Final Action, November 2, 2017
The narrower Senate language was adopted in the final adopted version of the 2017 deficiency budget, essentially limiting the use of bump stocks to to people with a machine gun license.
SECTION 18. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “gun”, in line 100, the following words:- ; provided, however, that “machine gun” shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks.
SECTION 19. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the definition of “Assault weapon” the following definition:-
“Bump stock”, any device for a weapon that increases the rate of fire achievable with such weapon by using energy from the recoil of the weapon to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.
SECTION 20. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the definition of “Shotgun” the following definition:-
“Trigger crank”, any device to be attached to a weapon that repeatedly activates the trigger of the weapon through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion; provided, however, that “trigger crank” shall not include any weapon initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever.
SECTION 21. Paragraph (o) of section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- Clauses (i) and (ii) of this paragraph shall not apply to bump stocks and trigger cranks.
SECTION 52. The executive office of public safety and security shall notify individuals licensed under sections 122, 129B, and 131 of chapter 140 of the General Laws of the changes to
laws made in sections 18 to 21, inclusive, of this act and the effective date of those changes. The executive office shall also notify manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger cranks as defined in
sections 18 and 19 of this act, of the changes made under said sections 18 to 21, inclusive, and the effective date of those changes.SECTION 53. Sections 18 to 21, inclusive, shall take effect 90 days after the effective date of this act; provided, however, that no person shall purchase, sell or offer for sale a bump stock or trigger crank as defined in sections 18 and 19 of this act after the effective date of this act. [NOTE: The act will become effective when the Governor signs it, because it includes an emergency preamble.]
The Massachusetts legislature is taking swift action to ban the devices that the Las Vegas shooter used to slaughter innocent concert-goers with a hail of bullets. Bump stocks are used to convert semi-automatic weapons into machine guns.
The House passed a version of a ban yesterday. Today, the Senate passed a different version.
The House took a broad approach which, while stronger, might have had unintended consequences. The house defined a new crime for using any fire accelerating device — the language was added as Amendment 1 to a budget bill.
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.
Some have expressed concern that this broad language could sweep in relatively benign and modest adjustments to firearms.
The Senate language bans specifically the device used in Las Vegas and another similar device, basically saying that they amount to machine guns, ownership of which is already restricted. It states in amendment 5 to the Senate version of the budget bill:
“The term machine gun shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks.”
It adds two new definitions:
“Bump stock” any device for a semiautomatic firearm that increases the rate of fire achievable with such firearm by using energy from the recoil of the firearm to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.
“Trigger Crank” any device to be attached to a semi-automatic firearm that repeatedly activates the trigger of the firearm through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion, but does not include any firearm initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever.
The alternative approaches were adopted in their respective branches with overwhelming majority roll call votes. The differing versions will be reconciled in a conference committee.
I was pleased to support the Senate ban and look forward to voting for final reconciled language which I expect will emerge swiftly. Hopefully, we will also soon see congressional action to put in place a national ban.
The official senate press release appears below.
BOSTON-Today the Massachusetts Senate voted to ban bump stock and trigger cranks and classify them under the same general law that governs machine guns. The amendment, offered by Senator Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) establishes identical penalties, eighteen months to life in prison, for the use and possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks as current law holds for machine guns.
“Bump stocks and trigger cranks effectively change the nature of a semi-automatic weapon to make it into a machine gun. There is no legitimate purpose for the use, sale, and possession of these devices or than to cause as much damage as possible,” said Senate President Stan Rosenberg (D-Amherst). “Taking this action today protects public safety, provides ample time for residents to comply, and establishes sufficient penalties for violations.”
“This amendment is a necessary and appropriate response to the dangers inherent in these deadly devices,” said Senator Cynthia Creem. “The horror of the mass shootings in Las Vegas is unfortunately just the latest incident which calls out for the adoption of more sensible gun laws both here and nationally.”
The Senate’s bipartisan action means that those who are not appropriately licensed to possess devices that are in effect approximating a machine gun will be in violation of our state’s comprehensive firearms laws,” said Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester).
The amendment also instructs the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to notify licensed owners and manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger cranks of the effective date of the changes.
Bump stocks use the recoil power of a weapon to effectively increase the rate of fire to make the gun a fully automatic assault weapon, which have been illegal in Massachusetts since 1994. On Sunday October 1, fifty-eight people were murdered and hundreds injured by alleged killer Stephen Paddock at a Las Vegas country music festival. Law enforcement found multiple bump stocks and trigger cranks in Paddock’s hotel room where the shooting originated.
