Letters to Elected Officials

Regarding H03991

From: KilgoreTrout
Sent: Thu 6/19/2008 12:09 PM
To: Spellane, Robert - Rep. (HOU)
Subject: H03991


Good morning, Representative Spellane.

Bob, I'm writing today to urge you to vote against Governor Patrick's proposed bill, H03991, which is pending in the Judiciary Committee, should the bill come to a vote before the House. As a lawful owner of firearms, an avid outdoorsman, and competitive marksman, I am very concerned about the ramifications of this bill should it become law.

The very premise of the bill - that lawful owners of legal firearms within the Commonwealth are responsible for the illegal trade in firearms - is unfounded. This bill would make it a crime for those of us who have been deemed suitable by the Commonwealth and our local licensing authorities, and who lawfully possess a Massachusetts-issued license to carry firearms, to purchase more than one firearm within a 30 day period. The punishment proposed in the bill is unusually harsh (not more than $1,000 and/or a sentence of not more than 2 ½ years in a house of correction for the first offense), particularly because lawfully licensed individuals have been subjected to rigorous background checks, in-person interviews, certified training, and expensive licensing fees. We've already been found suitable to purchase firearms allowed by the type of license we have been issued. If an individual is not suitable to purchase firearms, that individual should not possess a license to carry or an FID card.

Bob, while I don't believe that I have ever purchased more than one firearm within a month, I can see how easy it would be to do so unwittingly. For example, if a particular model of interest becomes available at a sale or discount price, it may make financial sense to make a purchase within a month of a prior purchase. Still, it is not at all clear to me how restricting the lawful purchase of Massachusetts-approved firearms has any impact on the illegal gun trade or crime in general. Law abiding citizens and lawfully-licensed owners of firearms should not be punished, and their liberties should not be unnecessarily restricted, because of the actions of criminals. The target of this bill is misplaced.

Please urge your colleagues to read proposed bill H03991 and to recognize that the class of citizens most likely to be impacted by it are indeed law abiding, legally-licensed citizens of the Commonwealth. The bill's intent - to reduce gun-related crime - cannot be achieved by punishing lawful citizens.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/185/ht03pdf/ht03991.pdf

Best Regards,

-------

Response:

From: Spellane, Robert - Rep. (HOU) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:50 AM
To: KilgoreTrout
Subject: RE: H03991
Importance: High


[Kilgore],

Hope all is well...I support your position.

[some personal drivel followed by boilerplate office hours stuff]

Make it a Great Day,




Robert P. Spellane
State Representative
13th Worcester District
State House, Room 254: 617-722-2220
District Office: 781 Pleasant St. Worcester, MA 01602
508-799-3948
www.bobspellane.com

-----

Thanks, Bob.

Good to hear from you and I'm glad we agree on this issue. Keep up the good work!

KT
 
Last edited:
S540

Dear Senator Chandler,

I received an alert from Gun Owners Action League detailing several issues
with proposed bill S 540. I believe the issues are valid. The Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife is already in place. We do not need another
Wildlife Management Commission to clutter up the bureaucracy we call our
state government. We do not need to provide loopholes whereby F&W can be
bypassed, or where the already highly restricting regulations for hunters
can be further tightened. S 540 should not make it out of committee.
 
Dear Slush Puppie,

I write in response to your letter urging my opposition to Governor Patrick's proposal to increase firearms licensing fees in Massachusetts and my support for Representative George Peterson's Resolution recognizing the Supreme Court's brief affirming the Constitutional right to bear arms.
As you may have learned, the House of Representatives did not include the increases during debate on the issue. In fact, you will be pleased to note that I joined with the majority of my colleagues in voting for Representative George Peterson's amendment to decrease the gun owners licensing fee from the current $100 back down to $40.

I also voted in favor of Representative Peterson's Resolution which was also passed in the House by a 114-40 margin.

As always, many thanks for taking the time to keep me aware of your views. Be assured that I welcome your input and carefully consider all constituent concerns before casting a vote.

Best regards,

William C. Galvin

State Representative
 
reposted from thread in General discussion

Governor Deval Patrick
Massachusetts State House
Room 360
Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Patrick,

As a licensed firearm owner I am deeply disappointed in the recent verdict handed down in the recent case against the person responsible for the death of Liquarry Jefferson.

