the chief denies them, there is the evidence for denial. Contrast that with a large, tattooed, biker looking guy, long time resident, with no history with the dept at all. Denying him, there is no reason why-so, legally, he can't deny an ltc. In a better world, outside this state, it would be shall issue, and both could get one. The old system, both could be denied, with no legal recourse to correct it. This system at least allows a path to correct it.

THis is defanately the "pie in the sky" take on it. As I said earlier we'll have to wait to see how the Chief's use this in reality if it is passed!

 

[mattyw]

anyone get any feedback from their Senator yet?

 

[stinx]

Goal sent an E-mail out lat night does anyone have a copy?

 

[umd0808]

anyone get any feedback from their Senator yet?

Nothing from Senator Jason Lewis or the two D's running for his vacant Rep seat (not surprising).

Did however receive a response from Caroline Colarusso (running as a R for the Rep seat) when I asked her how she would have voted for it:

I am a 2nd amendment supporter. I stopped by your house today to speak to you too much to put in an email will stop by again

Hoping to talk to her about her stance on other issues, but the fact that she personally responded <90 mins after my email gives me some hope.
http://caroline4rep.com/

 

[xcom]

Credible, tangible evidence means it can't be arbitrary. For instance, in the town I work in, there are quite a few residents that, although they've never been arrested, our officers have been there quite a few times for civil disturbances. They have never been sectioned, but certainly aren't in their right mind. Could be a habitual drug user, but never arrested for that (if you aren't in possession of the substance, and aren't committing any other crimes, they can't just arrest you for being high). These instances are documented in our servers by the officers. Should they apply for a license, and the chief denies them, there is the evidence for denial. Contrast that with a large, tattooed, biker looking guy, long time resident, with no history with the dept at all. Denying him, there is no reason why-so, legally, he can't deny an ltc. In a better world, outside this state, it would be shall issue, and both could get one. The old system, both could be denied, with no legal recourse to correct it. This system at least allows a path to correct it.

It's the whole "could be a habitual drug user" which makes it subjective. The whole problem is subjectivity and the fact that there is no penalty for the failure to be objective on the part of the PD. Our remedy for an arbitrary denial involves legal fees and a court case. If we win, there is no consequence for the PD other than wasting out tax dollars and them explaining that to the moonbats by saying "I was protecting you." In theory, it should play out as above but when you are dealing with a right, the only credible evidence should be actual action. Everything else is prior restraint.

- - - Updated - - -

EDIT****************

Chapter and verse from fish and game:

All minors between 15 and 17 years of age must produce the following documentation in order to purchase any hunting or sporting license.

• A basic hunter education course certificate and a letter of consent allowing the minor to hunt from his or her parent or guardian OR
• A letter signed by the minor's parent/guardian affirming that the minor will be accompanied at all times by a licensed adult while hunting and a letter of consent allowing the minor to hunt from his or her parent or guardian.

No other documents may be accepted from any minor 15 -17 years of age (including a previous year's hunting license) for purchasing a hunting or sporting license.
Minors between 12 and 14 years of age may hunt with certain restrictions, but do not need a license. Hunters 12-14 years old must be accompanied by an adult licensed hunter and they must share one firearm or bow between the two hunters. Only one minor/adult is permitted. No one under age 12 may hunt.



Looks like at 18 you might have to have an FID but not sure......definately not a requirement from 15-17 thgough!

Thanks, that is maybe where my memory is at. Someone who is 18 hunting.

 

[whacko]

It's the whole "could be a habitual drug user" which makes it subjective. The whole problem is subjectivity and the fact that there is no penalty for the failure to be objective on the part of the PD. Our remedy for an arbitrary denial involves legal fees and a court case. If we win, there is no consequence for the PD other than wasting out tax dollars and them explaining that to the moonbats by saying "I was protecting you." In theory, it should play out as above but when you are dealing with a right, the only credible evidence should be actual action. Everything else is prior restraint.

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks, that is maybe where my memory is at. Someone who is 18 hunting.

Read my second edit.....possible.....cound an 18+ year old person get a hunting license and borrow a long gun to hunt say if the owner of the gun was present? Anyone? LENS?

 

[xcom]

Read my second edit.....possible.....cound an 18+ year old person get a hunting license and borrow a long gun to hunt say if the owner of the gun was present? Anyone? LENS?

