Are you suggesting that we give up one right to try to retain another right?
-
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 June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
S 2265 (aka HB4285, 4278, 4121) out of Senate Ways and Means (FID Suitability)
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
Are you suggesting that we give up one right to try to retain another right?
No. I'm suggesting that the lawyers in the House realize the pandora's box that FID suitability could mean, and that they might want to trade it for something else (like 1 gun a month).
Sent to my Senator.
Adding “suitablility” to FID cards is going to open up so many court cases and cost the state so much money it should be removed. Please don’t tell me it does not happen because that is just not true. Here is my line of thinking. The very first person who is denied a FID for suitability who has a clean record will have a major case for being denied his Second Amendment rights. We dodged a bullet by making it a “shall issue”. That is the only reason it was not reversed as it was in Illinois. Suitability should be “Shall Issue” for all unless they are Federally prohibited persons. If you are a Federally prohibited person you know it and there is a reason you should be denied and with due process our courts will back us up on this.
Suitability for FID does not provide any violence reduction in any way it only opens us up for lawsuits and lots of money in courts. What it does do is make people who don’t want handguns or modern day sporting rifles just get an LTC instead so they will not be limited with a FID as to what they can purchase. You are in fact going to cause to happen what you don’t want to happen. The suitability issue for FID must be “Shall Issue”.
Once again, IF the purpose of the bill is actually to “Reduce Gun Violence”, putting more laws in place and increasing the penalty for legal and lawful gun owners is very obviously not the way to do it. Remember it is already illegal to have an illegal firearm(a firearm without a license in this state). Once again, Criminals commit crimes. Legal and Lawful gun owners are not where the gun violence comes from and I think we agree that legal gun owners are not the problem.
I understand that things like this bill are very hard to really understand when it is not your cup of tea. I know you are under lots of pressure to vote for this so you can say you did something. This bill does some things but it is at the expense of our rights and our lack of foresight. We can make this a win win for everyone but this is not it. If you would like to speak about this bill or have questions for me, I am sure I can make time for you as you would for me. If I do not have the answer for you, I know I can get it in short order. Please feel free to email or call me.
Adding “suitablility” to FID cards is going to open up so many court cases and cost the state so much money it should be removed. Please don’t tell me it does not happen because that is just not true. Here is my line of thinking. The very first person who is denied a FID for suitability who has a clean record will have a major case for being denied his Second Amendment rights. We dodged a bullet by making it a “shall issue”. That is the only reason it was not reversed as it was in Illinois. Suitability should be “Shall Issue” for all unless they are Federally prohibited persons. If you are a Federally prohibited person you know it and there is a reason you should be denied and with due process our courts will back us up on this.
Suitability for FID does not provide any violence reduction in any way it only opens us up for lawsuits and lots of money in courts. What it does do is make people who don’t want handguns or modern day sporting rifles just get an LTC instead so they will not be limited with a FID as to what they can purchase. You are in fact going to cause to happen what you don’t want to happen. The suitability issue for FID must be “Shall Issue”.
Once again, IF the purpose of the bill is actually to “Reduce Gun Violence”, putting more laws in place and increasing the penalty for legal and lawful gun owners is very obviously not the way to do it. Remember it is already illegal to have an illegal firearm(a firearm without a license in this state). Once again, Criminals commit crimes. Legal and Lawful gun owners are not where the gun violence comes from and I think we agree that legal gun owners are not the problem.
I understand that things like this bill are very hard to really understand when it is not your cup of tea. I know you are under lots of pressure to vote for this so you can say you did something. This bill does some things but it is at the expense of our rights and our lack of foresight. We can make this a win win for everyone but this is not it. If you would like to speak about this bill or have questions for me, I am sure I can make time for you as you would for me. If I do not have the answer for you, I know I can get it in short order. Please feel free to email or call me.
Last edited:
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
"Illegal firearm" fail.
"Gun violence" fail.
"Gun violence" fail.
Last edited:
Gotcha.
