HR13-1224 and 1229
This is the letter I sent to my state senator, John Morse, pointing out the absurdities of these two bills.
I would like to call your attention to provisions in the above named bills.
In HR13-1229, sections 1 (6) (d) (I and II) allow for the temporary transfer of a firearm in a private home, but only if an imminent danger of death or injury exists. That is, if you were to visit my home and admire a firearm that I legally own, and if I (after properly checking clear on the firearm, of course) would let you hold the firearm, we would both be guilty of a misdemeanor. If fact, if another member of my family were to hold that firearm, it would be a crime unless I first make to them a "bona fide gift" of it. Do you not find this absurd?
In HR13-1224, sections 1 (2) (a) (i and II) allow a person who owns a large-capacity magazine on the effective date of the law to keep it, but only if he "maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine." Continuous means that if I had a large-capacity magazine on the effective date, as soon as I placed it into a safe or some other location, I would no longer be in possession of it. When I picked it up again, I would commit a crime. Do you not find this absurd?
As your constituent, and a constant (if not continuous) voter, I urge you to vote against these bills. As law, they would do nothing to curb crime but would cause problems for law-abiding citizens.
