This is in fact true. I don't feel like summarizing the whole story right now. Suffice it to say that this bill and the fight surrounding it has moved through 4+ "phases". There is a lot to the bill. Most recently, after passing the house and being modified then passed by the senate, it had reached a form that had some pluses for law-abiding citizens (by MA standards), while still incorporating public-safety measures that mostly affected those in the wrong. Overall, the MA gun-owner community was mostly happy with how much progress we had made, enough that most people were pushing the house to accept the senate's version as passed.
Among other things, the state senate voted, 28 to 10, to remove the provision from the house bill that gave police discretion on issuing FIDs (the most basic license you can get, necessary for shotguns, low capacity longarms, and pepper spray, etc.). Get ready for this: among other reasons, this was done because Mayors Against Illegal Guns said that they supported doing so because otherwise there would probably be a constitutionality issue
.
After this happened, it went back to the house for a concurrency vote. A group of chiefs of police, in addition to a few antis, made a huge freaking fuss saying that *this* one change completely nullified the power of the bill. Apparently the new universal-background-check extensions, mental health, school safety, and other provisions don't matter much to them. The antis now claim that school shootings usually involve shotguns (see where we are going?) and a certain police commissioner claims that nobody needs a rifle or shotgun. Seeing as it is already the case that prohibited persons can't get FIDs, it is clear, by definition, that they have exposed their intentions as desiring to restrict law-abiding citizens. In any event, they made enough fuss to get the house to reject the senate's mods. Now it goes to a 6 person joint committee to get hashed out. If the compromise differs significantly from the house and senate bills then it needs to be revoted on by both. Oh, and the legislative session ends on the 31st...
The most important thing in the bill for law-abiding citizens though is that the burden of proof for denials of any firearms license (and, in the senate version, even restrictions on ccw licenses) would rest on the licensing officer when challenged. Everyone hopes this would be a big reform to our "may issue" by removing the standard situation where the applicant has to prove their need, but who knows how it will play out.
For more info I suggest:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbu...rmerly-SB-2265)
and
http://goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html
EDIT: Oh, and before people start getting ideas about this being a party politics issue, get this: MA, and the MA legislature in particular is by-and-large pro-gun-control, more than I care to explain. The senate, which ultimately yielded a modified bill that many gun owners wanted to see the house concur with, is made up of 36 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Now the anti story is that that damned NRA exerted too much influence. Of course, the NRA didn't help at all, and GOAL is really the only organization we can give serious credit to.