I think that O.G.A.M. is a non-starter here. The governor wants it, but I think everyone else realizes that it's impossible to administer, that the 'trafficked' guns don't come from legal purchases in Mass, and that it's failed everywhere it was tried (I think one or two states even repealed it).
The fight is not over yet. The bill is out of the house, and will be debated in the senate (where additional amendments may be applied). Perhaps one of those amendments will try to remove all suitability denials.
How about shall issue EVERYTHING, one gun a month, but may issue a MORE THAN ONE GUN A MONTH license? ( Look, I know the answer to this is No for all if us, but this is how the political haggling goes. We should encourage our Senators to not do this, that, indeed, the only acceptable outcome would be repeal everything but 2A).
But calling, emailing, everybody THEM is more important than telling me no thanks!
But calling, emailing, everybody THEM is more important than telling me no thanks!
Palladin
NES Member
Start bombing the Senators to include the pepper spray bill onto this POS. It was deleted from the budget by committee
Please. Stop it.
Why do you think a trade is either either doable, or a good idea?
ETA: Sorry, but I'm going to go on a little rant here....
Political haggling? Really? Like you have some insight to this? By what process would this take place? These types of 'trade' proposals are idiotic. Let's think through how just such a hypothetical trade would work using the scenario you describe above. OK?
First we'd need trading partners to make this trade.
On one side, we'd need a state senator or group of senators to whom O.G.A.M. is really important, but don't have enough influence to ram it through, but at the same DO have enough influence to be able to control how the senate votes on an amendment that would make licenses "shall issue". For some reason, this is a weird group of anti gun people that imagine that a policy that lets people buy 12 guns per year will do more to reduce gun ownership than allowing a government official to prevent people from buying any guns ever.
On the other side, we'd have a group or entity who has the ability to "give up" O.G.A.M. in exchange for making licenses 'shall issue'. Even though they have the keys to O.G.A.M. in their pockets (somehow given to them by the gun rights people?), they just can't get over the hump on suitability.
The two sides meet at the big Senate Trading Window under the dome at the State house, with everybody wearing their trading hats. Since there's only about two weeks left in the session, this would all have to come together really quickly.
The only problem with the above scenario is that neither side in this trade actually exists or ever will exist, and I'm pretty sure I made up the parts about the trading window and trading hats.
The real saints in this are the staff at GOAL that have to answer the phones and respond to idiotic suggestions like these (and not use profanity).
Last edited:
OGAM is dead. The FID suitability can't stand a federal court test. I think it will be dropped. Or, ask your senator why they are specifically targeting old men and kids, as those are the only 2 classes that get these? Are they saying that hunters are the cause of gun crime? If not-why are they targeting the hunters?
Hello...Can I copy this and send it to my Senator..I have called his office:Lenny Mirra"...still no response. I guess I am so sick of this shit..I am house hunting..Realy sucks..But I have to do what I have to do..
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,618
- Likes
- 20,022
Shh, don't let them know this they may change the wording. I wasn't thinking that way but it could indeed be an interesting interpretation.
Hmm, I didn't know that she was a gun owner too.
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
I did say I'm not an expert on hunting issues. I didn't know that they didn't have a separate license for bow hunting, so you are right they wouldn't be able to require an FID for bow hunters, thus not for anyone.
That's what it looks like. I mean, they just killed the pepper spray bill-they hate women. Why not spread the hate?
I would change that to FEDERALLY prohibited person. No need to allow them to prohibit everyone in the state through legislation.
Billsail
NES Member
Sent an email to my senator. Will call Monday.
One more item I forgot (maybe others can help confirm this more precisely)...the Senator's staffer I spoke with this morning is expecting this legislation to be wrapped up by next Wednesday July 16.
hv55maxx
NES Member
Isn't this now even nill as heller and MacDonald happened after this? There is no way to be 100% sure you'll have access to handguns as affirmed by these cases
Please feel free to use it if it helps and make the suggested corrections marked in Green. That was a good edit. I do make a mistake now and then.
