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

[jhagberg88]

just recieved this response from Rep John Keenan of Salem. thoughts?

Dear Mr. Hagberg:
First, thank you for your service.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the bill. Quite to the contrary, it fortifies the Second Amendment by requiring written specificity of denial grounds based on a clear standard. As a lawyer who has appealed licensure denials in the past, I believe this provides stronger rights for potential gun owners.

I too swear to uphold the Constitution and I take that obligation seriously.

I think we produced a very balanced bill that provides enhanced public safety while also respecting and appreciating the Second Amendment.

GOAL also saw it that way.

Thanks for contacting my office. If you still have questions, I'd be happy to meet with you.

Very best regards,

John

 

[mattyw]

just recieved this response from Rep John Keenan of Salem. thoughts?

Dear Mr. Hagberg:
First, thank you for your service.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the bill. Quite to the contrary, it fortifies the Second Amendment by requiring written specificity of denial grounds based on a clear standard. As a lawyer who has appealed licensure denials in the past, I believe this provides stronger rights for potential gun owners.

I too swear to uphold the Constitution and I take that obligation seriously.

I think we produced a very balanced bill that provides enhanced public safety while also respecting and appreciating the Second Amendment.

GOAL also saw it that way.

Thanks for contacting my office. If you still have questions, I'd be happy to meet with you.

Very best regards,

John

I have to agree that the specific part he mentioned is a step up for those denied LTC's or issued restrictions for no good reason.... but FID suitability is certainly a step backwards, considering the way FID's were should be the way all LTCs are and not the other way around

grasping at straws at best, anti-gun owner disguised as misinformed supporter at worst

 

[BobR51]

Suitability =discrimination.
If there is no disqualifier then there is no reason not to issue an FID(or a LTC).

 

[rwl1955]

So the requirement for an FID card to purchase pepper spray is back? I thought this was repealed a few months ago?

 

[Chisran]

I still have never heard how adding more laws to affect law abiding citizens makes anything safer. Or will that one more law push some crack head murderer to decide he's not willing to break anymore laws and turn his life around?

 

[gunclinger]

anyone get any feedback from their Senator yet?

I went to my State Senator's (Joan Lovely, Salem/Bev/Dan/Tops) office hours this morning. Again, she wasn't there, but again I talked with her chief of staff who is very plugged-in to everything going on.

I again presented the case against the expanded-discretion for FID: Your rights now subject to an other person's decision, risky how the appeal process will work and more bureaucracy, unequal granting of rights leading to profiling and some cities/towns will end-up no-gun, potential to deny persons that would otherwise have PASSED the state background check, FID was necessary to 1998 law to ensure 2A rights and that remains the case today. But I also believe he and the Sen lean at least somewhat anti. He even said "I was surprised that Jim Wallace same out 'neutral'". Ouch. I really think GOAL screwed-up the Senate endgame by declaring themselves "neutral" on the House bill.

Other comments from the staffer included "something is going to pass in the Senate", and "Senate is generally more liberal that then House". Agree and agree. He said there is also a good chance for more anti-gun changes to emerge -- think of all those BS amendments from the House debate, and also remember what this bill originally looked like when it came out of the joint committee.

I also left him with this thought: The media pretty well declared this HB4278 a "sweeping gun-control bill" (it's not sweeping at all, that headline was written 18 months ago, and it will go away), BUT, if the expanded-discretion for FID is removed from HB4278, it's no longer even a gun-control bill. The legislature can then vote for it, make the obligatory claim that they "did something", and go home.

 

[gunclinger]

just recieved this response from Rep John Keenan of Salem. thoughts?

Dear Mr. Hagberg:
First, thank you for your service.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the bill. Quite to the contrary, it fortifies the Second Amendment by requiring written specificity of denial grounds based on a clear standard. As a lawyer who has appealed licensure denials in the past, I believe this provides stronger rights for potential gun owners.

I too swear to uphold the Constitution and I take that obligation seriously.

I think we produced a very balanced bill that provides enhanced public safety while also respecting and appreciating the Second Amendment.

GOAL also saw it that way.

Thanks for contacting my office. If you still have questions, I'd be happy to meet with you.

Very best regards,

John

So if my Constitutional rights are denied, it's OK (no, it's better!) because I can get legal representation and go through some arduous process to maybe get them back. Talk about outing yourself as a lawyer.

