Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives and senators on roll calls from the week of Oct. 9-13.
$485,559 TO CITIES AND TOWNS FOR EARLY VOTING COSTS (H 3951) — House approved 154-0, Senate rejected 9-28, an amendment to a fiscal 2017 supplemental budget that closes out the books on fiscal 2017 that ended on June 30.
The amendment would reimburse cities and towns $485,559 for the costs of the new law that allowed early voting in the Nov. 8, 2016 election. Early voting begins 10 business days before any primary or general election and ends two days before the election.
Amendment supporters said that this new law is an unfunded mandate forced upon cities and towns. They argued the budgets of cities and towns are tight and reimbursement of this money is important to them.
Amendment opponents said they support reimbursing cities and towns but argued this amendment would be amending the fiscal year 2018 budget and adding the funds through that vehicle. They argued that the purpose of the supplemental budget was to close out fiscal year 2017, not add funds to the fiscal year 2018 budget.
(A “Yes” vote is for the $485,559. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik, Yes
Rep. Paul Mark, Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps, Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds, No
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg President rarely votes
FUNDING FOR SUBSTANCE USE PREVENTION (H 3951) — House 47-108, rejected an amendment providing funding for substance use prevention and treatment programs from the revenue generated by the 20 percent tax on future marijuana sales in the state. The funding would be the lesser of $30 million or 15 percent of the total tax revenue. A portion of that revenue would then be distributed on a per-pupil basis, to the public schools to provide substance abuse education, prevention, intervention and professional development and training.
Amendment supporters said that without this funding, these programs are not guaranteed any money from the marijuana revenue. Instead, the decision of whether to fund these programs and how much to fund them would be made annually by the Legislature. They argued that the guaranteed annual funding of these programs is important to the effort to combat the opioid epidemic.
Amendment opponents said that they support the need for more opiate treatment resources, but argued that earmarking specific dollar amounts before the marijuana law is even implemented and before any revenue is generated, would be premature. They said there is no doubt that the House leadership is committed to funding these programs.
(A “Yes” vote is for the funding. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik, No
Rep. Paul Mark, No
Rep. Susannah Whipps, Yes
BAN BUMP STOCKS-HOUSE VERSION (H 3951) — House 152-3, approved an amendment that supporters say would ban the sale, purchase or ownership of “bump stock” devices for weapons. Opponents of the amendment disagree and say that the wording of the bill is vague and that the words bump stock do not appear anywhere in the bill.
Bump stocks are devices that are attached to rifles, shotguns or firearms, other than a magazine, to increase the weapon’s rate of fire and mimic a fully automatic weapon that can fire hundreds of shots in succession. The measure was filed in response to the recent massacre in Las Vegas where the shooter used 12 of these devices, allowing him to shoot, kill and injure more victims. Violators under this new law would be sentenced to between three and 20 years in prison.
“This legislation will ensure that no one in Massachusetts can legally possess a ‘bump stock,’ a device designed to increase the deadliness of these already deadly weapons,” said the amendment’s sponsor Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick. “These devices were created by gun manufacturers as a workaround of the federal law banning the sale and possession of automatic weapons, and there is absolutely no place for them in a civilized society.”
“While we cannot bring those precious lives back, today’s bump stock ban prevents another tragedy from taking place in Massachusetts, and builds on our progress promoting sensible gun safety in the commonwealth,” said House Ways and Means chairman Jeffrey Sánchez, D-Boston.
“The issue I have with this legislation is that the words ‘bump stock’ was nowhere to be found in the final language,” said Rep. Donald Berthiaume, R-Spencer, noting that the language was ambiguous. “Of course, I would vote to ban bump stocks if that was the real intent of this amendment. He argued that an important issue like this should not be attached to a supplemental budget but rather “should have gone through the committee hearing process and then to the House and Senate like every other legislative proposal.”
“It is a poorly drafted and vaguely worded amendment,” echoed Rep. Peter Durant, R-Spencer. “While I don’t think it is unreasonable to prevent people from getting devices that turn their semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon, this amendment has the effect of making any modification to a firearm that could conceivably increase the rate of fire illegal and subject you to at least three years in prison. Simply making a bolt action rifle slide easier, and therefore work faster could be determined illegal.” Durant noted that the interpretation of this law will be left to un-elected state bureaucrats who can change depending on the administration in the corner office.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik, Yes
Rep. Paul Mark, Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps, Yes
BAN BUMP STOCKS-SENATE VERSION (S 2177) — Senate 38-0, approved its own version of an amendment banning the sale, purchase or ownership of “bump stock” devices for weapons and classifying them under the same law that governs machine guns. The punishment for violating the law would be the same as it is for machine guns — 18 months to life in prison. The Senate version of the bill used the words “bump stock,” so unlike the House, there were no charges that the Senate language was vague.
“This amendment is a necessary and appropriate response to the dangers inherent in these deadly devices,” said the sponsor of the amendment Sen. Cynthia Creem, D-Newton. “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.”
“Too many parents have had to bury their children, too many movie-goers have had a fun night out turn into a nightmare and too many Americans fear for their safety and the safety of their families,” said Sen. Eric Lesser, D-Longmeadow. “It is time for us to step up and say we will not tolerate this senseless killing anymore — or the ease with which it is carried out.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the ban.)
Sen. Adam Hinds, Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, Yes
HANDICAPPED PARKING (S 2168) — Senate 37-0, approved and sent to the House legislation cracking down on the misuse of handicapped parking placards including increasing the period of license suspension for wrongful use or display of a placard from 30 to 60 days for a first offense and from 90 to 120 days for a second offense.
Other provisions include allowing the Registry of Motor Vehicles to revoke a handicapped plate or parking placard if it finds that the person was ineligible or that a placard was obtained falsely; prohibiting the obstruction of the expiration date or placard number and subjecting an offender to a $50 fine; prohibiting making a false statement on an application for a placard and imposing a fine of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for subsequent offenses; and prohibiting falsely making, stealing or forging a placard and subjecting an offender to escalating fines or imprisonment based upon the number of documents involved.
Supporters said it is time to crack down on these offenders who are taking spaces that should be used by a handicapped person. They noted a recent report by the Inspector General revealed widespread abuse of these placards including more than 300 cars in downtown Boston using placards issued to other people.
They noted that many placards still in use belonged to people who had died and said the placards can be used to park all day at most metered spaces, resulting in millions of dollars in lost meter fees to cities and towns.
“The misuse of handicapped parking placards robs municipalities of much-needed revenues and prevents persons with disabilities from finding accessible parking,” said the bill’s sponsor Sen. Eileen Donoghue, D-Lowell. “This bill will benefit both disabled individuals and local governments.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the bill.)
Sen. Adam Hinds, Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, President rarely votes
PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT OF SEAT BELTS LAWS (H 1304) — Allows police officers to issue tickets for seat belt violations even if the driver is not stopped for another violation as required under current law.
Other provisions prevent officers from searching the vehicle or occupants solely because of the seat belt violation and prohibit a seat belt violation from resulting in a surcharge on motor vehicle insurance premiums.
Drivers and passengers over the age of 16 who violate the law would be fined $50. The driver would also be fined an additional $50 for each passenger between the ages of 12 and 16 who is not wearing a seatbelt.
Supporters said states that go from secondary to primary enforcement see a 12 to 15 percent increase in seat belt use. They argued the bill will save lives, reduce injuries and save millions of dollars in medical bills.
Opponents said this is another example of unnecessary government intrusion and argued people should have the personal freedom to make their own decisions.