Federally Prohibited Person was a good suggestion as well. Thanks
Cannot believe someone let me get away with using "a" instead of "an". Slackers
Federally Prohibited Person was a good suggestion as well. Thanks
Cannot believe someone let me get away with using "a" instead of "an". Slackers
Last edited:
The state cannot legally bar your right to firearms, so long ad you're not a federally prohibited person. May issue means they can prevent you from legally owning a firearm. That's how I'm interpreting it.
Could one of our more court savy members chime in with some idea what an appeal would cost someone?
Another angle on this might be that it's an attempt to cull out lower income people from having the right, if we had an even ballpark figure to throw out there.
Another angle on this might be that it's an attempt to cull out lower income people from having the right, if we had an even ballpark figure to throw out there.
If they catch you possessing a firearm without a license, they certainly will, legally bar you from your right to own a firearm (and quite possibly your very freedom). Further, you will now be a federally prohibited person.
Of course, you may also be a great test case to determine whether or not McDonald actually applies in MA.
Last edited:
Not an expert on it, but I know someone who got quoted 5k for a petition to judicial review in district court by a lawyer for an LTC denial. No idea how much a lawyer would charge for an appeals court hearing, or state supreme court review. It must be a lot though.
I don't really care about FID suitability. FIDs are the bastard child of licenses for adults/FUDS, but I concede that it's the only option for teens. The state has attempted to say in the past that entitlement to a FID *is* your 2A right ("there's no entitlement to a LTC"). Well, if they take that way then by their own logic they are taking away 2A rights. FID suitability puts all the licenses in the same boat and opens the doors to challenge suitability across the board.
In my mind, the most troubling section is here:
So, can anybody go walk around Kenmore/Allston and tell me when they are on BU property or Harvard property? Can you hike around a pond in your town and find yourself on property owned by the schools? Is that baseball field part of the rec department or school department? In my town the school department owns huge swaths of land - including wooded parcels with hiking paths through them. There is no indication anywhere that you are entering school grounds. Crossing some invisible property line while carrying can now get you arrested and thrown in jail for 2 years!
Edit: The current law has the following issues as well:
Also - parades often form up on school grounds. I know there are exceptions for parades in other sections of the law - not sure how that applies.
Also - this section gets its own definition of a "firearm". A 1775 musket, a nerf gun, or an airsoft gun all seem to qualify, hell maybe even a marshmellow shooter qualifies. "firearm" has a completely different definition in most of the rest of the law.
Also - what is a "other dangerous weapon"?
In my mind, the most troubling section is here:
Edit: Main changes to the section in BLUE. Previous max penalty was 1 year (in RED).
So, can anybody go walk around Kenmore/Allston and tell me when they are on BU property or Harvard property? Can you hike around a pond in your town and find yourself on property owned by the schools? Is that baseball field part of the rec department or school department? In my town the school department owns huge swaths of land - including wooded parcels with hiking paths through them. There is no indication anywhere that you are entering school grounds. Crossing some invisible property line while carrying can now get you arrested and thrown in jail for 2 years!
Edit: The current law has the following issues as well:
Also - parades often form up on school grounds. I know there are exceptions for parades in other sections of the law - not sure how that applies.
Also - this section gets its own definition of a "firearm". A 1775 musket, a nerf gun, or an airsoft gun all seem to qualify, hell maybe even a marshmellow shooter qualifies. "firearm" has a completely different definition in most of the rest of the law.
Also - what is a "other dangerous weapon"?
Last edited:
Right, that's not my point though. My point was that, by making an FID may issue, they are, in essence, denying people a natural right, because now they need to "qualify" you for your exercising of that right. Whereas, the way the FID is now, provided you aren't a prohibited person, they must issue it. It's a federal court case waiting to happen.
Quiet
Banned
In 1776 it was a quill pen and a printing press.
On that, we're in agreement. On the surface, it's like they've lobbed it over the plate for Comm2A to smash out of the park, and I really hope it plays out like that.
In the meantime though, they've screwed us yet again.