The House of Representative passed a similar bump stock ban and the two versions will be reconciled before being sent to the Governor’s desk for his signature.
Response to Comments, Friday, October 13, 9PM
Thanks to all who have taken the time to comment including the many who were harshly critical — that’s OK and appreciated. We don’t mind a frank discussion on this website.
The only real question is which version of the ban will be implemented in final legislation. Both branches of the legislature voted overwhelmingly for a ban, although they took differing approaches.
The commentary in this thread gives good support to my conviction that the narrower and more specific Senate approach is preferable. I do believe, as many commenters stated, that we should know what we are doing with the legislation — at least we should know what devices we are affecting and the Senate language assures this.
I do take the points about grandfathering — what should happen to the outstanding bump stocks in Massachusetts? Open question under discussion.
To some of the broader points made: I fully understand the feeling of some law-abiding gun owners that they are being scapegoated with additional regulations that may not protect the public. I understand their resentment of “feel-good legislation” that only adds to the complexity of the legal rules that they must follow and places them at greater risk for inadvertent violation.
I also accept the point that the law-abiding gun owners are not the ones we need to worry about — they are well vetted. The people who kill people with guns on a daily basis are overwhelmingly criminals who could never lawfully acquire a weapon under the rules we have in place in Massachusetts.
Yet, I do support this legislation. I don’t think this legislation is a cure-all, but it is not useless. In the legislative process, there is always a balancing of considerations and an element of guess work. In this case, on the one hand, as many gun-owners have acknowledged, these devices have no particular legitimate value, so banning them is no great loss. On the other hand, there is a possibility that a rapid fire weapon could come into the control of the wrong person and be used to multiply harm in a crime. Even if we could be sure that all licensed gun owners would remain sane — and certainly, a healthy person can become depressed — a less healthy person in the same household could get access to the guns as happened in Sandy Hook. What are the odds that lives will be saved by the legislation? . . . hard to say, but I’m willing to make a judgment that the safety benefits of this legislation outweigh the harms.
To the 2A advocates, I’m sure we can agree that there is a line. They didn’t have machine guns in 1776. I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone complain about the machine gun ban. And this really is about banning something like machine guns. For most Americans, this is common sense — polling indicates it appears that among voters, healthy majorities of both Republicans and Democrats favor a ban. I understand the slippery slope concern, but every legislative decision could slide too far in the wrong direction in the future — we always have to draw lines.
Some expressed concern that the legislation is being rushed through hastily. Agreed. Both branches did move quickly to put a stake in the ground. But through the negotiation process that will now happen to reconcile the competing versions, I’m confident that we’ll end up with an adequately vetted product.
I do agree that we should be doing more on mental health issues, but no one should think this is a meaningful alternative to gun control. In fact, a strong effort to police all those who are mentally ill would be a great threat to personal liberty, much greater than that raised by deprivation of bumpstocks and machine guns. We will never have the ability to reach out into the population and readily identify people who are so dangerous that we need to intervene in their lives. We can make treatment available for those who want it, but we just can’t see many of the most dangerous people coming. There are millions of depressed people, but very few mass shooters. We’d probably have to have 20% of the population under mental health watch if we wanted to catch all the mass shooters and that would be terribly intrusive.
To those who believe that our existing gun laws simply need to be better enforced, please be assured that mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes are filling our urban jails — they are the most common mandatory sentence in some our Houses of Correction.
I’ve closed this thread to comment, but if you feel there is something that hasn’t been said, please feel free to reach out to me directly at william.brownsberger@masenate.gov.
I firmly do not believe in banning bump stocks or any other gun accessory.
If you believe that banning bump stocks is going to stop violent crime you’re delusional.
It’s just feel good legislation that does nothing.
The constant push for gun control does nothing to protect the public from homicidal maniacs. In areas where guns are not allowed, murders have used knives (London), pressure cookers (Boston Marathon), and motor vehicles (Paris) to wreak devastation. Not once, has ANY political leader tried to ban any of these items. All of them, just like firearms, are inanimate objects capable of nothing without a human being directing their use.
The wording above is extremely disturbing:
“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.”
By this wording, anyone who replaces a trigger spring because of wear or changes out the trigger to reduce pull weight (seniors and those with disabilities have the right to defend themselves too), are in violation of the law and subject to a maximum of 20 years in prison. Why? Because those two things can “increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm”.
Stop punishing those that are law abiding citizens by putting more laws in place that criminal element of our society will continue to ignore and increase the severity of punishment for those the break basic laws such as murder, attempted murder, and assault with a dangerous weapon.
