MA: MIDEAST FIREARMS SAFETY ACT (Session Ended)

[California8429]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Junkie

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'd like to clarify on "felon."  Is that included felonies that are non-violent, like severe tax evasion?

[California8429]

I'm pretty good with the bill, though the punishments seem extremely harsh for non-violent felons but not harsh at all for violent criminals.

Also why is section 6 in this?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't see the reasoning for the second sentence of the definition of firearm.  Because it then sets no restrictions on possessing a loaded or working firearm.  This statute would only apply to non-functioning firearms that are loaded.

I think we need to chane felon to violent fellon.

I oppose sections 6 and 7.

[California8429]

I don't see the reasoning for the second sentence of the definition of firearm.  Because it then sets no restrictions on possessing a loaded or working firearm.  This statute would only apply to non-functioning firearms that are loaded.

I think we need to chane felon to violent fellon.

I oppose sections 6 and 7.

I'm with you on this.

[Junkie]

I don't see the reasoning for the second sentence of the definition of firearm.  Because it then sets no restrictions on possessing a loaded or working firearm.  This statute would only apply to non-functioning firearms that are loaded.

I think we need to chane felon to violent fellon.

I oppose sections 6 and 7.

I'm with you on this.

Here is my reasoning.  The second sentence does not limit the applicability of the statute to nonfunctioning not loaded weapons, but includes them in the overall definition of the statute.  It prevents someone from escaping liability by simply taking out the firing pin or keeping the ammo  in a different place.

The short-barreled shotgun/rifle is in there because cutdown long guns have no legiitimate hunting or other purpose.  The only reason to cut down a long gun is to conceal it.  Additionally, the cutting down of the shotgun barrel increases the spread and thus the lethality of the shotgun at short ranges, while decreasing the long range ability of the weapon.  Simply put, it is designed to kill people -- not animals, because it is really hard to sneak up on animal close enough for the cut down shotgun to have any effect.

While I understand the "violent" versus "non-violent" felony -- what do those terms mean?  In some states a burglary is not considered "violent."  Many killers and gang bangers are multiple felons, but only have drug dealing, forgery, burglary, etc.  In my experience, armed felons are the most likely to commit homicide.  This bill is aimed at reducing that by targeting those people. 

Also, at sentencing, a judge can consider the underlying felony in determining whether to put someone in prison, jail, or on probation.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

[California8429]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

or just be more specific to include robbers, etc. But I don't think if you get a speeding ticket or something like that (first hing I thought of) you shouldn't be allowed to carry a concealed weapon

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, speeding ticket isn't a felony, but I agree with you on the principle.

[Junkie]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How's this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Junkie]

I would still like to include that a non-functioning firearm still counts, and that the firearm does not have to be loaded.  It might sound stupid, but if it is in the statute, it will be in the jury instructions and thus prevent those defenses at trial.

[California8429]

I would still like to include that a non-functioning firearm still counts, and that the firearm does not have to be loaded.  It might sound stupid, but if it is in the statute, it will be in the jury instructions and thus prevent those defenses at trial.

I think Inks' proposal would cover that. As the weapon still has the ability to fire something using gunpowder.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

From the peanut gallery:

Maybe you could change "must" to "need"?

[California8429]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

From the peanut gallery:

Maybe you could change "must" to "need"?

I don't see how that makes sense.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

From the peanut gallery:

Maybe you could change "must" to "need"?

I don't see how that makes sense.

Hm?

i.    “Firearm” means any weapon that discharges a projectile by means of gunpowder.  The firearm need not be loaded or operable to be considered a firearm under this statute.


I think that preserves the initial intent and makes it clearer. Obviously this is only a suggestion, so I'll happily defer to the actual elected official.

[California8429]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

From the peanut gallery:

Maybe you could change "must" to "need"?

I don't see how that makes sense.

Hm?

i.    “Firearm” means any weapon that discharges a projectile by means of gunpowder.  The firearm need not be loaded or operable to be considered a firearm under this statute.

I'm not sure how this changes anything besides "must" makes it a requirement and "need" seems to be lenient.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

From the peanut gallery:

Maybe you could change "must" to "need"?

I don't see how that makes sense.

Hm?

i.    “Firearm” means any weapon that discharges a projectile by means of gunpowder.  The firearm need not be loaded or operable to be considered a firearm under this statute.

I'm not sure how this changes anything besides "must" makes it a requirement and "need" seems to be lenient.

As Inks said, the use of "must" could easily be interpreted as saying that ONLY unloaded firearms are under consideration for this bill. In this case, "need not" means "not necessarily," so even UNLOADED guns are a part of this bill.

[California8429]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

From the peanut gallery:

Maybe you could change "must" to "need"?

I don't see how that makes sense.

Hm?

i.    “Firearm” means any weapon that discharges a projectile by means of gunpowder.  The firearm need not be loaded or operable to be considered a firearm under this statute.

I'm not sure how this changes anything besides "must" makes it a requirement and "need" seems to be lenient.

As Inks said, the use of "must" could easily be interpreted as saying that ONLY unloaded firearms are under consideration for this bill. In this case, "need not" means "not necessarily," so even UNLOADED guns are a part of this bill.

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the language entirely then instead of debating on what the language means? I personally think "does not" would be more clear, but I see the point.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

From the peanut gallery:

Maybe you could change "must" to "need"?

I don't see how that makes sense.

Hm?

i.    “Firearm” means any weapon that discharges a projectile by means of gunpowder.  The firearm need not be loaded or operable to be considered a firearm under this statute.

I'm not sure how this changes anything besides "must" makes it a requirement and "need" seems to be lenient.

As Inks said, the use of "must" could easily be interpreted as saying that ONLY unloaded firearms are under consideration for this bill. In this case, "need not" means "not necessarily," so even UNLOADED guns are a part of this bill.

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the language entirely then instead of debating on what the language means? I personally think "does not" would be more clear, but I see the point.

You're right. You could make it "does not need to be" or some reasonable facsimile.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would still like to include that a non-functioning firearm still counts, and that the firearm does not have to be loaded.  It might sound stupid, but if it is in the statute, it will be in the jury instructions and thus prevent those defenses at trial.

I see no way that a defense could use the argument that a gun wasn't loaded and thus didn't have to be registered.  This statute does not address that at all, and it's clear that anything manufactured to be a firearm is to be considered a firearm.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would like to introduce the following amendment:

To section 1.)a., the following shall be added:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In section 4.)a., the word "violent" shall be added before the word "felony".

In section 4.)b., the word "violent" shall be added before the word "felony".

In section 4.)c., the word "violent" shall be added before the word "felony".

[California8429]

Sounds like a good amendment to me? I'll bring it to a vote tomorrow to give everyone time to review if they have any problems with it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Fixed one typo... should be good to go now.

[Junkie]

While I understand the arguments for changing "felon" to "violent felon," I implore everyone to vote against this amendment.  I have been involved in prosecuting violent crimes for several years now, specializing in gang cases.  Just going through the cases I am dealing with from the most recent gang war -- nearly twenty members involved in shootings and illegal weapons possession.  None of them had a prior violent "felony."  Two cases really stick out -- police come across these guys, they have guns, and are from out of state -- our information was that they were brought up here to be hitters so that we would not be able to find them after the shooting.  Neither had a "violent felony."  One had an auto theft and the other felony drug dealing case. 

The fact of the matter is most first time offenders are not convicted of felonies.  Courts can do hold opens, diversions, and many other programs to prevent criminal convictions.  Yet if someone does get a felony, I believe it is in the public's best interest for them not have a firearm.  Thank you for your attention.