And Ugh on the GOAL comment. Ugh.

 

[oldsoldier29]

If the senate adds amendments, it has to go back to the house, as, if I'm correct, they both have to agree on the same bill. If the entire FID clause is dropped, but they keep the verbiage about the path for the may issue for ltc denials, I'm fine with the bill-ad that's the only thing that's gun related in it. When i wrote my senator, I did mention the sham issue fid was a way for the state to avoid a federal lawsuit, as they aren't denying a right. I think if the fid may issue passes, the first denial will result in a federal lawsuit, and that could, in theory, remove suitability for ALL licences-in essence, backfiring completely on them. I have to wonder, at this point, was that left in there on purpose, to be negotiated out at the senate level?

 

[whacko]

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?

I took mine in NH due to the problems with finding a course in MA. They did a live fire portion......it was close to useless. Give you 10 rounds of 22lr and a single shot bolt action rifle. Target set a about 30 feet away. You put the 10 rounds down range while the trainer watches to make sure you have muzzle control and trigger discipline.......they didn't even look at the targets.....some of the people couldnt even hit paper becuase they didn't even teach them how to hld the rifle and align the sites. People like myself that had shooting experience thought it was poorly run.

If a live fire portion is treated like this "check the block" event at the NH course it would be absolutely a waste of time.

 

[Bill Katt]

So if my Constitutional rights are denied, it's OK (no, it's better!) because I can get legal representation and go through some arduous and excessively expensive process to maybe get them back. Talk about outing yourself as a lawyer.

And Ugh on the GOAL comment. Ugh.

FIFY

 

[Len-2A Training]

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!

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

MANY here have expressed that they are AFRAID to contact their chiefs/selectmen/mayor/representative/senator/etc. when their applications were delayed due to fear of retribution. How do you think most will react to "now you have a right to spend $2K-5K to appeal a denial/restriction" on your FID/LTC? Most will fold, grumble and post up here but do nothing. Don't we know that most chiefs know that?? Yes, I expect a set of criteria for restrictions/denials to include things that WE would call arbitrary and capricious . . . but most MA judges will go along with the chiefs (as they have done on most denials/revocations that have been appealed to court). This will NOT work out well for us as a group.

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!!!!!

You need the "right" case/plaintiff or else we'll make terrible case law like has already happened before. It needs to be in federal (NOT MA) court and it will take years to adjudicate. Comm2A has the skills but the judges own the timetable (anytime within the next century)!

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!

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?

Sorry but my knowledge of hunting laws is very poor and the Hunter Ed course I took was full of legal mis-information (reported here previously).

I do think anyone over 18 must present an FID/LTC to get a MA hunting license (jasons' post below is related to NON-Residents ONLY), unless they are NOT a MA Resident.

The person to answer this properly is MISTER HAPPY! He's both knowledgeable and teaches Hunter Ed classes (plus has a minor Son, so has an interest in the question).

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

*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.

Yes, that was Comm v. Cornelius 78 Mass App Ct 413 (2010) ruling that although S. 129C(j) exemption – 60 days, BUT C. 269 S. 10(m) prohibits large cap guns/mags! Therefore he ruled that you couldn't move into MA with any large-capacity guns/mags, period!!

So the requirement for an FID card to purchase pepper spray is back? I thought this was repealed a few months ago?

No, it is NOT law yet. It was weakened significantly and put in the annual budget bill. It will pass but not protect anyone from prosecution on school property.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Something I noted in the H. 4278 re-write is that it specifically states that our LTC/FID that expired due to town/state inaction on renewal will be good for ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES! To me (IANAL) this includes purchase and sales of guns/ammo . . . which you can NOT do now in MA!!

I will shortly send a request to Michaela Dunne (FRB Director) that when she has the MIRCS software re-written that there be a check-box there for "IN PROCESS" that will allow MIRCS to PROCEED on a purchase or sale! Although they don't have funding to modify their software whenever someone comes up with a good idea, since it needs to be re-written anyway due to this new law (when passed), adding it into the existing project shouldn't be a big deal. I have found Michaela very pleasant to deal with and very helpful, so I'm reasonably confident that she will look positively at such a request.

 

[mbullism]

I do think anyone over 18 must present an FID/LTC to get a MA hunting license

I've only ever been asked once, and I explained I'd be archery only (even though I had the FID). MA doesnt have an archery only hunting license, so an FID is not required...

