2ndsojourn
New member
^^^ Compromise committee?
What did the law abiding gun owners get?
Pfft....what compromise? Just more regulations.
What did the law abiding gun owners get?
Pfft....what compromise? Just more regulations.
MA proposed Police discretion to own long arms?
- Thread starter Wyoredman
- Start date
Dove,
Is there a mechanism for someone "determined unsuitable" to have a hearing to correct the record?
Who's the ultimate "Determiner"? Judge, police chief, who? One man?
"Behavior to suggest potential risk to public safety" means what? Belonging to the NRA, a shooting club? A Hunter? Could all this be a "behavior to suggest a potential risk to public safety"? Belonging to an opposing party during an election cycle? Could that be enough to get you on the banned list?
WOW! What a sham! I'm sure glad I live in Wyoming.
Is there a mechanism for someone "determined unsuitable" to have a hearing to correct the record?
Who's the ultimate "Determiner"? Judge, police chief, who? One man?
"Behavior to suggest potential risk to public safety" means what? Belonging to the NRA, a shooting club? A Hunter? Could all this be a "behavior to suggest a potential risk to public safety"? Belonging to an opposing party during an election cycle? Could that be enough to get you on the banned list?
WOW! What a sham! I'm sure glad I live in Wyoming.
Compromise -> "concurrency", this is the 6 person committee that was created to resolve the dispute between the house and senate versions of the bill
The one man who makes the call is the Chief of Police of the licensing town, but this power is usually handed down to a licensing officer. The big "compromise" legal gun owners got in this bill---in both the house and senate versions, but stronger in the senate and final versions---is that a denial or restriction can be appealed to a court and the burden of proof will rest with the CoP. We're hoping this dismantles blanket "always restrict" town policies.
The one man who makes the call is the Chief of Police of the licensing town, but this power is usually handed down to a licensing officer. The big "compromise" legal gun owners got in this bill---in both the house and senate versions, but stronger in the senate and final versions---is that a denial or restriction can be appealed to a court and the burden of proof will rest with the CoP. We're hoping this dismantles blanket "always restrict" town policies.
carguychris
New member
As the old saying goes... Who is this "we", paleface?dove said:
As with the proverbial fellow making that statement, I just don't see how this bill is a Good Thing for us in ANY way. In fact, I think the comparison is very striking. ("We can all agree that our group gets all of the power and gets to make all the decisions, and your group gets very little in return. But that's OK, there will be bureaucrats who will listen your grievances, and could conceivably act to address them. Maybe.")
Last edited:
maestro pistolero
New member
It is always the ideologue's overreach that does them in. It's what got us Heller, McDonald, and if it holds, Palmer. I almost welcome this degree of stupidity (almost).
NJgunowner
New member
New Jersey has been "May issuing" rights for decades now and getting away with it in the courts Jim. Just saying.
carguychris
New member
Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't the City of Boston have quite a few firearms regulations that go above and beyond the default MA regulations?Slamfire said:
Also, airguns fall outside the definition of "firearm" in many states, thus making them exempt from state firearms preemption statutes. One would think that municipal governments would have better things to do than to over-regulate airguns, but some find excuses to do it anyway. (Again, pardon my ignorance, but I don't know how MA state law treats local airgun regulations.)
Last edited:
2ndsojourn
New member
JD, as far as I know the FOID card is shall issue, as well as a permit to purchase a handgun. A permit to carry is may issue, and I don't know anyone who has gotten one. It's a well known policy that they're not issued.
Well carry has, unfortunately, not quite been established as a fundamental right. We've got a gigantic circuit split to show that. So as bad as New Jersey is, they haven't quite been May Issuing a fundamental right, and certainly not to the degree a May Issue permit to own period would.
GOAL has posted an update on the bill that does a good job summarizing the situation for those who'd like a quicker take without reading up on all the background: http://goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html
It seems the governor hasn't signed it yet; I was mistaken.
It seems the governor hasn't signed it yet; I was mistaken.
The bill number is H.4376 and passed both the house and senate. Here is a overview,
Massachusetts Legislature Breaks New Ground in Gun Control
Posted on August 1, 2014
Last night, in the waning hours of Massachusetts’ legislative session, its House and Senate passed H.4376. Seemingly out of definable categories of persons to deny the right to arms, this bill would make Massachusetts the first state in which an individual’s right to acquire any type of firearm would be subject to the discretion of a government official. The bill went through numerous versions, some better and some worse than H.4376. At one hopeful point, the discretionary provision was removed from the Senate version of the bill. After lobbying by several current and former Massachusetts police chiefs -- the very sorts of officials whose authority over individual rights would be expanded under the bill -- a “compromise” was reached by a committee of the House and Senate. The new provision would allow issuing officials to deny the mandatory license needed to obtain a firearm on any basis of risk they could think of, subject to a court’s determination they had proven their case by a preponderance of evidence (a far lesser standard than required for conviction of a crime).
