With the state’s Senate poised to take up its version of a gun control bill on Thursday, gun owners joined the upper chamber’s number-two lawmaker over the weekend to express their serious concern that previously lawful actions may land them in hot water.

After the House passed an omnibus piece of legislation over the objections of the state’s police chiefs and Second Amendment advocacy groups last fall, senators last week unveiled their version of the measure. On Sunday, gun owners told Sen. Will Brownsberger the legislation contains many of the same problems they identified before the passage of the House bill.

“All I want is to not be a criminal for doing the right thing,” Mike Conceicao told Brownsberger during a Sunday zoom call. “I’m not a criminal and I think I don’t want to become a criminal.”

An act to sensibly address firearm violence through effective reform — or the SAFER Act — was offered by Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem as an amended and much shorter version of the House-passed Act modernizing firearms laws.

Both bills have similar aims, tackling issues such as ghost guns, mental health and firearms possession or access, and updating the list of prohibited equipment and firearms in the state’s general laws.

According to information provided by the Senate communications team, the bill “builds on that strong foundation, updates state laws to reflect new technologies and trends, and makes the Commonwealth’s residents even safer without infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners.”

Gun owners are not so convinced.

“This is tremendously devious,” Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League told the Herald.

Lawmakers were open and available to meet and hear from gun owners while writing their proposed law — excepting the Senate President, Wallace said — but that didn’t prevent the Senate from releasing another bad bill.

“The problem with voicing our concerns was we didn’t know what our concerns would be until we saw the bill,” Wallace said in a text exchange. “We voiced our concerns about the House bill but the Senate bill created a whole new set of concerns.”

The bill, according to GOAL’s reading, would effectively ban the use of 3D printers in Massachusetts unless the owner of the printer was also a licensed firearms manufacturer and would require private gunsmiths to serialize some gun components they might wish to make “before they exist.”

Under the senate bill, according to GOAL, those involuntarily committed for a mental health evaluation would see their right to keep firearms suspended — regardless of diagnosis — with the burden to prove their wellness on the gun owner.

The bill also creates a new legal definition for “firearm industry member” and includes under that definition, according to GOAL, “literally anyone in the Second Amendment community including advocates, clubs, trainers, hunters, hunters ed.,” or anyone producing related materials like “t-shirts, posters, banners, or member applications.”

This designation, GOAL says, “would open a massive liability and lawsuit wormhole for virtually anyone” producing Second Amendment products from anyone “who feels harmed.”

“This is an intentional end run around the federal law banning frivolous lawsuits,” GOAL wrote.

The senate bill also includes provisions allowing towns to decide if guns could be carried into municipal owned buildings, prevent people placed under a harassment prevention order from carrying a gun, and make it a crime to fire a gun at an occupied building or dwelling.

Provisions adding popular shooting platforms like the AR-15 to a list of banned guns would, advocates said, turn otherwise law abiding gun owners into felons overnight.

Brownsberger listened to constituents’ concerns for about two hours on Sunday before assuring them he would take their comments back to his colleagues ahead of this Monday’s deadline to file amendments.

As written and unlike the House version of the bill, Brownsberger said the Chiefs of Police association has expressed their support for the Senate plan.

“The police chiefs support it and I support it,” he said. “I will vote for the final bill and I appreciate the work that has been done. I think the bill is well focused. We’re still going to work on some of the issues that have been raised here.”

Brownsberger, who serves as the President pro tempore of the state Senate while representing the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District, said that though they might not see eye to eye on every part of the bill, he hopes gun rights groups and gun owners feel heard.

“What the senate has done is, I think, has worked really hard to listen to a lot of people. I think we’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback,” he said. “I hope people feel like we’ve done a reasonable job of that. We’ll keep listening over the next few days to try and get things right and we’ll keep listening as the conference process moves forward,” he said.

Amendments to the bill are due by 5 p.m. on Monday, with the upper chamber expected to bring the proposal out for full consideration on Thursday. From there, with differing versions of the bill offered by both chambers, the measure will likely land in conference committee, where a final piece of legislation will be ironed out.

Herald wire services contributed. 

State Sen. William Brownsberger (Herald file photo)