I hope you have professional, experienced “objective” gun experts that are familiar with “bump stocks” before you guys make laws on subjects that you don’t even know anything about ?
You shouldn’t be passing laws based on “emotion”.
Why don’t you wait for the FBI to come out with it’s findings first? They rumor is that Stephen Paddock only had ONE or maybe TWO guns with the “bump stock” on them.
We’ll have “criminals” having weapons (they don’t care about the laws) and the public will be sitting ducks. As in the example video below–will the police be there to protect us ?
I saw a video from a gun enthusiast (i can’t find the video)saying that the “bump stock” might have even saved lives in Las Vegas because the semi-auto guns shake and vibrate and the “bump stock” makes them shake more. If anything, the “bump stock” made him shoot HIGHER than what he was aiming at-going over the heads of the people in the crowd.
The video below is made by a man who is ex-military and is retired a cop with a lot of experience.
He is telling people how to stay safe in this situation.
He is also doing “commentary” on presumptions that people have and reality.
Survival Skills & Actions That Can Save Your Life In A Crisis – Cover & Concealment
We Call That A Clue
Published on Oct 6, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HWDHurpnsw
I marked important points on the counter for reference of the important points he makes.
3:15 thru 3:24 Bump Fire — amount of gunfire exaggerated (ridiculous)
3:40 thru 5:05 Cops doing NOTHING, but hiding–directing traffic, blocking road, driving on road–Not going after the Bad Guy. When the Gov’t takes away peoples guns–cops are the only ones w/ guns and they don’t protect.
10:51 thru 12:20 Cop standing directing foot traffic instead of protecting us. They have the GUNS to protect us and they are telling people to “Run” about 1/2 mile away from the shooter. They let him shoot for 72 minutes before breaching the room he was in.
20:35 thru 21:42 The shooter could have shot more rounds with all the semi-automatic guns that he had than the “bump stock”.
23:27 thru 25:12 The cops should have been at the room stopping the shooter. If they had kicked the door down and disabled him, fewer people would have been killed or wounded.
25:52 thru 26:23 Cops hiding–just sitting in a parked cruiser, looking like they are doing something.
26:24 thru 27:33 A man that was shot–looking for help–cops sitting over in cruisers doing nothing.
27:39 thru 28:05 People put a tourniquet on this man and told him to go on his way. That bad advice–worse for victim–walking makes blood pump more– wound bleeds more and eventually will pass out and die.
28:05 thru 28:22 “Ain’t nobody here to help us.” You thought the Gov’t was there to help you ?
28:51 thru 29:33 Cop doesn’t assess man’s wounds — doesn’t use radio to call for help–radios are usually overwhelmed and are NG—cell phones overloaded during bad events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HWDHurpnsw
Thank you Mr. Brownsburger. That is such good news!
Jan Knight
My thanks to you, Senator Brownsberger, and your colleagues who over saw the revisions to the proposed legislative change. You have made the final wording much more specific and effective, and directed it to the issue in hand.
As many comments suggest, this legislation in and of itself cannot stop a Las Vegas-type tragedy from happening again. However, this seems to me to offer a good faith attempt to balance the constitutional rights of gun owners with the need to clarify and strengthen the existing restrictions on machine gun ownership which were enacted before the devices in question were in use. It’s language and intent are far more direct than the poorly constructed language in the House proposal and hopefully this language prevails during reconciliation.
The legislature should continue to work to improve the help for those impacted by gun violence by focusing on their specific needs, especially those contemplating suicide, young urban males in ‘at risk’ areas, and women at risk from abusive partners. Targeted action to these groups would have much more impact on firearm-related deaths than restricting the legitimate rights of those who own and use firearms responsibly.
Massachusetts doesn’t need additional firearms restrictions, it needs action to help those groups at most risk.
Excellent!
Richard Kates
Rskates@aol.com
First of all, there is “NO” standard rate of fire for a semi-automatic weapon. So, one increases the rate from what to what? Second the “rate control device” is your finger!!! One was born with it!
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people! Even Diane Feinstein recently stated that she could not think or imagine any new gun laws that would have prevented the Las Vegas tragedy! The law makers should concentrate their efforts on the mentally unstable people and criminals that commit these crimes, and not the law abiding citizen. Criminals do not care about gun laws!
Last, “rate changing device” can be forward pressure on the trigger guard and your belt loop! Are we going to send people to jail for a belt loop?
I am not in favor of any more gun restrictions, just enforce the ones already on the books!!