As you may know, his older brother Jayquan McConnico used an illegally obtained, illegally possessed and illegally stored loaded handgun and killed his brother. Recently McConnico was brought before Juvenile Court.

Reports state that the young man faced thirty years in prison for his actions. The violation of Massachusetts storage laws alone (Chapter 140; Section 131L) could have brought him more than ten years in prison. Sadly the decision handed down by the court remanded him to Department of Youth Services custody, a nine year concurrent probation and a two year suspended sentence for misleading police. The court also ordered that the defendant get a high school diploma and a job. These “sentences” are for a young man with a known criminal record.

Please tell me how this provides any evidence that Boston and the Commonwealth are tough on criminals. Please tell me how this indicates that lawful gun owners are in any way responsible for Liquarry’s death and that more restrictive gun laws are necessary.

It seems to me that if criminals were actually punished for their crimes rather than given a slap on the wrist we may do much more to reduce crime across Massachusetts. This decision can only be interpreted as sending a message that our judicial system is a farce.

When I decided to apply for a firearms license I was required to pay for and successfully pass educational courses, provide letters of reference attesting to my character, submit to a federal background check and be fingerprinted. Since that time I have taken additional education courses at my own initiative and expense. If I move to a different town I face the prospect of losing my current license at the arbitrary and capricious whim of a chief of police simply because he doesn’t support the Constitutional right afforded me under the Second Amendment.

Why does Massachusetts continue to place undue restrictions on those in the shooting community who understand the responsibilities that go along with our chosen hobby while letting criminals roam free? When will we start enforcing the laws already on the books and punishing those who willingly and knowingly violate those laws? When will we start treating our law abiding citizens with respect and dignity? When will we require our law enforcement officers to follow the law?

Sincerely,
Karen
Wakefield, MA

Cc: Attorney General Martha Coakley
State Senator Richard Tisei
State Representative Katherine Clark
John Rosenthal, Stop Handgun Violence


NOTE: I have always received a reply from Mr. Tisei and also received one from Ms. Clark when I wrote to her.
 
I sent an email to both Kennedy and kerry regarding how i opposed the election of Eric Holder to AG. i have no response from Kerry and the response i got from Kennedy is obviously a copy and paste as it did not address my letter at all.

its really dissapointing to consider our elected officials are hard to reach by the very people who elected them
 
Letter to Stephen M. Lynch

Dear Mr. Stephen F. Lynch,

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is _______________, I've recently returned to Massachusetts a veteran after serving 6 years in the Armed Forces. Due to some recent cowardly acts, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California has gone back on her word and now seeks to re-enact an assault weapons ban similar to that of 1994.

I'm hoping that you vote no on any bill that will infringe upon our second amendment rights in any way. It is unconstitutional to take away the right to keep and bear arms from the responsible gun owning public because of the actions of such few cowards. Do we, the responsible gun owning public, the people you represent have your vote?

Very Respectfully,

______________


*********************
As expected, bs response. This is just some automated or copy / paste bs.
*********************


Thank you for your email. Please know that I appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this important issue. As always, I will keep your comments and concerns in mind as this issue continues to develop in the 110th Congress.

Please note that if this is an emergency or a time-sensitive issue, please contact my Boston office at 617-428-2000, and a member of my staff would be happy to help you.

Again, thank you for your email. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future regarding this or any other issue.

Sincerely,


Stephen F. Lynch
Member of Congress
 
Last edited:
Here's another one who doesn't get it

Bold Italics and [Bold bracketed] emphasis is mine as part of my embedded response.
May 5, 2009

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for contacting my office about guns in National Parks. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. [Not according to your statements below] In New Hampshire we have a proud tradition of individual liberty that allows [The articles contained in the Bill of Rights are not "allowed" by any government. They are inalienable rights and predate any form of government. The government did not "allow" them and therefore cannot "disallow" them] our citizens to hunt and practice marksmanship. [The 2A has nothing to do with either hunting or marksmanship! Hunting and marksmanship are never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.] I have supported that tradition throughout my career and I will continue to advocate for the responsible use of firearms as an important part of our state's heritage and culture. [How about this: an individual's right to keep and bear arms.]

