• 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.

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

6Gears1Speed said:
I won't turn this thread into a debate about who's running the show but if someone want's to PM me on how things went from neutral to egregious without NRA having said a few choice words I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Easy. They were neutral about the result coming out of the House. I personally disagree on the neutral bit and I think Wallace was just trying to make the point that it could have been a whole lot worse. End of part one. Then the bill goes to the Senate. They add 63 Ammendments that turn the bill from neutral to egregious. I've been a board member of GOAL in the past. The NRA has 0 input into policies, provides 0 funding and has 0 interest in MA.
 
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...

Ben Cartwright SASS said:
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?
Click to expand...

A guess... I think it's purpose is to prohibit the sale/transfer of out of state pre-bans to MA residents.

IOW... someone in a free state that doesn't have an AWB, puts their pre-ban AR up for sale on GunBroker... it can't be transferred into this state.
 
LoginName said:
I think it's purpose is to prohibit the sale/transfer of out of state pre-bans to MA residents.

IOW... someone in a free state that doesn't have an AWB, puts their pre-ban AR up for sale on GunBroker... it can't be transferred into this state.
Click to expand...

What it's doing is increasing penalties for illegal possession of. It's also a bit scary b/c it doubles down on the "must be possessed before 9/13/94" language which is not currently being enforced.
 
Called Senator Rush's office, spoke to an aide who said Rush was still formulating an opinion (yeah right) on S 2265 and they've been getting a lot of calls regarding it. Very non-committal but I didn't expect much, I don't know much about Rush but I see nothing to indicate he doesn't vote with his fellow Ds.
 
6Gears1Speed said:
I won't turn this thread into a debate about who's running the show but if someone want's to PM me on how things went from neutral to egregious without NRA having said a few choice words I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

It was the NRA that grabbed on to GOAL's coat tails when they began to see them having some influence in MA. NOT the other way around!
 
don't forget to reiterate the bad parts of the bill we need/want removed as well, not just preventing more amendments
 
rwl1955 said:
I sent Jen Flanagan another email advising her of the amendments we support and the ones we oppose. We'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Really helps to call too. Let them know how Creem and Eldridge are offering up very offensive stuff. Tell them to be sure to see your email and would like a reply. It works!
 
At this point in history the NRA might as well merge with Harry and David to become a more powerful "fruit-of-the-month" club....they are irrelevant.

whatever influence we have on S2265 will be in spite of the NRA, not alongside them.
 
I've been mentioning to Rush in every email that he is a Naval Reserve Officer and has sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. We'll see if it has any effect.

rogues said:
Called Senator Rush's office, spoke to an aide who said Rush was still formulating an opinion (yeah right) on S 2265 and they've been getting a lot of calls regarding it. Very non-committal but I didn't expect much, I don't know much about Rush but I see nothing to indicate he doesn't vote with his fellow Ds.
Click to expand...
 
6Gears1Speed said:
I won't turn this thread into a debate about who's running the show but if someone want's to PM me on how things went from neutral to egregious without NRA having said a few choice words I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

the revised bill came out of the committee, and GOAL said "meh"
then the senate added a metric f***ton of crap to it, and now GOAL is like "WTF?"
 
Last edited:
Mike S said:
What it's doing is increasing penalties for illegal possession of. It's also a bit scary b/c it doubles down on the "must be possessed before 9/13/94" language which is not currently being enforced.
Click to expand...

It's definitely doing that.

GOAL seems to have two different takes on it.

In the email alert, the say it's a "renewed AWB"...

#60 which would ban many common use firearms and magazines. (Renewed AWB)
Click to expand...

In the link from above... http://goal.org/Documents/S2265Amendents[3].pdf

they state that it's for "Increased Penalties for the Illegal Possession of Firearms".

Whatever it's intended purpose or outcome is, it's isn't good.
 
LoginName said:
It's definitely doing that.

GOAL seems to have two different takes on it.

In the email alert, the say it's a "renewed AWB"...


In the link from above... http://goal.org/Documents/S2265Amendents[3].pdf

they state that it's for "Increased Penalties for the Illegal Possession of Firearms".