Yes, that's where my knowledge ends. If the owner was present, I think it would be ok, but then you always need a nanny with you.

 

[mbullism]

anyone get any feedback from their Senator yet?

I've already been in contact with Richard Moore, regarding 4121 and 4278...his responses have been favorable... but I'd expect no less, he's generally pro sportsman and pro 2A... One of the only (D)'s I've ever voted for, specifically for this reason.

It's time to generate a specific email to him regarding 4278 as passed in the house, and regarding potential amendment attempts...

 

[jasons]

Read my second edit.....possible.....cound an 18+ year old person get a hunting license and borrow a long gun to hunt say if the owner of the gun was present? Anyone? LENS?

Depends on the long gun. There's some really bad case law* that casts a bit of a shadow over "large capacity" rifles, but non-large capacity guns are OK. One of the exemptions to the possession law (Section 129c) is for hunting under a valid license.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section129c

Section 129C. No person, other than a licensed dealer or one who has been issued a license to carry a pistol or revolver or an exempt person as hereinafter described, shall own or possess any firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition unless he has been issued a firearm identification card by the licensing authority pursuant to the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-nine B.

<snip>

The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following exempted persons and uses:

<snip>

(f) Possession of rifles and shotguns and ammunition therefor by nonresident hunters with valid nonresident hunting licenses during hunting season;

On a side note, the owner need not be present.



*I don't remember the name of the case, but there was a kid who got jammed up for having something "large capacity" while in the process of moving and, in theory, under the 60 day grace period exception in 129c. Apparently the prosecutor convinced the jury that a large capacity rifle was somehow not "any firearm, rifle, shotgun" so the exemptions in 129c didn't apply. Shameful.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Credible, tangible evidence means it can't be arbitrary. For instance, in the town I work in, there are quite a few residents that, although they've never been arrested, our officers have been there quite a few times for civil disturbances. They have never been sectioned, but certainly aren't in their right mind. Could be a habitual drug user, but never arrested for that (if you aren't in possession of the substance, and aren't committing any other crimes, they can't just arrest you for being high). These instances are documented in our servers by the officers. Should they apply for a license, and the chief denies them, there is the evidence for denial. Contrast that with a large, tattooed, biker looking guy, long time resident, with no history with the dept at all. Denying him, there is no reason why-so, legally, he can't deny an ltc. In a better world, outside this state, it would be shall issue, and both could get one. The old system, both could be denied, with no legal recourse to correct it. This system at least allows a path to correct it.

In a better world (say, Vermont?), no-one outside of a prison would need a license to defend themselves in a manner of their own choosing as free citizens

 

[jhagberg88]

i contacted Senator Joan Lovely (D) hoping to hear back from her.

 

[rlee]

I got responses from Sen. Lovely for both my letter and my email.
They were acknowledgements of receipt.
Nothing about my comments or about gun laws.

 

[jhagberg88]

i just got an auto response back as well, have you tried calling?

 

[Whutmeworry]

to keep picking it apart....
Dear Senators:

In reading through the new H4278 "Act Relative to the reduction of Gun Violence," there is another section which needs correcting:
- Section 72, which requires Suicide Prevention be included in Hunter Safety Classes and other firearms courses.

Not only is Hunter Safety Class not the appropriate place to have volunteer instructors discussing this subject, there is not enough class time to fit it in. Unless they just give us a sheet to handout, there is not enough time nor expertise for this subject to be dealt with in a serious and meaningful way.

While the Hunter Classes are required to be a minimum of 12 hours, a typical class actually runs about 16 hours. We cover not only firearms & hunting safety, but ethics, survival, wildlife ID, laws, archery, handguns, trapping, map & compass, muzzleloaders, etc.

If any additions are to be made to the Hunter Safety Program, they should be to provide funding for live-fire training, which many students request, and many other states include in their curriculum. Indeed, many clubs offer an informal opportunity for students to try shooting a gun sometime after the last class. {i.e., , we usually have our NRA Day firearms education and safety camp the week after our September course, to give the students a supervised, hands-on opportunity to shoot a variety of guns - it'll be Sept. 21st this year}


Section 72 as written should be eliminated.