Most gun owners agree that Second Amendment rights can be reasonably balanced with the needs of their communities. [I don't. Any "balance" includes an infringement of our rights. What balance is there in restricting responsible people from lawfully owning and using firearms? Answer: None!] I hope we can agree that the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, which designated two million acres of new wilderness across nine states, is an important piece of legislation for all Americans. [I don't agree. The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 infringes on my right to carry a firearm for self-defense and in defense of those I have a duty to protect.] The act, which is the largest wilderness protection law in generations, did not address the court ruling blocking the Bush rule that allowed concealed weapons in national parks. However, national parks continue to allow visitors to transport properly unloaded and stored guns. [Therefore making the firearms useless for self-defense!] I was proud to vote in support of this bipartisan act, signed into law by President Obama on March 30, because it will make huge strides in protecting and managing public lands, rivers and historic sites.

In New Hampshire, the bill authorizes the creation of the New England National Scenic Trail to the National Trail system that will run through southern New England to Mount Monadnock [Another area where Granite Stater's right to keep and bear arms will be infringed.] The bill also designates the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area, which includes eight towns in southwest New Hampshire. [MORE areas where people live and work where the right to keep and bear arms will be infringed.] Both these authorizations will protect the natural beauty and special heritage of our state. [While at the same time trampling on individual rights.]

I think it is particularly important to remember that many of the bills incorporated into the Lands Act involved lengthy public processes that engaged many stakeholders. The individuals and communities who depend on the land for work or recreation should help to shape the policies that preserve those special places. As a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I will continue to work for balanced, common-sense policies that protect our environment. [Just to remind you Senator, while I believe protecting the environment is important, I contacted you about our eroding individual rights, NOT the environment. However, it would have been very easy to add language in the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 that would protect both of these issues. You chose to support this act at the cost of individual rights.]

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope you will not hesitate to contact me with any future concerns.

[Senator, please stop paying the Second Amendment lip service!]

Sincerely,

Jeanne Shaheen
United States Senator





.
 
Last edited:
HR4102 (May 06 2009)

Greetings,
On 06 May 2009, Gov. Deval Patrick introduced a bill entitled ' An Act to Reduce Firearm Violence' (H4102). I would strongly encourage you to oppose this bill as it clearly will not reduce violent crime in our state.

As you probably know, the State has some of the most 'progressive' (i.e, restrictive) gun laws in the United States. Despite these aggressive laws and a significant reduction in gun licenses since 1998, the following facts clear:

(copy & paste table from Goal website)

(source: Massachusetts Department of Public Health http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/injury_surveillance/wriss_gunshot_sharp_94_06.pdf)

It is obvious that the restrictive laws of this state have not reduced violent crime. In fact, one might argue that crime and gun-related incidents have actually increased since 1998 despite legislative attempts to mitigate violent acts. Additional gun laws will only serve to handicap and disarm our law-abiding citizens; those intent on committing crimes have little (if any) regard for our criminal justice system and the consequences of their actions.

Thank you for your consideration . Again, I implore you to reject this this bill and it's misguided attempt to curtain violent crime. The citizens of City XYZ will be carefully monitoring the progress of this bill and your position on this urgent matter.

Respectfully,

Your Name
City, MA
 
Bold Italics and [Bold bracketed] emphasis is mine as part of my embedded
.

Hey Andy,

I guess after all she got the message! [grin]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/12/us/politics/AP-US-Roll-Call-Guns-National-Parks.html?_r=1

Roll Call: Allowing Guns in National Parks Measure

The 67-29 roll call by which the Senate on Tuesday approved an amendment that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

On this vote, a ''yes'' vote was a vote to support the amendment and a ''no'' vote was a vote against it.
...
New Hampshire

Gregg (R) Yes; Shaheen (D) Yes
...
 
Nice letter. I took it and cut out the GOAL details and link, and sent it to my rep. She's new and I'm interested to see what her response is. She is replacing pro-gun LeDuc. I'm hoping she follows in his footsteps.
 