Whatever it's intended purpose or outcome is, it's isn't good.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's a defacto "renewed AWB" in that it doubles down on the "must be possessed before" date language which has not been enforced. There's a long history of confusion from the state in regards to the AWB and instead of clarifying/repealing they're increasing penalties and going the wrong way. Typical MA.
 
jefftk said:
He is evidently worried about the hypothetical "grey area of gun control". The hypothetical situation evidently being crimes not related to gangs in any way, but rather, the (licensed) person with a previously clean record who then goes and commits some violent crime. How banning currently lawful private transfers supposedly addresses this issue is ... not obvious to me. In fact, its not obvious to me how any law could address such an issue, barring a minority report style pre-crime division.

Also - so far as as I can tell, this "grey area" is perhaps more "off-white" as most reports I've seen, where such data is available, shows that licensed gun owners / CCW permit holders have a significantly lower rate of crime/incarceration than the general population.
Click to expand...
Significantly lower than POLICE OFFICERS in Texas and in Florida I forget where I recently read these stats.



Can someone tell me is it illegal to say the following to a Senator:

"Senator, if you vote this way on this bill, I will support your re-election campaign"?

Where is the line in tit-for-tat bribery?

Thanks.
 
Quiet said:
Significantly lower than POLICE OFFICERS in Texas and in Florida I forget where I recently read these stats.



Can someone tell me is it illegal to say the following to a Senator:

"Senator, if you vote this way on this bill, I will support your re-election campaign"?

Where is the line in tit-for-tat bribery?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I think it's more effective to say "This is a primary issue for me and my friends and if we aren't aligned I will do everything in my power to get a representative elected who is aligned with me".
 
Quiet said:
Significantly lower than POLICE OFFICERS in Texas and in Florida I forget where I recently read these stats.



Can someone tell me is it illegal to say the following to a Senator:

"Senator, if you vote this way on this bill, I will support your re-election campaign"?

Where is the line in tit-for-tat bribery?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It's not bribery, unless the Senator in question is actually named "Tat." [smile]
 
Squire said:
I think it's more effective to say "This is a primary issue for me and my friends and if we aren't aligned I will do everything in my power to get a representative elected who is aligned with me".
Click to expand...

this is how I do it

I sent Naughton a receipt for a campaign donation I made to his opponent.

I havent heard back from my senator but I will run against her myself if I have to
 
I wasted a few hundred words on Stan Rosenberg, who wants to be the next senate president (to be indicted). Last time, I didn't even get a robo response.
 
wolfenkraft said:
If it's Creem, you've got my vote.
Click to expand...
haha no sorry, I wish. Sen Jen Flanagan

here is my second letter to her, a mix of my first one opposing the bill and my notes, and GOAL and JJ's list of amendments

Dear Senator Flanagan,
I 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. I 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.

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 civil right be subject to standards that are not even clearly defined, written in law or consistently applied. Therefore I ask that you support Amendment #6 which would remove this language from the bill.

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) 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 find Amendments #11, 17, 20, 57, 60 particularly offensive and intrusive for many different reasons. 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

On a personal note, it is upsetting that a widely applauded and well rounded simple bill like the one that came out of the House of Representatives, was changed so drastically in the Ways and Means Committee and is now facing over 60 amendments, most of which are onerous and/or unnecessary.

I 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.

I appreciate your time in reading this and the work that you do. I will follow up with a phone call as well.

sincerley, your devoted prole,
Mattyw
Click to expand...
 
6Gears1Speed said:
I won't turn this thread into a debate about who's running the show but if someone want's to PM me on how things went from neutral to egregious without NRA having said a few choice words I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
Knowing a couple board members personally, who've stated the nra has had zero to do with this entire process-I'll take their word over anyone's assumptions, thanks.
 
I made a pdf with the text of all the amendments, but it's too big to upload. I could chunk it into thirds and try that way if anyone is interested.
 

Similar threads

MA Out of state LTC
Replies
19
Views
359
drgrant
drgrant
Fid requirements for minors
2
Replies
58
Views
1K
Brannigan03
Brannigan03
Plus and Minus of buying a Semi Auto Uzi?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
Road_Clam
R
Where to get out of date / trashed lvl 3 + 3a armor on the cheap?
Replies
13
Views
239
Broc
Broc
Seattle PD taking out the trash
Replies
22
Views
612
MGnoob
MGnoob
Back
Top Bottom