 

[Whutmeworry]

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.

I totally agree with you. I just was stating what should be obvious to every honest citizen in the United States, and I know it is going to take years of undoing the steady brain-washing of the people over several decades to make them understand that we're simply having the completely wrong debate - all based on emotion and not at all based on logic.

To empty the mental institutions and prisons because they're "inhumane" and then act surprised when criminals and violently-insane people gain access to guns and use them to do violent things just means that we have to find a way to turn the entire population 180 degrees around. They aren't seeing the obvious anymore - or at least that's their voting patterns are showing.

 

[whacko]

MANY here have expressed that they are AFRAID to contact their chiefs/selectmen/mayor/representative/senator/etc. when their applications were delayed due to fear of retribution. How do you think most will react to "now you have a right to spend $2K-5K to appeal a denial/restriction" on your FID/LTC? Most will fold, grumble and post up here but do nothing. Don't we know that most chiefs know that?? Yes, I expect a set of criteria for restrictions/denials to include things that WE would call arbitrary and capricious . . . but most MA judges will go along with the chiefs (as they have done on most denials/revocations that have been appealed to court). This will NOT work out well for us as a group.




You need the "right" case/plaintiff or else we'll make terrible case law like has already happened before. It needs to be in federal (NOT MA) court and it will take years to adjudicate. Comm2A has the skills but the judges own the timetable (anytime within the next century)!






Sorry but my knowledge of hunting laws is very poor and the Hunter Ed course I took was full of legal mis-information (reported here previously).

I do think anyone over 18 must present an FID/LTC to get a MA hunting license (jasons' post below is related to NON-Residents ONLY), unless they are NOT a MA Resident.

The person to answer this properly is MISTER HAPPY! He's both knowledgeable and teaches Hunter Ed classes (plus has a minor Son, so has an interest in the question).




Yes, that was Comm v. Cornelius 78 Mass App Ct 413 (2010) ruling that although S. 129C(j) exemption – 60 days, BUT C. 269 S. 10(m) prohibits large cap guns/mags! Therefore he ruled that you couldn't move into MA with any large-capacity guns/mags, period!!




No, it is NOT law yet. It was weakened significantly and put in the annual budget bill. It will pass but not protect anyone from prosecution on school property.

With respect to ove 18 showing proof of over 18.....I have purchased all of my hunting licenses in mass and never had to prove LTC or FID so wether it is law to prove it or not I don't know......in practice however I know that fish and game is not asking for them.

 

[Mike-Mike]

Something I noted in the H. 4278 re-write is that it specifically states that our LTC/FID that expired due to town/state inaction on renewal will be good for ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES! To me (IANAL) this includes purchase and sales of guns/ammo . . . which you can NOT do now in MA!!

Does that mean an expired "restricted license" is now unrestricted?

 

[cstockwell]

I have found Michaela very pleasant to deal with and very helpful, so I'm reasonably confident that she will look positively at such a request.

As I have as well. Each person I have worked with in her department has been great for dealing with my shop. She has been extremely pleasant, helpfpul and is a gun owner as well. It is a pleasant surprise to have someone like her in a government agency in MA.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Dear Mr. Hagberg:
First, thank you for your service.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the bill. Quite to the contrary, it fortifies the Second Amendment by requiring written specificity of denial grounds based on a clear standard. As a lawyer who has appealed licensure denials in the past, I believe this provides stronger rights for potential gun owners.

I too swear to uphold the Constitution and I take that obligation seriously.

I think we produced a very balanced bill that provides enhanced public safety while also respecting and appreciating the Second Amendment.

GOAL also saw it that way.

Thanks for contacting my office. If you still have questions, I'd be happy to meet with you.

Very best regards,

John

Awesome! Does the bill contain $1500 for me to hire a lawyer to appeal my FID denial that was based on a clear standard? Yeah, I thought not.

Also - Balanced bill? Um... GOAL does not "see it that way".

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I have to agree that the specific part he mentioned is a step up for those denied LTC's or issued restrictions for no good reason.... but FID suitability is certainly a step backwards, considering the way FID's were should be the way all LTCs are and not the other way around

grasping at straws at best, anti-gun owner disguised as misinformed supporter at worst

We really cannot afford to get hung up on the FID suitability issue. It's not important and unless your idea of the Second Amendment squares with that of Joe 'Shotgun' Biden, you're asking the wrong question. FID suitability is not the problem, suitability is the problem. Further more, a suitability based denial of and FID card is a poor vehicle for challenging suitability. It's settling for second place.