Here is Senator Edward Kennedy's response to a letter; what a piece of work this guy is...

Dear XXXXXXX: (Tell your dumb aide to spell my name right!)



Thank you for your letter on the nation's gun laws. There is no doubt that the easy availability of firearms, particularly handguns, contributes to the unacceptable toll of death and injury from gun violence.



We must end the arms race in our cities, towns, and our neighborhoods. I support tough punishment for violent criminals, but I also believe that is not a sufficient answer to the problem. There are steps we can take to prevent violent crime before it occurs. It is time for Congress to act to place reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons.



Congress took an important first step by enacting the Brady Bill in 1993, which imposed a nation-wide five-day waiting period on the purchase of handguns. We need comprehensive legislation to strengthen the regulation of federal firearms dealers and limit the importation of foreign-made weapons. It is also time to limit the number of guns that may be purchased at one time.



In the past, I have been a sponsor of legislation that follows the example of Massachusetts and requires handgun purchasers throughout the country to obtain a license proving they are qualified and responsible enough to own handguns. More recently, I have introduced the Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act, to protect children from gun violence.



None of these measures will infringe on the legitimate rights of hunters and other sportspeople. The Second Amendment is not a constitutional obstacle to the regulation of firearms, since the amendment by its own terms deals with the rights of the state militia, not individuals. The framers of the Constitution surely did not intend to leave Congress powerless to protect the public from an epidemic of gun-related violence.




I am committed to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, without undue burden to law-abiding citizens who choose to use firearms for legitimate sporting purposes. Reasonable gun control is an important part of the effort to protect the American people from violent crime. Again, thank you for writing to me on this important issue.



Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy

Typical Kennedy BS.
 
Response from from local rep (Melrose)

Here's the email I received from our local rep (Katherine Clark). The other rep never responded (Richard Tisei).

---------
Dear XXX.XXXX,

Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to House Bill 4102, An Act to Reduce Firearm Violence filed by Governor Deval Patrick. I appreciate the information and statistics on an increase in crime as the gun laws become more restrictive.

As of now, H.4102 has not yet been assigned to a committee. Once it is assigned to a committee, a date for a public hearing will be scheduled. I encourage you to testify at the hearing to ensure that the committee understands your reasons for opposing this bill. If H.4102 comes before me, I will keep your opinions in mind as I weigh the merits and shortcomings of the bill.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to do so again with any other questions or concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

Katherine Clark

=====
Greetings,

On 06 May 2009, Gov. Deval Patrick introduced a bill entitled ' An Act to Reduce Firearm Violence' (H4102). I would strongly encourage you to oppose this bill as it clearly will not reduce violent crime in our state.

As you probably know, the State has some of the most 'progressive' (i.e, restrictive) gun laws in the United States. Despite these aggressive laws and a significant reduction in gun licenses since 1998, the following facts clear:

(link to Goal table with stats)

It is obvious that the restrictive laws of this state have not reduced violent crime. In fact, one might argue that crime and gun-related incidents have actually increased since 1998 despite legislative attempts to mitigate violent acts. Additional gun laws will only serve to handicap and disarm our law-abiding citizens; those intent on committing crimes have little (if any) regard for our criminal justice system and the consequences of their actions.

Thank you for your consideration . Again, I implore you to reject this this bill and it's misguided attempt to curtain violent crime. The citizens of Melrose will be carefully monitoring the progress of this bill and your position on this urgent matter.

Respectfully,

XXX.XXX
Melrose, MA
 
Here is a letter from my rep Jennifer Benson. Why is it the people that make and vote on the laws ignorant on the current laws. Another reason why she did not get my vote! She has her aide send me a reply! I love the canned responses that I get from them. I wrote 2 letters by hand, let's see how long it takes for a response then!

Limiting me to 1 gun purchase a month is really going to prevent people from obtaining guns illegally. Plus, I'm sure that every FFL is thrilled to only do a 1 sale a month for each buyer! I'm sure that felon on the street is going to go to an FFL to transfer the gun as well.

Losing Federal money because we are not in compliance? WTF, does she not know what State she is in. Not only are we in compliance, but we make it pretty difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain and own firearms.


