The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885

scott-o said:
Not sure where this is from, sir, but here it is rotated, running OCR on it now to see if i can extract it for you.
Click to expand...

!@#%@!#%@@#$@#!!

What she signed is *NOT* what was published on the state's website.

I know they're different because "SECTION 68" used to have words missing.

The signed version does not.

So who knows what else they changed between the version they say they passed and was published on the web, and what actually went into law.

The changes to SECTION 68 are immaterial, I had guessed that's what they meant. But it proves they changed stuff.

As published, the PDF we've all been looking at:

Section 68 published .png

As signed:

Sectin 68 signed.png
 
Last edited:
milktree said:
!@#%@!#%@@#$@#!!

What she signed is *NOT* what was published on the state's website.

I know they're different because "SECTION 68" used to have words missing.

The signed version does not.

So who knows what else they changed between the version they say they passed and was published on the web, and what actually went into law.
Click to expand...
These are the things you can do when there are no checks and balances.

Imagine if you could draft a gun rights law with no oversight, it just goes straight to law.. Now imagine someone who hates guns doing the same thing :(
 
milktree said:
!@#%@!#%@@#$@#!!

What she signed is *NOT* what was published on the state's website.

I know they're different because "SECTION 68" used to have words missing.

The signed version does not.

So who knows what else they changed between the version they say they passed and was published on the web, and what actually went into law.
Click to expand...
Typical of criminals who pass illegal "laws".
 
milktree said:
So who knows what else they changed between the version they say they passed and was published on the web, and what actually went into law.
Click to expand...

...almost as if they, y'know, don't want anyone to know what's in it... or maybe their IT people are just stupid. Or both.
 
Coda said:
I thought the tone of it was fairly moderate considering it was coming from a local liberal main stream media outlet (local NBC affiliate).

And again..... The fact that they even put it up there is a surprise. Not sure how familiar you are with WWLP out of Springfield but they are not exactly pro 2A.

I am not dancing in the streets waving my AR like this is some great victory. But it is an insight to the fact that they are some liberals who don't agree with this legislation. Listing the names of Democrats that voted against it exemplifies that.
Click to expand...
I read articles like that with a very critical eye. It's my upbringing. It was also my job. By comparison, my good wife could read it over and never spot the words and clues that give away the true message and politics of the writer. And yes, I am intimately familiar with WWLP.

In regard to the NRA wishing to get involved... the verdict is still out in my view. The NRA is a damaged organization that has a long road back to respectability and power. I'll have to hold off on my opinion regarding the NRA entering the MA anti-Constitutional gun law fray until I know more.
 
milktree said:
!@#%@!#%@@#$@#!!

What she signed is *NOT* what was published on the state's website.

I know they're different because "SECTION 68" used to have words missing.

The signed version does not.

So who knows what else they changed between the version they say they passed and was published on the web, and what actually went into law.

The changes to SECTION 68 are immaterial, I had guessed that's what they meant. But it proves they changed stuff.

As published, the PDF we've all been looking at:

View attachment 903389

As signed:

View attachment 903390
Click to expand...


I'm going through the comparison now. They did change things, just not sure how material they are. Will share...
 
milktree said:
!@#%@!#%@@#$@#!!

What she signed is *NOT* what was published on the state's website.

I know they're different because "SECTION 68" used to have words missing.

The signed version does not.

So who knows what else they changed between the version they say they passed and was published on the web, and what actually went into law.

The changes to SECTION 68 are immaterial, I had guessed that's what they meant. But it proves they changed stuff.

As published, the PDF we've all been looking at:

View attachment 903389

As signed:

View attachment 903390
Click to expand...
That's an example of an allowed correction of a typographical error
 
EJFudd said:
I read articles like that with a very critical eye. It's my upbringing. It was also my job. By comparison, my good wife could read it over and never spot the words and clues that give away the true message and politics of the writer. And yes, I am intimately familiar with WWLP.

In regard to the NRA wishing to get involved... the verdict is still out in my view. The NRA is a damaged organization that has a long road back to respectability and power. I'll have to hold off on my opinion regarding the NRA entering the MA anti-Constitutional gun law fray until I know more.
Click to expand...
As long as you are supporting other organizations is all that matters.
 
milktree said:
Can you cite that?

