MA: MIDEAST FIREARMS SAFETY ACT (Session Ended)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

We've got until Friday at noon... how are you expecting to get this passed with more amendments?  I suggest we either vote on it as is, and fix it next session... or let's just head out early for the holiday.

[A-Bob]

We've got until Friday at noon... how are you expecting to get this passed with more amendments?  I suggest we either vote on it as is, and fix it next session... or let's just head out early for the holiday.

I don't. But then this can be passed immediately with the next session. I think this is too important to rush simply to get it done and then maybe come back to it. We'll still have the bakesale bill passed. We could literally start the vote the day the new Assembly swears in.

[Badger]

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

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

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.

Wow, I can't believe I missed all this cool debate.

FWIW: Ogis is absolutely right. His suggested change of language needs to be implemented otherwise this bill ONLY applies to unloaded weapons, whereas a convicted violent felon in possession of a loaded firearm could NOT be prosecuted. No, that makes no sense at all but, yes, that's exactly what the current language would do.

[Badger]

I am going to introduce the following amendment

6.)   No person may possess a shotgun or rifle with a barrel length of under 16 inches.

Section 6 shall be repealed.

What possible reason is there for this loophole? As Junkie quite correctly pointed out this is to ban sawed off shotguns and the like which have NO legitimate sportsman/self-defense/or other conceivable law abiding use. The sole use of such weapons is to make them concealable for commission of crimes.

If the sponsor of this amendment can find a link to any shotgun or rifle with a barrel length under 16 inches I'll support removing, or at least weakening this restriction. Until then this proposal should be renamed "The Arming the Crips and Bloods Amendment".

Seriously, I support the 2nd Amendment wholeheartedly, but short of some ultra-extremist interpretation that wouldn't prohibit any type of firearm to even violent felons (which obviously the author doesn't adhere to), what possible reason would even a card-carrying lifetime NRA member have to oppose this prohibition?

[Badger]

And finally....

I may've missed the boat on the whole letting convicted felons carry firearms amendment process, but may I still suggest another amendment that prohibits all other felons not previously listed from possessing firearms for a period of, say, 10 years after termination of sentence so long as they receive no additional felony conviction? I can't explain it any better than Junkie did. It's nice people are so sympathetic to white collar criminals and the like, but convicted felons are dishonest people who have rightly forfeited at least temporary trust to carry a firearm in the community.

To paraphrase Junkie, today's check kiter or credit card thief is all too often tomorrow's armed robber or drug dealer.

[A-Bob]

And finally....

I may've missed the boat on the whole letting convicted felons carry firearms amendment process, but may I still suggest another amendment that prohibits all other felons not previously listed from possessing firearms for a period of, say, 10 years after termination of sentence so long as they receive no additional felony conviction? I can't explain it any better than Junkie did. It's nice people are so sympathetic to white collar criminals and the like, but convicted felons are dishonest people who have rightly forfeited at least temporary trust to carry a firearm in the community.

To paraphrase Junkie, today's check kiter or credit card thief is all too often tomorrow's armed robber or drug dealer.

It makes no sense to strip someone from all their rights when they violate one thing unrelated. They still should be punished fully up to the law, and rightfully untrusted, but there is no reason to strip them of the right to carry a concealed weapon besides someone thinking they are untrustworthy.

[Badger]

And finally....

I may've missed the boat on the whole letting convicted felons carry firearms amendment process, but may I still suggest another amendment that prohibits all other felons not previously listed from possessing firearms for a period of, say, 10 years after termination of sentence so long as they receive no additional felony conviction? I can't explain it any better than Junkie did. It's nice people are so sympathetic to white collar criminals and the like, but convicted felons are dishonest people who have rightly forfeited at least temporary trust to carry a firearm in the community.

To paraphrase Junkie, today's check kiter or credit card thief is all too often tomorrow's armed robber or drug dealer.

It makes no sense to strip someone from all their rights when they violate one thing unrelated. They still should be punished fully up to the law, and rightfully untrusted, but there is no reason to strip them of the right to carry a concealed weapon besides someone thinking they are untrustworthy.

Not so much "thinking" they're untrustworthy as the fact it was admitted to or proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Still, you don't think even a limited time period of prohibition is appropriate? Or not even limiting it to persons with a single felony conviction? Surely, A-Bob, you'd agree that someone who picks up a second felony conviction, even with neither being violent, car theft, burglary, or drug related, has pretty much passed the rubicon to be a likely career criminal?

