Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Massachusetts House Roll Call 267 - Bump Fire Stock Ban

    Uploaded by

    Evan
    7K views1 page
    Massachusetts’ Second Amendment Group Cries Foul Over ‘Bump-Fire Stock’ Ban By Evan Lips | October 11, 2017, 23:09 EDT State Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick) speaks to reporters regarding the House ‘bump stock’ amendment. (Sam Doran — State House News Service) BOSTON — The state’s leading pro-Second Amendment organization is not pleased with legislation attached to the supplemental state budget passed Wednesday by the House, aimed partially at banning “bump-fire stock” equipment, the add-on gear authorities claim maximized the casualties in last week’s Las Vegas shooting massacre. The point of contention for members of the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts, however, is apparently not related to a specific ban on bump stocks — the fight coming from the gun rights group stems from language pertaining to what they fear is a broader, less-defined host of add-on components. “The language of the amendment was in three parts,” the organization announced in a press release, issued minutes after the budget legislation flew through the House by a 151-3 margin, which saw only three Republicans — Peter Durant and Donald Berthiaume of Spencer, along with Southwick’s Nick Boldyga — voting in opposition. As of late Wednesday night, the roll call vote has yet to be posted to the Massachusetts Legislature web site. The “bump stock” ban, which GOAL had previously appeared ambivalent toward, was unlawfully expanded upon, the organization claims. GOAL in its press release broke down its complaints: “The first [section] outlines a ban on components that can be added to a firearm, rifle, or shotgun that could increase the rate of fire: ‘Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years’,” the organization quoted, from the amendment. “The second part states that the bill, ‘shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.’ “The third part states, ‘The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.'”

    Original Title

    Massachusetts House Roll Call 267 -- Bump Fire Stock Ban

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Massachusetts’ Second Amendment Group Cries Foul Over ‘Bump-Fire Stock’ Ban By Evan Lips | October 11, 2017, 23:09 EDT State Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick) speaks to reporters regarding the House ‘bump stock’ amendment. (Sam Doran — State House News Service) BOSTON — The state’s leading pro-Second Amendment organization is not pleased with legislation attached to the supplemental state budget passed Wednesday by the House, aimed partially at banning “bump-fire stock” equipment, the add-on gear authorities claim maximized the casualties in last week’s Las Vegas shooting massacre. The point of contention for members of the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts, however, is apparently not related to a specific ban on bump stocks — the fight coming from the gun rights group stems from language pertaining to what they fear is a broader, less-defined host of add-on components. “The language of the amendment was in three parts,” the organization announced in a press release, issued minutes after the budget legislation flew through the House by a 151-3 margin, which saw only three Republicans — Peter Durant and Donald Berthiaume of Spencer, along with Southwick’s Nick Boldyga — voting in opposition. As of late Wednesday night, the roll call vote has yet to be posted to the Massachusetts Legislature web site. The “bump stock” ban, which GOAL had previously appeared ambivalent toward, was unlawfully expanded upon, the organization claims. GOAL in its press release broke down its complaints: “The first [section] outlines a ban on components that can be added to a firearm, rifle, or shotgun that could increase the rate of fire: ‘Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years’,” the organization quoted, from the amendment. “The second part states that the bill, ‘shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.’ “The third part states, ‘The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.'”

