Alert - Public Hearing Thursday Morning at State House - All 2A related legislation

Showed up and testified for the Suppressor bill. Used by scientific authority to talk about hearing damage and equated it to safety equipment for the shooter and those around them.

Think I saw a couple guys finally get it. Hope this carries over to passing the bill.

Got in around 10:15a, and only 1 anti speaker was there during my stay till the end. No idea about the start of the session.
 
they are going to "haul the chiefs who are going above the law in to appear before a committee" they were not happy with this and for the most part seemed unaware of the many abuses. Very good development.

Adding to this. The Chairman asked Rep. David T. Vierra to start an oversight committee to look into local authorities and their implementation of suitability requirements. This could be a stall tactic, it could be genuine. But follow up with him about the issue.
 
Adding to this. The Chairman asked Rep. David T. Vierra to start an oversight committee to look into local authorities and their implementation of suitability requirements. This could be a stall tactic, it could be genuine. But follow up with him about the issue.

Rep Vierra is one of the best and will follow up on this. I'm looking forward to seeing this hearing.
 
Showed up and testified for the Suppressor bill. Used by scientific authority to talk about hearing damage and equated it to safety equipment for the shooter and those around them.

Think I saw a couple guys finally get it. Hope this carries over to passing the bill.

Got in around 10:15a, and only 1 anti speaker was there during my stay till the end. No idea about the start of the session.

I'm not sure that they will care about preserving OUR hearing.

I focused on the benefits to the neighbors/neighborhoods from the use of suppressors. Fewer moonbats complaining about range noise, etc. I hope this clicks with them and pushes them to approve them.


Adding to this. The Chairman asked Rep. David T. Vierra to start an oversight committee to look into local authorities and their implementation of suitability requirements. This could be a stall tactic, it could be genuine. But follow up with him about the issue.

Which chairman (Timilty or Naughton) requested this? The answer makes a difference . . . Naughton is two-faced as I found out during and after his "listening tour", whereas Timilty is a straight-shooter, no BS guy.
 
I was late, but was able to speak - they at least seemed receptive to what was said and they did ask follow up and engaging questions of us. The Rep from Salem--is he the former police chief, does anyone know? One of the Reps was a former top cop in Salem and he suggested H.2158 should be looked at, since many licensing authorities are overstepping state law. He even spoke to some of us after the session and reiterated that.

It was encouraging...but who knows.
 
I will send Jim an email and ask about the oversite committee and ask him to follow up on it.

That's exactly what I had in mind. Thanks and please keep me in that loop.


I was late, but was able to speak - they at least seemed receptive to what was said and they did ask follow up and engaging questions of us. The Rep from Salem--is he the former police chief, does anyone know? One of the Reps was a former top cop in Salem and he suggested H.2158 should be looked at, since many licensing authorities are overstepping state law. He even spoke to some of us after the session and reiterated that.

It was encouraging...but who knows.

Hmm, same guy that responded to my written testimony with a personalized response. Maybe we have someone really listening there.

Naughton will glad-hand us, be sympathetic but it is all for show.
 
For those that shoot Service Rifle, I put the bug in their ears regarding the CMP rule changes proposed for Service Rifle in 2016 that will allow for adjustable stocks, and pointed out that this would be an issue for us in ban states, potentially putting us at a competitive disadvantage (not that I get to shoot it as much as I want). That got Sen Timilty's attention and he asked me for a link to the rule changes. I just sent that to him and Naughton.

It was a pleasure seeing everybody there today!
 
I was there lots of people relating Lowell experiences in trying to get an unrestricted license. Also good presentations on suppressor says public safety equipment.

One anti from Newburyport.

Jim Wallace gave a great presentation as did a guy from Woburn and a guy who was denied in Framingham solely on his appearance. Had to go to court to get his LTC.

I made sure to stop by my Rep and Senator's offices before I left.
 
Darn! I went all the way in there and it adjourned early! Gah.

Oh well, I met with Paul Tucker. He was a really nice guy. He said that it was a very spirited meeting and that it went well. He provided me with his card and told me that I can submit a written testimonial and send it to:

Harold Naughton Jr
Comm. of Public Safety and Homeland Security
State House
24 Beacon St.
Room 167
02133

He said to send it in as soon as possible, because they decide on the Bills quickly. I guess I could email it to him instead? Not sure which is better. I guess I could email it and send it by mail.

He told me to write up the specific bill #s and say which ones I support and don't support and why.
 
"There was one gun prohibitionist who testified, an elderly women who went on to discuss that she appreciated MA gun laws and didn’t want any bill passed which would weaken existing law. She spoke against H.2158 and constitutional carry, discussing how the term is new and part of the NRA agenda. She concluded by stating the need for permits to carry. She was also very opposed to open carry."

Sounds like she is the type, you only need to hold up a cell phone and let the rapist know you are calling 911 and they better back off.
 
It's a hearing, nothing "gets voted on" yet. Most of the stuff will probably get discarded this session, unlikely to even get out of the committee.

-Mike

Yep. Most of these get "referred to committee" where they expire when the legislative session is over. Then someone resubmits them the next year with a different bill number and it starts all over again.


So why it, that when they finally pass a Bill it cannot be rescinded, but they can try and try until they get one to pass? We go through the same crap year after year here in RI.


Good luck getting those crappy ones shot down and the good ones passed.
 
Thanks to everyone who was able to attend! And, thanks to GOAL and those reps who filed all the PRO-2A bills many months ago (set the stage, so to speak). It is much better to have the anti-2A crowd on the defensive, even if nothing gets passed.
 
That's exactly what I had in mind. Thanks and please keep me in that loop.




Hmm, same guy that responded to my written testimony with a personalized response. Maybe we have someone really listening there.

Naughton will glad-hand us, be sympathetic but it is all for show.

Naughty is not to be trusted. Didn't he go on his own "listening tour" where he basically had predetermined he was on Linsky's side?
 
Darn! I went all the way in there and it adjourned early! Gah.

Oh well, I met with Paul Tucker. He was a really nice guy. He said that it was a very spirited meeting and that it went well. He provided me with his card and told me that I can submit a written testimonial and send it to:

Harold Naughton Jr
Comm. of Public Safety and Homeland Security
State House
24 Beacon St.
Room 167
02133

He said to send it in as soon as possible, because they decide on the Bills quickly. I guess I could email it to him instead? Not sure which is better. I guess I could email it and send it by mail.

He told me to write up the specific bill #s and say which ones I support and don't support and why.

I for one think a short hearing is a good thing. Last time we were there until after 6pm. I am sure they don't want a repeat. And since the anti side failed to show up it would seem to me that there is not the support from that side to push this crap.
 
Back
Top Bottom