I read it as "new instructors pay $50, renewals pay $10 (if I'm thinking of the same language)

The fact that we'll have to submit to CJIS and then CJIS will send it to the student is idiotic, but not really part of "will we need more certifications?" or "will the existing certs be valid?"
Click to expand...
No it is only how I interpret this. I can't beleave we will not need to take some sort of new training to be certified to teach this new safety and live fire class. There is nothing explaining how this will come togather it is all unknowned right now.
 
pastera said:
That's an example of an allowed correction of a typographical error
Click to expand...

Sure, I get that.

But what else is an "allowed correction of a typographical error"? What other words did they leave out "by accident"?

I honestly don't trust them to not "remember" a clause or word that changes the meaning a lot.

They haven't done any of this in good faith, at all, ever, so it's not going to surprise me when they keep doing shit in bad faith.
 
pastera said:
So what are the differences?
Just because a PDF has a different creation or modification time stamp doesn't mean the text is different (an administrative change to fix a format or typographical error is allowed)
Click to expand...
One would have to run a diff between versions to see what's been changed. PS: and if that change is just an administrative or typographical change or something more substantial.
 
JDL said:
No it is only how I interpret this. I can't beleave we will not need to take some sort of new training to be certified to teach this new safety and live fire class.
Click to expand...

Why not? They've been trusting the NRA curriculum for a long time, and the new law already requires (effectively) using some nationally accepted course. Adding "must have 50 rounds of .22 in total and score at least 80 with 10 rounds at 25' on such-and-such a target" and "must score 75% on provided test" and "must provide this information" wouldn't be that hard.
 
EJFudd said:
In regard to the NRA wishing to get involved... the verdict is still out in my view. The NRA is a damaged organization that has a long road back to respectability and power. I'll have to hold off on my opinion regarding the NRA entering the MA anti-Constitutional gun law fray until I know more.
Click to expand...

Ask any hundred antis which organization they're fighting against. Ninety-nine of them will say "the NRA."

They're the big kid on the block, regardless of our concerns about their internal operations.
 
These are comparing the text of the bill as currently posted on the legislature's webpage with the actual signed copy. Will try to include section references and screen shots from the comparison. Red text is new in the parchment file.

Section 12:
1722289606397.png

1722289636677.png

Section 13:

1722289662580.png

Section 32:

1722289851785.png

Section 122:

1722290119705.png
 
not new guy said:
These are comparing the text of the bill as currently posted on the legislature's webpage with the actual signed copy. Will try to include section references and screen shots from the comparison. Red text is new in the parchment file.

Section 12:
View attachment 903391

View attachment 903392

Section 13:

View attachment 903394

Section 32:

View attachment 903397

Section 122:

View attachment 903398
Click to expand...


Sorry, the comparison file fell apart somewhere around 40 or 50 pages into the 180+ page file. I'll try to pick it back up tomorrow but nothing major or material so far.
 
Picton said:
Ask any hundred antis which organization they're fighting against. Ninety-nine of them will say "the NRA."

They're the big kid on the block, regardless of our concerns about their internal operations.
Click to expand...
True - if the NRA "gets involved" in some insignificant way and goes out and talks it up seven ways to Sunday that might help us - the anitis will attack the NRA and ignore the lessor known but more effective organizations.
 
not new guy said:
These are comparing the text of the bill as currently posted on the legislature's webpage with the actual signed copy. Will try to include section references and screen shots from the comparison. Red text is new in the parchment file.

Section 12:
View attachment 903391

View attachment 903392

Section 13:

View attachment 903394

Section 32:

View attachment 903397

Section 122:

View attachment 903398
Click to expand...
That last edit might just be illegal
The others don't change the meaning of the text and simply make the text fit more closely the way Mass laws are written.
 
pastera said:
That last edit might just be illegal
The others don't change the meaning of the text and simply make the text fit more closely the way Mass laws are written.
Click to expand...

Why? Is "Secretary of Public Safety and security" a different position than "The secretary of the executive office of public safety"? I'm all about calling them on their bullshit, but this doesn't seem like it could ever change the meaning or intent.
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
38
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Fox News has gone woke?
Replies
11
Views
374
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The H&K P7 M13 is Coming Back? The P7 Pro at SHOT Show 2025!
2
Replies
59
Views
587
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Cam Edward's wife has passed away
Replies
3
Views
287
Reptile
Reptile
Holiday Deals Day 9: The Deals are STILL HERE — Don't Miss Out!
Replies
0
Views
56
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Back
Top Bottom