If there is any question of how some officials view the authority they expect to gain from the bill, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans made it clear how a discretionary provision would be used in Boston. As we reported last week, in an interview with Boston Public Radio, Commissioner Evans claimed that “[f]or the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, . . . I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.”
Just what sort of theories licensing officials will come up with to exercise their discretion under the bill is anybody’s guess. A past version of the bill would have expanded the automatic “prohibited person” categories to cover many new misdemeanors. This was eliminated from the final version of the bill, but the discretionary provision could be used to deny applicants licenses based not just on convictions but on mere arrests or police contacts that never led to judgments by a court. Another provision of H.4376 seems to make clear that the intent of the discretionary provision is to significantly expand who would be prohibited from possessing firearms. That provision would require the collection and reporting of convictions of a number of misdemeanor crimes that are not prohibiting under federal or Massachusetts law. Clearly, somebody thinks this information will be considered relevant in who does and does not “deserve” a firearm.
While H.4376 did contain some beneficial provisions for gun owners, leaving the mere exercise of the right to arms up to the discretion of government officials was a deal-breaking and unprecedented overreach by the legislature. Yet this is far from the bill’s only problem. It also imposes increased penalties for violations of so-called “lost or stolen” and “safe-storage” laws, the creation of new crimes that might be used to prosecute those who use their firearms defensively, and a provision that encourages doctors to intrude on their patients’ privacy to discuss firearm ownership. The bill has not yet been signed into law, but Governor Deval Patrick has already signaled his support. H.4376 is yet another example of the importance of electing representatives who will support the Second Amendment.
Massachusetts Legislature Breaks New Ground in Gun Control
Posted on August 1, 2014
Last night, in the waning hours of Massachusetts’ legislative session, its House and Senate passed H.4376. Seemingly out of definable categories of persons to deny the right to arms, this bill would make Massachusetts the first state in which an individual’s right to acquire any type of firearm would be subject to the discretion of a government official. The bill went through numerous versions, some better and some worse than H.4376. At one hopeful point, the discretionary provision was removed from the Senate version of the bill. After lobbying by several current and former Massachusetts police chiefs -- the very sorts of officials whose authority over individual rights would be expanded under the bill -- a “compromise” was reached by a committee of the House and Senate. The new provision would allow issuing officials to deny the mandatory license needed to obtain a firearm on any basis of risk they could think of, subject to a court’s determination they had proven their case by a preponderance of evidence (a far lesser standard than required for conviction of a crime).
If there is any question of how some officials view the authority they expect to gain from the bill, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans made it clear how a discretionary provision would be used in Boston. As we reported last week, in an interview with Boston Public Radio, Commissioner Evans claimed that “[f]or the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, . . . I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.”
Just what sort of theories licensing officials will come up with to exercise their discretion under the bill is anybody’s guess. A past version of the bill would have expanded the automatic “prohibited person” categories to cover many new misdemeanors. This was eliminated from the final version of the bill, but the discretionary provision could be used to deny applicants licenses based not just on convictions but on mere arrests or police contacts that never led to judgments by a court. Another provision of H.4376 seems to make clear that the intent of the discretionary provision is to significantly expand who would be prohibited from possessing firearms. That provision would require the collection and reporting of convictions of a number of misdemeanor crimes that are not prohibiting under federal or Massachusetts law. Clearly, somebody thinks this information will be considered relevant in who does and does not “deserve” a firearm.
While H.4376 did contain some beneficial provisions for gun owners, leaving the mere exercise of the right to arms up to the discretion of government officials was a deal-breaking and unprecedented overreach by the legislature. Yet this is far from the bill’s only problem. It also imposes increased penalties for violations of so-called “lost or stolen” and “safe-storage” laws, the creation of new crimes that might be used to prosecute those who use their firearms defensively, and a provision that encourages doctors to intrude on their patients’ privacy to discuss firearm ownership. The bill has not yet been signed into law, but Governor Deval Patrick has already signaled his support. H.4376 is yet another example of the importance of electing representatives who will support the Second Amendment.