The bill as passed by the House contains some subtle, but incredibility important gifts that will make everyone's life better. Derailing this bill and saving 'shall issue' FIDs is like asking Mrs. Lincoln how she liked the play.

 

[StevieP]

I do think anyone over 18 must present an FID/LTC to get a MA hunting license

Patently UN-true. Plenty of bow hunters do very well without an FID.

 

[jefftk]

The bill as passed by the House contains some subtle, but incredibility important gifts that will make everyone's life better.

More than just the de novo hearing?

 

[Bill Katt]

Also - Balanced bill? Um... GOAL does not "see it that way".

GOAL should make them fully aware that. These *******s are going to be running with GOAL's "neutral" as 'GOAL thinks it's great....GOAL thinks it's balanced...We have GOAL's backing on this'.

You know what I mean?

 

[mattyw]

I really liked the amendment that was proposed in the house but voted down, could we work with some good senators to propose something like that again?

where basically any agents of the state are prohibited from restricting the rights of legal gun owners further, outside of the legislative branches

I know thats not exactly what it said but that was the spirit of it, and with complete nutjobs running for AG to out anti eachother, I think it would send a good message
(even though no chance it gets adopted)

also, I know this is on to the senate but I made sure I thanked my house rep for her no vote and also mentioned how sad it was that a simple week extension for reading/discussion for a bill that was re-written overnight and most had just hours to read, was voted down so easily. Disrespectful to all citizens regardless of their view

 

[oldsoldier29]

FID shall issue was made such so that no one could sure 2 the state for restricting 2a rights, by having a suitability clause. In essence, they could deny you a ltc, yet issue you an FID, and be fully compliant with federal law. By making it a may issue, dependent on suitability, this goes directly against federal law, as there is no Avenue left for them to be compliant. So, in essence, this is, at best, a federal lawsuit waiting to happen, I would think. Again, I really think this was left in there to be negotiated out. But, that's purely speculation on my part.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

FID shall issue was made such so that no one could sure 2 the state for restricting 2a rights, by having a suitability clause. In essence, they could deny you a ltc, yet issue you an FID, and be fully compliant with federal law. By making it a may issue, dependent on suitability, this goes directly against federal law, as there is no Avenue left for them to be compliant. So, in essence, this is, at best, a federal lawsuit waiting to happen, I would think. Again, I really think this was left in there to be negotiated out. But, that's purely speculation on my part.

The state's position is that there's no right to the LTC, only the FID Card. So, you're kind of close. We don't want to settle for that and this is why fighting for the FID Card is the wrong fight. It just validates their position.

 

[Squire]

FID shall issue was made such so that no one could sure 2 the state for restricting 2a rights, by having a suitability clause. In essence, they could deny you a ltc, yet issue you an FID, and be fully compliant with federal law. By making it a may issue, dependent on suitability, this goes directly against federal law, as there is no Avenue left for them to be compliant. So, in essence, this is, at best, a federal lawsuit waiting to happen, I would think. Again, I really think this was left in there to be negotiated out. But, that's purely speculation on my part.

Trade it 1 gun a month, which is has much more anti appeal? This is where GOAL needs to hold strong.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Trade it 1 gun a month, which is has much more anti appeal? This is where GOAL needs to hold strong.

Huh?

 

[rlee]

Huh?

I think he's suggesting that the FID suitability would be traded for 1 gun a month.
I doubt that DeLeo wants ANY changes; time is running out.

 

[Quiet]

The state's position is that there's no right to the LTC, only the FID Card. So, you're kind of close. We don't want to settle for that and this is why fighting for the FID Card is the wrong fight. It just validates their position.

Clearly should this law be enacted, that will no longer be their position.

Their position was more tenable prior to Heller&McDonald. Even after, with a scheme for the permit to purchase (even though never issued) they had cover. With the FID May Issue they have no cover.

 

[Squire]

I think he's suggesting that the FID suitability would be traded for 1 gun a month.
I doubt that DeLeo wants ANY changes; time is running out.

Yes, I mean that hard-core antis know good and well that suitability won't do anything to curb gun trafficking, but for a straw purchaser who wasn't unsuitable, 1 gun a month could.