Thank you for contacting my office regarding your opposition to the Governor's proposed gun law. This law would not dramatically change the Commonwealth's current gun laws and the changes seem fairly common sense to me.

The new law will limit gun purchases to one per month per person and requires that private transfers happen in the presence of a licensed gun dealer to help prevent "straw purchasers" from buying lots of guns and illegally transferring them to people who do not meet the requirements to purchase a gun themselves. It will also allow people charged with felonies involving the unlawful possession, use, or trafficking of a firearm to be held without bail. Due to a tragic incident a while back, the law also strictly limits the handling of machine guns to persons with a license to handle a machine gun. Finally, the law brings the state into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. The state risks losing federal grant money if it does not meet these requirements.

This gun control proposal makes few changes to the law, mostly bringing Massachusetts into compliance with federal law, and limiting criminals' access to firearms.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact myself or my aide, Katie Green, at 617.722.2130.

Sincerely,

Rep. Jennifer Benson
37th Middlesex

Katie Green
Legislative Aide
Rep. Jennifer Benson, 37th Middlesex
617.722.2130
 
Last edited:
Opposition to Governor Patrick's proposed H.4102 "An Act to Reduce Firearm Violence"

Here is my detailed letter to my state legislators.

------------------

Dear Senator Tollman & Representative Jonathan Hecht [and GOAL],

I am a resident of Watertown writing to express my dissent with the Governor's proposed H.4102 "An Act to Reduce Firearm Violence".

The Governor's cover letter to the bill aims to "shrink the supply of illegal guns" and "recognizes the danger that illegal guns pose to the public".

As well intended as this legislation may be to curb illegal gun possession and gun violence, the proposed legislation is contradictory, confusing, and would criminalize reasonable acts by licensed, law-abiding firearms owners in the Commonwealth.

Despite the fact that a Massachusetts resident is more likely to be killed in a car accident in Massachusetts (407 deaths in 2007) than be the victim of gun related homicide (252 gun homicides in 2007) [Sources: DOT FARS by State, 1994-2007 and Politics, Policy, & Public Health, 2007 ] the Governor has chosen to put forth legislation that will have a questionable impact on preventing gun violence while without a doubt restricting the freedoms of licensed, law-abiding firearms owners in the Commonwealth.

I urge you not to support this legislation since it serves to propagate negative mythology regarding firearms, unfairly restricts the Constitutional right to bear arms, and in the end will likely have no measurable contribution toward its stated goals.

Below are my concerns and comments regarding the specific sections of the proposed legislation that I have reviewed in detail. I hope you will find my comments helpful as they are likely representative of the views of other law abiding firearms licensees in your district who do not have the luxury afforded me to respond in such detail.

I thank you for your time and hope you will support my position and vote against this legislation.

Most sincerely,

XXXXXXXX

This email may contain confidential & privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipients. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies..



Objections to H.4102 "An Act to Reduce Firearm Violence"


The sections of the new legislation that are of particular concern to me are as follows:

Section 2: Currently the names and addresses of firearms owners is not disseminated. The proposed law would share this currently confidential information with licensed dealers to comply with a "one gun a month" restriction that I'll discuss later. The law does not specify standard or practices to be used by dealers to safeguard this information. Accidental or malicious public disclosure of this distributed information would make every lawful gun owner the target of individuals seeking to obtain a firearm illegally. This confidential and restricted information should not be disseminated as the solution to determine whether or not a prospective buyer is cleared to purchase a firearm. Enacting this change will likely INCREASE the number of robberies, home invasions, and gun related homicides in the Commonwealth, working counter the Governor's objective.

Section 4: This section is ambiguous and appears to now involve local licensing authorities (e.g. local law enforcement) in the approval process for firearms sales. This imposes an unnecessary and capricious burden on the firearms owner. Permit validity is already checked at state firearms dealers. If local licensing authorities want to rescind a license on the grounds of new mental health concerns of the licensee, there is already a procedure for doing so and the firearms purchase would not be approved. To involve local law enforcement to track individual firearms sales and thus enable an arbitrary standard as to which firearms acquisitions it will or will not approve is a burdensome restriction on law abiding firearms owners in the Commonwealth

Section 5: This proposed section seems to alter the Commonwealth's definition of a firearm to be a handgun, and being distinctly different from the federal definition. This will wreak havoc with law gun owners attempting to reconcile which laws will apply to which firearms. The existing definition has provided guidance thus far and should remain.