(Heh, heh "rubicon". Get it? I slay me.... )

[A-Bob]

I am going to introduce the following amendment

6.)   No person may possess a shotgun or rifle with a barrel length of under 16 inches.

Section 6 shall be repealed.

What possible reason is there for this loophole? As Junkie quite correctly pointed out this is to ban sawed off shotguns and the like which have NO legitimate sportsman/self-defense/or other conceivable law abiding use. The sole use of such weapons is to make them concealable for commission of crimes.

If the sponsor of this amendment can find a link to any shotgun or rifle with a barrel length under 16 inches I'll support removing, or at least weakening this restriction. Until then this proposal should be renamed "The Arming the Crips and Bloods Amendment".

Seriously, I support the 2nd Amendment wholeheartedly, but short of some ultra-extremist interpretation that wouldn't prohibit any type of firearm to even violent felons (which obviously the author doesn't adhere to), what possible reason would even a card-carrying lifetime NRA member have to oppose this prohibition?

Truly I do not remember why I put this up as an amendment. I do understand Junkie’s position on this, though it seems more appropriate to discuss banning certain firearms in another bill. However, if the Assembly feels this is the approximate place to legislate this, then I will retract my amendment.

[A-Bob]

And finally....

I may've missed the boat on the whole letting convicted felons carry firearms amendment process, but may I still suggest another amendment that prohibits all other felons not previously listed from possessing firearms for a period of, say, 10 years after termination of sentence so long as they receive no additional felony conviction? I can't explain it any better than Junkie did. It's nice people are so sympathetic to white collar criminals and the like, but convicted felons are dishonest people who have rightly forfeited at least temporary trust to carry a firearm in the community.

To paraphrase Junkie, today's check kiter or credit card thief is all too often tomorrow's armed robber or drug dealer.

It makes no sense to strip someone from all their rights when they violate one thing unrelated. They still should be punished fully up to the law, and rightfully untrusted, but there is no reason to strip them of the right to carry a concealed weapon besides someone thinking they are untrustworthy.

Not so much "thinking" they're untrustworthy as the fact it was admitted to or proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Still, you don't think even a limited time period of prohibition is appropriate? Or not even limiting it to persons with a single felony conviction? Surely, A-Bob, you'd agree that someone who picks up a second felony conviction, even with neither being violent, car theft, burglary, or drug related, has pretty much passed the rubicon to be a likely career criminal?

(Heh, heh "rubicon". Get it? I slay me.... )

Carrer criminal first of all, does not have to include weapons. There are many people who continue to commit fraud and non-violent serious crimes, but, they are in fact punished and many serve time. I feel it should be our duties to protect the rights of individuals as legislatiors unless they violet the laws don't you agree? I don't see why we have to take away other rights from them not related. Yes, these are criminals, but non-violent ones who do not show a violent pattern. Yes, we need to strip weapons from violent criminals, drug lords, etc (even though they'll still eventually get a weapon one way or another underground) but I don't see why we should assume white collar criminals will be violent and therefore should be stripped of the 2nd amendment.

[Badger]

We're talking about recidivist felons here, A-Bob, not repeat speeders or shoplifters. If one has been convicted of more than one felony we are talking about a person who doesn't give a damn about the law and community, and accordingly has forfeited their right to be entrusted with a gun.

Trying to limit this scenario to a repeat embezzler or the like is grossly unrealistic. At this point one is talking about an individual who almost surely consorts with criminals, has chemical dependency issues (why do you think they keep stealing after getting caught and convicted once? There's usually two answers: gambling or drugs, and 90% of the time its the latter), and is a violent crime waiting to happen over a deal gone bad.

One can forfeit all their constitutional rights by a felony conviction, let alone repeat convictions. Surely gun rights should be the first of rights forfeited by a repeat felon, not the last?

[A-Bob]

Well it is obvious neither of us will move. I understand your concern, however I still believe that these people who did not commit violent crimes should be given a second chance. It's not like they weren't punished here and I'd gladder support any bill requiring harsher punishments on big time criminal acts. And yes, if they do the same felony twice, let's double the punishment, but we should not take away a right that can only be assumed will have something to do with them in the future via criminal act.

And yes, embezzling money is a huge crime done by many people, it isn't a small sliver of felonies. Often these people get away because it costs more for the company to take them down than to let them go with the money (which is another issue).

[Badger]

Well it is obvious neither of us will move. I understand your concern, however I still believe that these people who did not commit violent crimes should be given a second chance.

Or third chance? Or fourth? Or....?

[A-Bob]

Well it is obvious neither of us will move. I understand your concern, however I still believe that these people who did not commit violent crimes should be given a second chance.

