Bill was modified, and a much more reasonable bill was passed. I'll answer any questions on it that I can, but GOAL is the best place to go right now for a summary of and any explanation required regarding changes.
TL;DR version is that DeLeo's bill (H.4121 text at ) creates new prohibitions on storage/use of firearms that does not allow for a training exemption or direct supervision exemption for people that do not hold an LTC/FID. My understanding is that this will allow prosecution of unlicensed students and any instructors that loan them rifles.
I'm pretty sure that the following is the majority of the text that does this, but I'm waiting on further cites from GOAL and a couple of other people:
QuoteSECTION 33. Section 131L of said chapter 140, as so appearing is hereby amended by striking out subsections (b) to (d) and inserting in place thereof the following 3 subsections:-
(b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine of not less than $1000 nor more than $7,500 or by imprisonment for not more than 1 and 1/2 years, or by both fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less than $2,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than 1 and 1/2 years nor more than 12 years, or by both fine and imprisonment.
(c) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon and such weapon was stored or kept in a place where a person under the age of 18 who does not possess a valid firearm identification card issued under section 129B may have access without committing an unforeseeable trespass, by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than 1 and 1/2 years nor more than 12 years, or by both fine and imprisonment.
(d) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a rifle or shotgun that is a large capacity weapon, firearm or machine gun was stored or kept in a place where a person under the age of 18 may have access, without committing an unforeseeable trespass, by a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $20,000 or by imprisonment for not less than 4 years, nor more than 15 years, or by both fine and imprisonment.
If you're not aware of H.4121, you need to start digging NOW.
http://goal.org/Documents/DeLeo-Bill-Summary.pdf
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/252706-Rally-Stand-With-GOAL-Against-H-4121-June-18
I know that AS is not current politics, but I feel that any current politics that will eliminate AS are fair game. Please contact your reps on this! Please plan to show up Wednesday to meet with your reps if at all possible!
Please PM me if you have any questions, and/or feel that this is an inappropriate posting.
Edit: Confirmed via Jim Wallace.
While I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY to the general message of the post, there may be a bit of miscommunication here. MGL 131 and 129C (not 131L) pertain to Appleseed and the nonlicensed use/possession of firearms and ammunition at a range for purposes of instruction, marksmanship, competition, etc. Section 131L has to do with "safe storage" law. The changes made to subsections b, c and d of 131L basically increase the existing penalties.
I'm unaware of any changes in H4121 that would affect the relevant portions of supervised furnishing firearms to minors (and other nonlicensed individuals such as non-residents who don't possess a non-resident LTC/FID).
That said, the bill itself contains certain sections- 131L amendments included- that affect all of us. In my opinion, the number one factor is that like the 1998 Chapter 180 legislation, this bill is going to contribute to a significant decrease in gunowners across the state. That is contrary to our goal of increasing ownership and marksmanship among our students and it WILL affect Appleseed. Barring unforeseen problems at work, I will be at the State House on Wednesday and I suggest anyone else who can make it, arrange to speak with your legislators. If you can't make it- you know what to do. Call, write, and get everyone else you know to do the same.
I initially thought the same. I think that the supposition on GOAL's part is that the storage provision is being expanded to cover situations which will inevitably occur on a range such as we generally have with AS, with the goal being prosecutions based on that expanded definition.
The range based exemption is in a separate section, and so applies for prosecutions based on that section.
This edit would impose an additional storage requirement and additional prosecution based on that storage requirement in a separate (new) section for which the exemption doesn't apply.
The recommendation that the language be clarified or removed is directly from GOAL/Jim as per the mailings over the past week and the Flag Day speech at Belchertown (no source, no video/transcript at the moment).
I have a son in Mass. He hopes to attend an Appleseed in Mass. Can somebody update me as to the status of loaners at recognized ranges? My son's rifle is in Maine and is not registered anywhere.
Quote from: The Old Guide on August 20, 2014, 11:31:39 AM
I have a son in Mass. He hopes to attend an Appleseed in Mass. Can somebody update me as to the status of loaners at recognized ranges? My son's rifle is in Maine and is not registered anywhere.
He just needs to let the SB know in advance, and we can usually arrange a loaner at either Harvard or Leyden.
The MA gun folks were able to get the legislature to pass a much more reasonable bill, which should not unduly burden instruction.