Section 6: This the so-called one gun per month clause. The Governor makes the point that Massachusetts will be the 4th such state to implement this law. The Governor is incorrect since the first four states to implement this clause were: South Carolina (1975), Virginia (1993), Maryland (1996), and California (1998). As of today, that would at best make Massachusetts the 5th state. Furthermore, this provision was enacted as a means of curbing interstate gun running, largely from southern states into the northeast. The motivation behind this one gun per month restriction would be to prevent "straw purchases" where an individual legally buys a gun to be passed on to criminals. In first quarter of 2009, over 18,000 firearms purchases and transfers were conducted in the Commonwealth [Source: Cape Cod Times 04/30/2009]. If less than 300 gun related homicides occur in Massachusetts per year, that represents less than 0.5% of all firearms sold or transferred in the Commonwealth. Furthermore, unlike other one-gun per month states, this section would restrict ALL firearms sales rather than just handguns. Why should the 99.5%+ of law abiding citizens have their rights restricted because of criminals. It would appear that this section punishes the wrong people.

Section 9: As tragic as the death of a young boy in Westfield in 2008, laws were already in place to prevent that incident that were not followed. No child should be handling a loaded firearm of any sort without appropriate cautious adult supervision. This legislation would restrict the handling of machine guns, even by adults who may already be familiar with the safe handling of semi-automatic versions of the same weapon. Since licensure in the Massachusetts requires a firearms safety course, properly licensed adults should have no such machine gun handling restrictions.

Section 16: This section criminalizes violation of the one gun per month clause. This would place a confusing restriction on Class A License to Carry licensees. If such a licensee were to legally purchase a large-capacity handgun or rifle, they could not also purchase the accompanying magazine. This would in effect increase the waiting period to 60 days before the firearm could be used. Likewise, if a firearms owner were to lose or damage a pistol or rifle magazine, it would be 30 days before being able to replace it. This is just an outrageous inconvenience on law abiding firearms owners in the Commonwealth.

Section 18: Almost all concealed carry and self-defense firearms training courses teach that the use of lethal force with a firearm is the last course of action when one believes the threat to life is present, real, and imminent. Part of the suggested protocol is (provided the circumstance allows for it) to announce to the assailant(s) your readiness to defend yourself with a firearm; primarily as a means of scaring off the would be attackers and avoid exercising lethal force for self-defense. This section is poorly worded and does not make a distinction between the attacker(s) or potential victim and would criminalize making such self-defense statements. For example, a would-be mugger armed with a baseball bat threatening a woman half his size who reveals she has a [legally licensed] gun would now be subject to harsher legal penalties than her attacker. The law should be protecting people from criminals, not criminalize verbal cues to self-defense.
 
Last edited:
I grew up with my state rep, so that's the reason for the informal tone. Regardless of opinions about Rep. Spellane (he's been involved in a couple of scandals recently), he's my state rep and he's gun friendly.

ETA - no point contacting Sen. Harriet Chandler - she's a libtart who always votes against the RKBA.

From: [KilgoreTrout]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:46 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Hi Bob

Bob,

Two quick things:

First, [snip]

Second, I write to express my concern for the Governor’s bill, H4102, “An Act to Reduce Firearm Violence,” which has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee. You may recall that I enjoy hunting, trap, and target shooting. Bob, my concern is that the Governor’s bill, filed perhaps with the best of intentions, can make me and other legal firearms owners into criminals if we simply happen to purchase more than one firearm or feeding device (magazine) within a 30 day period. Let’s say one of the magazines I use at the range is damaged, so I replace it. Then a week later I come across a great deal on a firearm that I’ve had my eye on. Under the Governor’s proposed legislation, if I purchase the second item within 30 days of replacing the magazine, I am instantly a criminal. I would forfeit my Second Amendment right, lose my License to Carry, face up to 2.5 years in prison, and be permanently deemed “unsuitable” to possess firearms and ammunition. All this for exercising my Constitutional rights.