A Quote from The first Commander and Chief,
A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined,but should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any and who might attempt to abuse them which would include their own government. I do agree with modifying a firearm to be fully auto but be careful that law abiding citizens don’t lose rights to be armed. All the anti gun laws in the world will not stop the bad guy from doing harm. Start enforcing the laws and start putting the law breakers in jail.
I’m not a gun holder, but I can see why citizens citizens don’t want their Constitutional Rights taken away.
SHOCK VIDEO:
Taxpayers in California Go To Assemblyman Marc Steinforth’s (R) Office (sort of like a State Senator or Rep.)
Because He Promised to Vote “No” on the New Gas Tax.
He Back-Stabbed the Voters and They Want Answers ???
-POLICE RESPONSE LIKE TERRORIST ATTACK
8 to 10 Citizens show up at his office to get answers and they are shown the power of the State.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfHN6awhIhQ&index=65&list=PL1uwhtMW_jE-h3rZiJYrTx-mv6s7gQm7i
Something wrong with the whole Vegas shooting thing.
An ex-Marine who was a neighbor of Stephen Paddock for about 7-8 months said that he was a mild mannered man.
He spent time with him down at the corner bar room and not once did Paddock even bring up the subject of owning guns even though this Marine brought up the subject.
He also has a problem that there was no “muzzle fire” coming out of the 32nd floor of the hotel ? He said the tip of an AK-47 would light up like a Christmas light at night. You can’t see any muzzle fire from any videos of the shooting ?
He said that when he was in Afghanistan, he was fired at by an AK-47s and could tell that the gun being fired from the Mandalay Bay was an AK-47 by the rate of fire at 7.62 rounds. So that means “no bump stock” was used ! Something is wrong here ?
Former Neighbor of Stephen Paddock Was Set Up Must Hear!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ5AyqwHqQQ
This is a real request by our state senator to ask about our opinion(s). Your reply does not help towards the budget amendment verbiage.
I personally don’t support any further infringement of the 2nd amendment in Massachusetts. But I do recognize the political reality that something is going to be done on the subject of bump stocks. I certainly would rather they be regulated as machine gun parts, than banned using overreaching and vague language that could make otherwise law abiding citizens into felons. I’ve only ever met one person who owned a bump stock (a 60yr old woman, who thought it was cool). I think most gun owners look at them as a novelty for people who like to spend money fast (ammo is pricey).
Maybe it’s just me but isn’t modifying a pre ban gun already illegal in MA shouldn’t we be more worried about enforcing existing laws and not letting repeat offenders plea bargain for lighter sentences
Hi, Please consult with GOAL (Gun owners action league) for the correct verbiage. They are very reasonable group and can help to get the wording right. Also, bump stocks are more or less a novelty product where I personally do not care if they are no longer available. Also, the ATF will be reviewing their guidance shortly so maybe just wait and see what they come back with? How about just enforce mandatory minimums for felonies and violent felonies while in possession of any gun. A minimum of 5-10 years on top of the offending charge would make people stop committing crimes with firearms which is a better effort in my opinion.
Sadly, it’s just another freedom lost (and jobs somewhere) for legislation that will actually do very little to reduce crime. Much easier than tackling single parent families, drop out rates, and entitlement mentality. Hoowever, it will let legislators “feel” effective and give them a way to garner votes. So it’ll still serve it’s real purpose.
We are ahead of the pack again. Hopefully, others will follow. Thanks for your work on this.
I find it funny how you will rush to make legislation now and not wait for the ATF decision but want to wait to let courts decide the AG Healey’s assault weapon interpretation.
Personally I find bump stocks useless. I also know “bumpfire” does not require a specialized stock. Watch YouTube: How to bumpfire without bumpfire stock.
But by all means continue your foolishness and patting yourselves on the back thinking you actually did something.
Will,
The EOPS sent a letter out recently on this. It went to all license gun owners and stated, any bumpstock or similar item had to be turned into the police for destruction. They couldn’t be transferred and no compensation was stated.
Isn’t this a 5th Amendment issue (takings clause)?
I don’t think so. Everyone — including most gun owners — agrees that bump stocks are dangerous, unreliable toys.
It’s like confiscating illegal fireworks or drugs. I don’t think it is a fifth amendment problem.
Just to be clear, I didn’t object to the ban. However, I think it’s different than those other examples as they are already illegal, and a consumable, not a durable good. The bump stocks were purchased in full compliance with the current law.
Even Prohibition didn’t confiscate existing alcohol. It merely banned production and sales going forward.