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7K views1 page

    Massachusetts House Roll Call 267 - Bump Fire Stock Ban

    Uploaded by

    Evan
    Massachusetts’ Second Amendment Group Cries Foul Over ‘Bump-Fire Stock’ Ban By Evan Lips | October 11, 2017, 23:09 EDT State Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick) speaks to reporters regarding the House ‘bump stock’ amendment. (Sam Doran — State House News Service) BOSTON — The state’s leading pro-Second Amendment organization is not pleased with legislation attached to the supplemental state budget passed Wednesday by the House, aimed partially at banning “bump-fire stock” equipment, the add-on gear authorities claim maximized the casualties in last week’s Las Vegas shooting massacre. The point of contention for members of the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts, however, is apparently not related to a specific ban on bump stocks — the fight coming from the gun rights group stems from language pertaining to what they fear is a broader, less-defined host of add-on components. “The language of the amendment was in three parts,” the organization announced in a press release, issued minutes after the budget legislation flew through the House by a 151-3 margin, which saw only three Republicans — Peter Durant and Donald Berthiaume of Spencer, along with Southwick’s Nick Boldyga — voting in opposition. As of late Wednesday night, the roll call vote has yet to be posted to the Massachusetts Legislature web site. The “bump stock” ban, which GOAL had previously appeared ambivalent toward, was unlawfully expanded upon, the organization claims. GOAL in its press release broke down its complaints: “The first [section] outlines a ban on components that can be added to a firearm, rifle, or shotgun that could increase the rate of fire: ‘Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years’,” the organization quoted, from the amendment. “The second part states that the bill, ‘shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.’ “The third part states, ‘The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.'”

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    H. 3951 On Amendment #1
    Yea and Nay 10/11/2017 02:54 PM
    No. 267 152 YEAS 3 NAYS 3 N/V

    Y Mr. Speaker Y Fernandes Y McMurtry Y Walsh, C.


    X Mariano Y Ferrante Y Meschino Y Walsh, T.
    Y Haddad Y Finn Y Miceli Y Williams
    Y Rushing Y Fiola Y Michlewitz Y Zlotnik
    Y Donato Y Galvin Y Mom Y Jones
    Y Moran M. Y Garballey Y Moran F. Y Hill
    Y Arciero Y Garlick Y Murphy Y Poirier
    Y Ashe Y Garry Y Murray Y Gifford
    Y Atkins Y Gentile Y Nangle Y Frost
    Y Ayers Y Golden Y Naughton Y Barrows
    Y Balser Y Goldstein-Rose Y ODay N Berthiaume
    Y Barber Y Gonzalez Y Parisella N Boldyga
    Y Benson Y Gordon Y Peake Y Campanale
    Y Brodeur Y Gregoire Y Peisch Y Crocker
    Y Cabral Y Hay Y Petrolati Y D'Emilia
    Y Cahill Y Hecht Y Pignatelli Y DeCoste
    Y Calter Y Heroux Y Provost Y Diehl
    Y Campbell Y Higgins Y Puppolo Y Dooley
    Y Cantwell Y Hogan Y Rogers, D. N Durant
    Y Carvalho Y Holmes Y Rogers, J. Y Ferguson
    Y Cassidy Y Honan Y Roy Y Harrington
    Y Chan Y Hunt, D. Y Ryan Y Howitt
    Y Collins Y Kafka Y Snchez Y Hunt, R.
    Y Connolly Y Kaufman Y Scaccia Y Kane
    Y Coppinger Y Keefe Y Schmid Y Kelcourse
    Y Crighton Y Khan Y Scibak Y Kuros
    Y Cronin Y Kocot Y Silvia Y Lombardo
    Y Cullinane Y Koczera Y Smizik Y Lyons
    Y Cusack Y Kulik Y Speliotis Y McKenna
    Y Cutler Y Lawn Y Stanley Y Mirra
    Y Day Y Lewis Y Straus Y Muradian
    Y Decker Y Linsky Y Tosado Y Muratore
    Y DiZoglio Y Livingstone Y Tucker Y OConnell
    Y Donahue X Madaro Y Tyler Y Orrall
    Y Driscoll Y Mahoney Y Ultrino Y Smola
    Y DuBois Y Malia * Y Vega Y Vieira
    Y Dwyer Y Mark Y Velis Y Whelan
    Y Dykema Y Markey Y Vincent Y Wong
    Y Ehrlich Y Matias Y Wagner Y Whipps
    X Farley-Bouvier Y McGonagle

    *=AFTER VOTE P=PRESENT X=NOT VOTING

    You might also like