Bob, I wholeheartedly support laws aimed at stamping out illegal firearms and their possession. But the Governor’s bill could turn those of us who are lawfully licensed into criminals for nothing more than an administrative infraction. And, let’s be realistic here, just how many illegal firearms are on the street because lawfully licensed individuals buy more than one firearm or magazine per month? This seems like a complete straw man. Please, if H4102 makes it out of committee, do the right thing. Don’t allow it to pass. Doing so would be tragic for those of us that obey the already complicated Massachusetts firearms laws.

Take care, Bob.

[KilgoreTrout]
Worcester

ETA response:

From: Spellane, Robert - Rep. (HOU) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:59 PM
To: [KilgoreTrout]
Subject: RE: Hi Bob
Importance: High

[KT],

First, [snip].
Second, The governors bill I will not comment on but will only say that I have co-sponsored “An act relative to the pretrial detention of violent defenders” House Docket 4362.

Warm Regards,

Robert P. Spellane
State Representative
13th Worcester District
State House, Room 156: 617-722-2240
District Office, 255 Park Avenue, Suite 104 Worcester, MA 01609
508-799-3948
www.bobspellane.com
____________
Oh well. Spellane is embroiled in more controversy. That could be why he's mum on the one gun a month bill.
 
Last edited:
contact your reps - automated program

I received this link in an email today. It appears to provide an automated mechanism for contacting your State reps and let's you select the format (email, fax, letter). The link opens with a letter opposing health care reform but it looks like you can change the text. Let these guys/gals know how you feel about the proposed gun laws!

-MS

http://capwiz.com/friendsoftheuschamber/issues/alert/?alertid=13531261
 
Last edited:
Recieved this from D'amico, my e-mail was sent 7/12, gets me a little that he addressed me by my first name rather than "Mr. X

My first name,

One of the things I noticed in my short time here is the tendency to legislate to news headlines. The attempt to further regulate gun club events seems to fit into that category.


Steve D'Amico
State Representative - 4th Bristol District
State House, Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Rep.StevenD'[email protected]
T: (617) 722-2014
F: (617) 626-0855
 
I'm confused.... Did this thread get continued somewhere else? The last post is 2009? I know at least here in CT we've had some challenges, just this year. Or is this just for Mass folks?

Having been to the state Capitol for the 1st time this year I was hoping to see what other folks have been doing. Wrote letters but never got replies from any of our reps.
 
Sent a letter to MA Congressman Richard Neal. Prolly wont do any good cuz NRA gave him an F rating. Maybe ill hear back, maybe not. Prolly not.
 
Below is a slightly edited version. I took out my real name and location.

Sir,

As I am from (A town in MA) and a avid Hunter and Shooter I urge you to fight against the new laws that Gov. Patrick is proposing. This has been said a million times over that these laws will only effect legal gun owners and they are not the problem as we all know.

I find it disgusting that the horrific event in Sandy Hook is the driving force for all of these people to come out and talk about taking away my rights and something that I enjoy very often. I shoot guns at least 3 times a week with a great group of guys at the (local gun club) and have been doing so for years. To think that this form of sport might be snatched away due to the knee jerk reaction of some is offensive.

You have received my vote before and I am hoping to cast it for you again. Please help people understand that legal gun owners are not the problem. If you have any question feel free to respond and or call me.

Respectfully,

Me

His response:

Hi me,

Thanks for taking the time to share your opinions with me.

I too am very concerned about the proposed gun legislation. And although I am going to reserve final judgment on any specific legislation until I have had the opportunity to fully digest the many proposals, it appears that there is very little in the Governor's bill or in Rep. Linsky's bill that I will like. As a current gun owner I can assure you that I will be looking out for the rights provided us by the Constitution.

It is unfortunate that this discussion has turned away from ‘violence prevention’ which is the true problem we face, to ‘gun control’ which will only penalize law abiding citizens as criminals will break the law no matter what it is.

Some of the things that I would be open to discussion on, pending the details of course, include background checks, mental health awareness for gun owners, strict enforcement of current laws against straw purchasing and illegal possession, and the closing of potential gun-show loopholes.