Or third chance? Or fourth? Or....?

obviously by that time they will have amounted to a considerable amount of their life in jail. I'm also somewhat surprised a liberal favors harsh punishment over trying to reform people and get their lives back on track (excluding these violent criminals in this case). People make mistakes, nobody is perfect. And I especially don't think someone that commits a nonviolent felony once should be stripped of their Constitutional rights immediately

[Junkie]

I agree "must" should be changed to "need" and will do so.

Based on all my previous reasons, sawed off shotguns need to be outlawed.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Sorry, I thought we already voted on this to fix the firearm definition.

I hereby introduce this amendment to whatever the clause is that defines a firearm:

i.    “Firearm” means any weapon designed to discharge a projectile by means of gunpowder.

[A-Bob]

Voting is now open on Inks' Firearm definition amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting will last 24 hours or until everyone has voted.

i.    “Firearm” means any weapon designed to discharge a projectile by means of gunpowder.

Aye

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

AYE

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Indeed, I was wondering what this was supposed to mean:

The firearm must not be loaded or operable to be considered a firearm under this statute.

It needs to be reworded, at least. Until then, I vote yea.

[Junkie]

Nay

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Nay

Why are you voting against this?  This fixes the problem with your initial definition.  Anything ever built to be a firearm, whether it's loaded or unloaded, functional or unfunctional is covered under this definition.

[Badger]

Well it is obvious neither of us will move. I understand your concern, however I still believe that these people who did not commit violent crimes should be given a second chance.

Or third chance? Or fourth? Or....?

obviously by that time they will have amounted to a considerable amount of their life in jail. I'm also somewhat surprised a liberal favors harsh punishment over trying to reform people and get their lives back on track (excluding these violent criminals in this case). People make mistakes, nobody is perfect. And I especially don't think someone that commits a nonviolent felony once should be stripped of their Constitutional rights immediately

This has nothing to do wit reform vs. punishment. A person can do their time and still be restricted from gun ownership for the protection of the community. Especially repeat felons. Shouldn't they have to undergo a period of law abiding citizenship before exercising that right, particularly when it is a right that threatens others from their criminal behavior?

I'm surprised to see you as a conservative being soft on crime. But then as an ACLU member once said, if conservatives cared about the rest of the Bill of Rights as much as the 2nd Amendment, we'd be out of a job.

[A-Bob]

Well it is obvious neither of us will move. I understand your concern, however I still believe that these people who did not commit violent crimes should be given a second chance.

Or third chance? Or fourth? Or....?

obviously by that time they will have amounted to a considerable amount of their life in jail. I'm also somewhat surprised a liberal favors harsh punishment over trying to reform people and get their lives back on track (excluding these violent criminals in this case). People make mistakes, nobody is perfect. And I especially don't think someone that commits a nonviolent felony once should be stripped of their Constitutional rights immediately

This has nothing to do wit reform vs. punishment. A person can do their time and still be restricted from gun ownership for the protection of the community. Especially repeat felons. Shouldn't they have to undergo a period of law abiding citizenship before exercising that right, particularly when it is a right that threatens others from their criminal behavior?

I'm surprised to see you as a conservative being soft on crime. But then as an ACLU member once said, if conservatives cared about the rest of the Bill of Rights as much as the 2nd Amendment, we'd be out of a job.

Once again, we aren't talking about violent criminals here, they've been addressed in this bill as well as drug lords, buglers, etc, that tend to use guns.

And I don't think supporting long jail time for white collar criminals is soft on crime. Every criminal should be fully prosecuted and see as much justice as they deserve but I do not see how someone who embezzled money from their company once should be stripped of this right after they have served time and are put on probation. And I'm surprised that someone who aligns themselves with the ACLU is eager to strip people of their rights as fast as they can when there is no solid substance for the argument.

[Junkie]

Nay

Why are you voting against this?  This fixes the problem with your initial definition.  Anything ever built to be a firearm, whether it's loaded or unloaded, functional or unfunctional is covered under this definition.

As I had indicated earlier, I do believe that "must" should be changed to "need."  

However, this definition does not account for inoperable or unloaded firearms.  I am simply thinking of jury instructions -- if it is not in the definition, then someone could argue that for a defense.  

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Of course it accounts for inoperable or unloaded firearms.  But if you have an amendment that you have, we can go through that once the new session starts.

[A-Bob]

Voting is now closed, the amendment has passed.

Aye-3
Nay-1
Abstain-0

Not Voting-1