Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping anti-NRA gun bill into law

[haissem123]

I find it disturbing that so many have the naive stance of " as long as it's not in my state or on a state level etc." . I find it troubling that anybody would want or allow today's law enforcement, those with the power of weapons and authority we foolishly and carelessly give to a great many thuggish sluggish obeyers, didn't we see what happens when you give doc a shotgun at the ok corral. these guys aren't the best judges of character that I can see.

 

[Ernie S.]

They would never leave, plus I do like living in a place where things are open past 1 AM.

Besides, I shouldn't have to move to exercise a right enshrined in the Constitution.

I understand, but there's more to living in a blue state than gun rights. As for things being open after 1 am, there are many businesses here that stay open late, some all night long.

I know things are a LOT cheaper in the south than here in New England! I've also been looking at states with no state income tax. We have a pretty high state income tax here in MA, and the cost of living is through the roof!!! I was looking at rental properties on Craig's List, and I was STUNNED at how much cheaper rents are down south than they are here in MA.

While Alabama does have an income tax, property taxes are very low. I have a 1600 square foot ranch style house 2 br's 2 baths and a 750 sq ft deck on 3.5 acres. My yearly property taxes are $297

 

[nodoginnafight]

Anathema: Seems to me that misconceptions are still rampant. Can you address whether the chief has authority to deny the FID at his own discretion or are there criteria that have been written into the law that describe when the chief can and cannot deny the FID?

 

[martybegan]

Those poor peasants, cowering and grateful for being allowed to maybe exercise their rights as long as they dont offend any police chiefs. I really pity them. I see why they support it. In their shoes I might as well, figuring I'm getting more than I'm giving up. But in the big picture the whole scenario sucks.

And thank you, Anathema, for doing the hard work tracking the real story down.

As a Massachusetts Resident, Gun Owner, and GOAL member, this is something I've been following for several months. No need to "track the real story down", I knew it from the beginning. I just wanted to find it in someone else's writing, so that it could be validated rather than becoming "He Said, She Said."

Today's Massachusetts isn't what it was in 1775. This is probably one of the "Bluest" states in the nation, largely because of the population centers and the EASTERN part of the state. Where I live, in the Central/Western part of the state you find a lot more at least pseudo-Conservatives.

There are few if any truly Consrevative legislators simply because they can't win elections with the population centers being so Liberal. The few that are there generally end up having to go along to get along.

Honestly, after the Chapter 180 issues from 1998 and the fight that we gun owners have been putting up for the last decade and a half, this is a MAJOR victory for gun owners in the Commonwealth. Especially if you saw the ORIGINAL legislation that was proposed.

Until police chiefs and judges start cannoodling to screw people over.

Enjoy your permit free pepper spray.

 

[Anathema]

Until police chiefs and judges start cannoodling to screw people over.

Actually what this stops is the Police Chiefs simply refusing to issue ANY permits for ANY reason and just denying everything without any more reason than "I don't want anyone to have a gun" or "I don't feel like tasking an officer with reviewing these." BOTH of which have been happening for more than a decade in certain communities. A judges ruling is appealable. The word of the Chief WASN'T, until yesterday.

Enjoy your permit free pepper spray.

Actually, I enjoy my Class A, License to Carry quite a bit. I've had it since 1999.

 

[Anathema]

Anathema: Seems to me that misconceptions are still rampant. Can you address whether the chief has authority to deny the FID at his own discretion or are there criteria that have been written into the law that describe when the chief can and cannot deny the FID?

There have always been disqualifying factors/criteria that were written into the law, and then the chief was allowed to go above and beyond that by adding more of their own. Things like a felon or drug/alcohol related conviction; current restraining order; non-citizen; etc... have always been in the legislation.

What this now does is to FORCE the Police Chief to convince a Judge that whatever additional criteria are appropriate, if the Chief uses any of them to disqualify a candidate. It will provide some level of tramsparency and uniformity within a city/town since this must be done in writing.

 

[martybegan]

Until police chiefs and judges start cannoodling to screw people over.

Actually what this stops is the Police Chiefs simply refusing to issue ANY permits for ANY reason and just denying everything without any more reason than "I don't want anyone to have a gun" or "I don't feel like tasking an officer with reviewing these." BOTH of which have been happening for more than a decade in certain communities. A judges ruling is appealable. The word of the Chief WASN'T, until yesterday.

Enjoy your permit free pepper spray.

Actually, I enjoy my Class A, License to Carry quite a bit. I've had it since 1999.

and how did you justify getting it?

 

[Anathema]

and how did you justify getting it?

In Massachusetts it's not a "justification". You do not have to prove that you need the firearm to get the license.

In fact providing a justification (target and sport, hunting, personal defense, etc....) will be used as a limiting factor on the license. The line is "Reason for Issuance" and any sane person puts "ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES" on that line.

 

[martybegan]

and how did you justify getting it?

In Massachusetts it's not a "justification". You do not have to prove that you need the firearm to get the license.

In fact providing a justification (target and sport, hunting, personal defense, etc....) will be used as a limiting factor on the license. The line is "Reason for Issuance" and any sane person puts "ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES" on that line.

Ah, in NYC you HAVE to put down a reason, or the permit is denied. Hell even if you have a reason it can be denied.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Anathema: Seems to me that misconceptions are still rampant. Can you address whether the chief has authority to deny the FID at his own discretion or are there criteria that have been written into the law that describe when the chief can and cannot deny the FID?