On the other hand, I do not support magazine limits, banning of certain weapons, 1-gun a month limits, etc. I believe that those measures only function to penalize the law abiding citizens.

Again, thank you for reaching out to my office and sharing your thoughts on this very important issue.


Best regards,
Peter Durant
State Representative

6th Worcester District

Tel: (617)772-2060
Email: [email protected]
 
Pepper Spray Legislation

Hey there -

I'm new to this group. I work in Boston, and after the horrific murder of Amy Lord, I decided that I wanted to start carrying pepper spray. After learning that there is a six month wait for the application to be processed, and realizing that it is only marginally more difficult to get a gun license, I am seriously thinking of going that route. I don't even necessarily want to buy a gun, but given the ridiculous wait times, I wouldn't mind going through the training and getting the license now, in case I should ever want one. This was actually suggested to me by the person at the police station who processes the FID applications.

I'm also very angry that it is so difficult to legally carry pepper spray. I wrote to all of the politicians who represent me, including Governor Patrick. The governor's office called me back and told me about some bills that are currently under review in the Massachusetts congress. This is my letter to Tom Sannicandro, who sponsored one of them, H.3278, and his reply.

Excuse me if I have any of this wrong; I'm really new to this issue.

-----------------------------

Dear Mr. Sannicandro,

Thank you for sponsoring Bill H.3278, "an act relative to pepper spray". As a woman who frequently walks alone, both in Boston, where I work, and Malden, where I live, I would like to start carrying pepper spray to protect myself. I went to the trouble of filling out the three page application for a Restricted FID, meeting the Malden police (during working hours, as that is the only time they will accept the applications), paying the $25 fee, and being photographed and fingerprinted. Then I learned that there is a wait of SIX MONTHS to have the application processed by the Massachusetts State Police. In effect, this means that there is no way for me to legally buy and carry pepper spray at the current time.

I support any effort to change the current law and was pleased to see S.1165. I have to admit to not being able to follow the language in the proposed bill, however. Would this proposed legislation just remove the $25 fee (which in itself is a step in the right direction), or does it save women who want to acquire pepper spray the long and difficult process of applying for the FID?

Thank you,

-------------------------


I want to thank you for writing to my office. I appreciate your support and am glad to hear you believe this bill to be important. I want ensure that the people of Massachusetts have the ability to defend themselves and are not afraid to walk through their neighborhoods. It is reassuring to know that you care about this legislation, and I appreciate your questions.

H.3278 does eliminate the FID requirement as well as the $25 fee. Currently, H.3278 has been grouped into another bill, H.2145. This bill contains multiple bills concerning the use of chemical defense sprays. Even though my bill is a part of a larger bill, the elimination of the FID and fee remains.

I want to thank you once again for emailing me and hope I have answered your questions. If you should have any further questions about this or any other issues that you may have, please contact me directly at[email protected]. You may also call my office at (617) 722-2013.

Thank you again,
Tom
 
Last edited:
Another response concerning pepper spray in Massachusetts:

------


Thank you for taking the time to share your support for Senate Bill 1165, An Act relative to remove pepperspray from firearms identification. I sponsored this legislation because I believe that pepper spray, a non-lethal device, should not be treated the same way as lethal devices, such as firearms.

As a State Senator, as well as a father of three, ensuring the safety and wellbeing of residents of the Commonwealth is of the utmost importance to me. The value of having access to effective methods of protection from attackers has become increasingly evident. Currently, Massachusetts is the only remaining state that requires a license for pepper spray. This bill would provide Massachusetts residents with greater access to protection by changing the way that pepper spray is dealt with for regulatory purposes.

Following a public hearing, Senate Bill 1165, accompanying other legislation with similar purpose, was reported favorably by the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and has advanced to the House Committee on Ways and Means. I assure you that I will continue to do all I can in support of this important legislation.

As always, thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Ross
State Senator
 
I know there used to be a bunch of sites which had a template where an email is all ready to go. All you do is fill in your zip code and name, and it will do the rest for you.

Anything like that still around?

If not, is there anyone who can get this sort of thing set up, so it is ready when needed? Need to take this bull by the horns!
 
Back
Top Bottom