Regards
Arto

I of course agree with you on the suicide prevention B.S., but have a concern about adding a live-fire component to the Hunter's Safety Course. Maybe I'm overt-thinking it, but my teenage son just completed his HSC last year, and all I can remember about it was how difficult it was to get him scheduled for it because of how quickly the courses filled up. My concern about adding a live-fire component is that the number of courses offered may decrease overall, due to the difficulty in finding the time & resources to conduct live fire training. My son's course was conducted all at night in an indoor classroom.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just play devil's advocate. If the net result of adding a live-fire component is a decrease in the ability of new hunters/FID applicants to get certified due to a decrease if courses offered, I think it might be a bad idea. Thoughts?

 

[tuci616]

Just received from Senator Tarr's office

Just received this email from Senator Tarr's office:

On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Jenny McCullough <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. xxxx:

Senator Tarr asked that I provide you with an update on legislation relative to firearms. Earlier this week, the House debated and passed House Bill 4278. The bill has been renumbered to House Bill 4285 to reflect the changes made by amendments during that debate. I am including below the link to the full text of the bill as passed in the House of Representatives (please note it is lengthy should you wish to print it). I am also including the link to the earlier version (H.4278) should you wish to view the original text of the bill and the amendments that were proposed and adopted or rejected.

The Senator anticipates debating H.4285 next week. The matter will likely be referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means prior to emerging for debate by the full Senate. Please note the committee may amend the bill prior to its release to the Senate floor.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4278/History
Bill text (prior to debate) and amendment text/status.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H4285/History
Bill text as passed by the House

Please let me know if you have any trouble accessing the above links.

Thank you!
Jenny

Jennifer McCullough
Office of Senator Bruce Tarr
State House, Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
(617) 722-1600


​

 

[mbullism]

...Senator Tarr asked that I provide you with an update on legislation relative to firearms. Earlier this week, the House debated and passed House Bill 4278. The bill has been renumbered to House Bill 4285 to reflect the changes made by amendments during that debate. ...

...

 

[Squire]

OP edited with latest ID for bill (thanks tucl616)

 

[rchap36]

to keep picking it apart....
Dear Senators:

In reading through the new H4278 "Act Relative to the reduction of Gun Violence," there is another section which needs correcting:
- Section 72, which requires Suicide Prevention be included in Hunter Safety Classes and other firearms courses.

Not only is Hunter Safety Class not the appropriate place to have volunteer instructors discussing this subject, there is not enough class time to fit it in. Unless they just give us a sheet to handout, there is not enough time nor expertise for this subject to be dealt with in a serious and meaningful way.

While the Hunter Classes are required to be a minimum of 12 hours, a typical class actually runs about 16 hours. We cover not only firearms & hunting safety, but ethics, survival, wildlife ID, laws, archery, handguns, trapping, map & compass, muzzleloaders, etc.

If any additions are to be made to the Hunter Safety Program, they should be to provide funding for live-fire training, which many students request, and many other states include in their curriculum. Indeed, many clubs offer an informal opportunity for students to try shooting a gun sometime after the last class. {i.e., , we usually have our NRA Day firearms education and safety camp the week after our September course, to give the students a supervised, hands-on opportunity to shoot a variety of guns - it'll be Sept. 21st this year}


Section 72 as written should be eliminated.

Regards
Arto

Why would we add more BS to this or any bill??????????????/

 

[oldsoldier29]

In a better world (say, Vermont?), no-one outside of a prison would need a license to defend themselves in a manner of their own choosing as free citizens

We don't live in Vermont. To expect a full repeal of the gun laws in this deeply blue state is like holding your breath under water and expecting to grow gills. We have to play the hand we're dealt. We can begin attacking parts of existing law once this debacle is over. This current bill is largely mental health. Think about that. The shift went from guns (h4121) to mental health. de facto admission guns, and, subsequently, gun owners, aren't the issue? Let's examine current law. Why a magazine restriction? I mean, we can use ones manufactured before an arbitrary date-why not after? How about a flash hider? We can buy the exact same model, but call it a compensator, and it's perfectly legal. Bayonet lugs? Show me a case where, in the past 200 years, in this state, there was a bayonet attack. We chip at the awb, remove it piece by piece. Will it be a long process? Likely. Can it be done? I think so-we just need to organize and put the pressure on, line we did.