There have always been disqualifying factors/criteria that were written into the law, and then the chief was allowed to go above and beyond that by adding more of their own. Things like a felon or drug/alcohol related conviction; current restraining order; non-citizen; etc... have always been in the legislation.

What this now does is to FORCE the Police Chief to convince a Judge that whatever additional criteria are appropriate, if the Chief uses any of them to disqualify a candidate. It will provide some level of tramsparency and uniformity within a city/town since this must be done in writing.

So, are the chief's "above and beyond" criteria codified? Can they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction?

 

[Anathema]

Ah, in NYC you HAVE to put down a reason, or the permit is denied. Hell even if you have a reason it can be denied.

You have to do that in many states. Not in Massachusetts; though as I said, adding it can be used against use. A license issued for "Personal Protection" is no good for transporting your firearms to a competition, for instance. "Target and Sport" won't allow you to use the gun for self-defense.

So, are the chief's "above and beyond" criteria codified? Can they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction?

They most definitely do vary from town to town, and even from person to person. The Chiefs were never required to put the reason for denial in writing. You simply got a letter telling you the application was denied and no reasoning for it. They've never even been required to put their "above and beyond" criteria in writing at all. Not even to the State Police OR their own citizenries.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ah, in NYC you HAVE to put down a reason, or the permit is denied. Hell even if you have a reason it can be denied.

You have to do that in many states. Not in Massachusetts; though as I said, adding it can be used against use. A license issued for "Personal Protection" is no good for transporting your firearms to a competition, for instance. "Target and Sport" won't allow you to use the gun for self-defense.

So, are the chief's "above and beyond" criteria codified? Can they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction?

They most definitely do vary from town to town, and even from person to person. The Chiefs were never required to put the reason for denial in writing. You simply got a letter telling you the application was denied and no reasoning for it. They've never even been required to put their "above and beyond" criteria in writing at all. Not even to the State Police OR their own citizenries.

Then this is certainly an improvement over the status quo for gun owners and would-be gun owners?

 

[Anathema]

Then this is certainly an improvement over the status quo for gun owners and would-be gun owners?

For the most part, yes. There are still some problems with the overall law. The increase in penalties for possession in a school zone, for instance. That's without even mentioning the assault weapon ban, the approved handguns list, and other things. It's a step in the right direction, but we're nowhere near done yet. Just another single step in what's been a 16 year marathon of trying to fix Massachusetts gun laws.

 

[Siete]

I stay out of Mass. End of problem.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Then this is certainly an improvement over the status quo for gun owners and would-be gun owners?

For the most part, yes. There are still some problems with the overall law. The increase in penalties for possession in a school zone, for instance. That's without even mentioning the assault weapon ban, the approved handguns list, and other things. It's a step in the right direction, but we're nowhere near done yet. Just another single step in what's been a 16 year marathon of trying to fix Massachusetts gun laws.

What's the problem with the increased penalties for possession in a school zone?

 

[Bush92]

The liberals strike again. Sad to see the state that was once the cradle of liberty turn into a central authority blue state. Massachusetts takes another step closer to a dictatorship.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The liberals strike again. Sad to see the state that was once the cradle of liberty turn into a central authority blue state. Massachusetts takes another step closer to a dictatorship.

If you've been paying attention to something other than the thread headline it appears that this law is an improvement over the status quo for gun owners and would-be gun owners. Anathema, a gun owner and Mass. resident has been providing a lot of great information on the law.

 

[martybegan]

Then this is certainly an improvement over the status quo for gun owners and would-be gun owners?

For the most part, yes. There are still some problems with the overall law. The increase in penalties for possession in a school zone, for instance. That's without even mentioning the assault weapon ban, the approved handguns list, and other things. It's a step in the right direction, but we're nowhere near done yet. Just another single step in what's been a 16 year marathon of trying to fix Massachusetts gun laws.

What's the problem with the increased penalties for possession in a school zone?

its how they define a school zone i would think. If you have a CCW permit and the school zone is a block or two outside the school, and not inside the trace, you can be liable even though you had no intention of entering the school.

 

[nodoginnafight]

For the most part, yes. There are still some problems with the overall law. The increase in penalties for possession in a school zone, for instance. That's without even mentioning the assault weapon ban, the approved handguns list, and other things. It's a step in the right direction, but we're nowhere near done yet. Just another single step in what's been a 16 year marathon of trying to fix Massachusetts gun laws.

What's the problem with the increased penalties for possession in a school zone?

its how they define a school zone i would think. If you have a CCW permit and the school zone is a block or two outside the school, and not inside the trace, you can be liable even though you had no intention of entering the school.

Well, you can do damage to a school and students without ever entering the school, right?
But we're just spitballing here - I'd like to hear the local's take. He's a gun owner advocate and a resident, and he's provided some pretty even-handed information so far.

I'll admit, I was VERY skeptical about this law when I first heard about it. But the more I hear about it, the more I think it removes the arbitrary discretion of the chief, or at least makes him go on record with his reason and so it can be appealed.

That's better for gun owners than what they had.

So folks talking about how this law screws the gun owners seem to have no clue what they are talking about. And I was leaning in their direction to start.

 

[Anathema]

]What's the problem with the increased penalties for possession in a school zone?

What's the problem with having a gun in a school zone, or many of the other places they're restricted? Gun Free Zones don't deter criminals, they just end up punishing good people who make an unpopular choice. Now even moreso.