MA: MIDEAST FIREARMS SAFETY ACT (Session Ended)

[California8429]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Junkie

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[California8429]

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.

But what about white collar crimes? Not buglaries or theft, but fraud and such? I see your point very well though.

[California8429]

Anybody else have input?

can you add the drugs/theft portion to the amendment, that's all I have to add. Then I'll bring it to a vote.

[California8429]

A problem with the theft is we again can get into white collar crime.  I'll do drugs.  I'm hesitant about theft.

robbing a house and car is very serious for having gun related problems in the future. Can we get language in it to include auto theft or burglary?

[California8429]

Is everybody good with motor vehicle theft and burglary?

and also drug trafficking.

[California8429]

Rather than labeling them "violent" we could just come up with a list of felonies that being convicted of would trigger the Felon in Possession subsection.

I would propose that a violation of unlawful carrying concealed and possession of a shortbarreled shotgun/rifle should count, as well as: felony theft, robbery, armed robbery, shootings, homicide, attempted homicide, forcible sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, kidnapping, false imprisonment, substantial and aggravated battery, auto theft, car jackings, child pornography and child enticement.

If you want to add or subtract from the list, I am willing to negotiate.

I like this list. However child pornography doesn't seem to be a job often done by gun point.

[California8429]

Rather than labeling them "violent" we could just come up with a list of felonies that being convicted of would trigger the Felon in Possession subsection.

Yes... in fact I was planning on doing that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Add drug crimes.  I really don't care if child porn people are on there... but those types of people are pure scum anyway.

Sounds good. Once you rewrite the amendment, I'll bring it to a vote and then from there we can vote on the whole bill.

[California8429]

So... we're all good with child porn and child enticement?

I think those should be left out, however I won't object if they're in the amendment. If somebody really wants to push for them, we can vote on a 2nd amendement.

[California8429]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the government still would have the power than to deny firearms for other felonies not specified then with this language correct? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

[California8429]

The following amendment is now open for voting. Voting will last for 24 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

[/quote]

[California8429]

Aye

[California8429]

Voting is now closed. The amendment has passed

Aye-2
Nay-0
Abstain-1

Not Voting-2

With no objections i will bring this to a final vote

[California8429]

I am going to introduce the following amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 6 shall be repealed.

[California8429]

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.

[California8429]

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.

[California8429]

I am going to introduce the following amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[California8429]

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.