Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) signed an extensive package of gun control measures on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.
The legislation allows police chiefs to ask courts to deny firearms identification cards needed to buy guns to individuals they feel are unfit to obtain them, toughens penalties for some gun-based crimes, creates an online portal for background checks in private gun sales, carves out a firearms trafficking unit within the state’s police department and requires that Massachusetts join the National Instant Background Check System.
Gun control advocates hailed the measures as ones that make Massachusetts “a leader for the rest of the nation.”
This one snuck up on me, I had no idea. The timing of giving police chiefs more authority is pretty awkward, but I can’t imagine another type of bill passing at the moment, and this seems like a reasonably sound idea.
If it turns out not to be, maybe it will start a conversation that leads to better laws.
doubleman says
It’s a step in the right direction, but I also think it was a missed opportunity. This commonwealth can and should do better.
I think it’s a bad sign for a gun control bill when the gun owners lobby endorses the bill.
Christopher says
We tighten our gun laws and the AG candidates are trying to outdo each other on being tough on guns.
rcmauro says
I just brought some Berwick and Healey lit down to a family gathering. My brother from North Carolina could not believe that an AG candidate was saying anything about guns that didn’t just repeat the word “freedom” …
Mark L. Bail says
rifles and shotguns, I think I have a slightly different perspective on guns. I never owned a handgun, though I’ve shot a couple. I know people die everyday from guns, but some of the ideas out there were just loopy.
GOAL is happy enough, but that doesn’t mean the bill was bad. Here’s what GOAL’s website says. Remember their positive changes may not be (y)our positive changes.
Positive changes:
Juniors: Critical training language correction for juniors, this now allows trainers to provide firearms to junior shooters and hunters with parental consent. Juniors are now able to apply for their FID card a year early (age 14) and receive their card at 15.
Pepper Spray: Person over the age of 18 will no longer need an FID card to purchase pepper spray. 15-17 year olds can still possess – but must have an FID card
FID: Chiefs must first petition the court to deny someone his/her FID card. Because it is in the courts, it gives GOAL and others the ability to track what Chiefs are doing. The language also includes defined time limits, if there is no decision rendered in the prescribed amount of time, the license will be issued.
LTC: The Class B License was eliminated; going forward there is only one License to Carry. (LTC). Chiefs now have to put denials in writing so that the burden of proof is on the police chief to defend the denial or restriction in District Court. Also, for the first time gun owners can appeal their LTC restrictions in District Court.
Both licenses: The term “prohibited person” is now being used for both licenses – instead of “unsuitable”. This change in the language provides a much-needed change in framework around who is prohibited. Also the 90-day grace period – license renewal issue was fixed. Gun owners will now receive a receipt upon renewal, which makes the license valid until the new license is received.
Mental Health: Language was added protecting people who voluntary seek mental health help preventing them from being listed as a prohibited person. This also gives protection to people who voluntarily seek help for drug and alcohol abuse issues.
Olympic-style Handguns: There will be exemptions for the dealer transfer of Olympic-style handguns in the Commonwealth. These were previously not legal to transfer by licensed dealers in the Commonwealth.
Curios and Relic Collectors: 01 FFL’s can now legally transfer C&R handguns and firearms to licensed C&R dealers. (03 FFL)
Online portal: Created online portal for face-to-face transfers, preserving private sales
Confiscation: We added language-providing protection of property for firearms owners. Now, if firearms are confiscated, the licensing authority is required, at that time, to inform the person in writing of their ability to transfer their firearms to an independent licensed individual
Lost & Stolen Firearms: GOAL added language so that a person who, in good faith, reports lost or stolen firearms will have protection, so that the licensing authority cannot consider them a prohibited person.
Military Personnel: We extended the time period an active duty military member has to become licensed, or renew their license from 90 to 180 days. We exempted active duty military members from having to take the mandatory gun safety training classes.
Here’s what was stopped that was part of the various bills that became H.4376.
The original bill would have criminalized private sales of firearms between licensed individuals. This section was struck and private sales remain legal.
The original bill would have applied a “suitability” clause to the issuance of FID cards. This was modified so that the licensing authority now has to prove in court that the applicant is unsuitable. For the first time ever in MA, the burden of proof is upon the licensing authority.
The original bill would have made an FID applicant list a “reason” for applying. This was struck from the legislation.
The original bill would have given the licensing authority the ability to place restrictions on FID cards. This was struck from the legislation.
The original bill had very onerous language regarding confiscated/seized firearms. We were successful in getting that removed.
The original bill would have penalized licensees for not renewing early. We were able to remove this language.
During Senate debate anti Second Amendment legislators tried to add restrictive amendments including one gun a month. These were all stopped.
The down side – what we didn’t like.
MA Police Chiefs now have more power over license applicants via applying suitability to FID cards.
Increased penalties for violating storage laws.
Increased penalties for being in possession of a firearm on school grounds.
Neutral issues: There are also sections, which deal with NICS compliance (GOAL worked hard to ensure that the language met federal standards), “safe and supportive schools” (interesting that one of the things implemented was the NRA’s idea of adding armed police to schools) and increased fines for criminal acts involving firearms.
Conclusion: The scope of this bill is very large; in order to get an accurate assessment one needs to step back and exam it as a whole, what was gained, what was lost and what was stopped. We certainly didn’t wind up receiving letters forcing us to register our rifles and turn in our magazines. We also didn’t wind up with laws mirroring those of Vermont or Montana. We do feel that we made strides in a positive direction. Through the hard work of our members and their relentless efforts we were able to begin the process of regaining ground in what began as a very unfriendly environment for Second Amendment restoration. That speaks volumes as to what is possible for the future.
jconway says
FWIW.
Empowering local law enforcement, the people who should know their community best, seems like the best approach forward. I would’ve preferred stricter limits, but there is a lot to like about this law and it’s getting a lot of attention as a potential model for the country as a whole. This is Massachusetts leading the way on an important policy question, I applaud the Governor and Legislature for getting this done, and I hope to see more of this with our next Governor.
Mark L. Bail says
I wasn’t fond of the private sale thing. I understand what it’s supposed to prevent, but one hunter selling a rifle to another hunter seems annoying.
I think they wanted to leave police chiefs out of the process because once it’s at the state level, it’s easier to lobby against and eventually get rid of. The chiefs should be right where they are.
The funny thing is that the Governor left these guys out of the bill signing when they apparently worked hard on the bill.
Peter Porcupine says
While they may be closest, they are also the most likely to deny for personal bias. The change from ‘unsuitable’ which was opinion based is a good thing. Frankly, in some communities, chiefs refused to all based on their conviction that there should not be guns in private hands unless they knew and liked the person. NOW, it is not a unilateral and undocumented thing, but must be justified in writing where it can be appealed. This is a major step forward.