Atten Mass Shooters

OK, so on that history, how can we find out when it's going to third reading?

When I spoke to Jon at Goal, I thought that he said that it was up for Vote in the Senate last week or the week before? I could have misunderstood him. Which I'm thinking that I did.
 
Perhaps even more important than the third reading is knowing when it gets voted upon. That would be the best time to flood our senators with calls, correct?
 
I just received a postcard from State Senator Stan Rosenberg which confused me at first. It was a pre-printed card thanking me for sharing my concerns regarding the state budget. But upon closer reading someone has written "Thanks for your call regarding the target shooters bill. It is still being .......(cannot read this part) and I think ....(again cannot read). "

So at least he or his staff took note of my call. I'll have to keep track of when the voting is due to take place and make another call just before to remind him of my interest.
 
There is a "calendar" which lists the bills coming up for a vote posted on the state's website. If you back up from the URLs I posted you should find it. It's not the most efficient way to find out what's happening, but Jim Wallace (GOAL) is the only one I know who is likely to have better info (there is a subscription service available that likely gives more timely info, it just cost $$).
 
Thank god your here Len, because I have been trudging through that site, and I can't make heads or tails of it... And know know why I wasn't a lawyer.

I found the journal for the Senate, were it's said it was sent to a third reading. And I did see where it was on the docket to be read yesterday. But I don't know what's become of that..

And if I'm even reading anything correctly. But do I get points for trying? [grin]
 
So when I check the mail today, there's an envelope from Sen, Murray. I open it up and it's a 2 page letter actually personalize from her. She tells me the history of the bill and in the next to final paragraph says "Please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind, should this matter come before the Senate".

Sounds like I got fluffed off. So I called her office, AGAIN. Her legislative aide is out and I get her voice mail, AGAIN. Left my name and number, AGAIN. No call back today.
 
FPrice said:
I just received a postcard from State Senator Stan Rosenberg which confused me at first. It was a pre-printed card thanking me for sharing my concerns regarding the state budget. But upon closer reading someone has written "Thanks for your call regarding the target shooters bill. It is still being .......(reviewed) and I think ....(will pass). "
Click to expand...

Hopefully it said what my adds are in red. [smile]
 
Ever the feeling you're being ignored....

So I called the good Senator's office AGAIN this morning. I asked the woman who answered the phone about the status of this Bill. "It's waiting for a vote" I was told. I asked how I could expect the Senator to vote on the Bill. "I don't have that information but I'll put you to the voice mail of a person who will know". I'm getting tired of playing phone tag with these people. I have left YET ANOTHER phone message with my name and phone number as I have done NUMEROUS times in the past.
Sign me: Not Holding My Breath...
 
Jon, that's when you start to mention that maybe you're going to tell people not to vote for him next time around. And that you're going to let all the officers on your shift know how he's not returning your phone calls.

I bet you get him showing up at the station and talking to you....
 
Glory be, I got a call back at 12:30. It was one of her Legislative Aides. He looked the Bill up so he knew what we were talking about. He gave me a little history and said "It's been to it's third reading. Looks like your Bill is in good shape and should be moving forward soon. They (Senate) got tied up with the health insurance Bill last week but they should be getting on your Bill real soon. It's not held up in any way." Soooooooo, I ask again, "Where does the Senator stand on this Bill?" He replies "I don't know for sure. I'll have to ask her but looking at it, everyone seems to be on-board with it so she's probably for it." I thanked him for finally returning my call and asked him to call me back when he finds out for sure where Senator Murray sits on this Bill.
 
JonJ said:
Glory be, I got a call back at 12:30. It was one of her Legislative Aides. He looked the Bill up so he knew what we were talking about. He gave me a little history and said "It's been to it's third reading. Looks like your Bill is in good shape and should be moving forward soon. They (Senate) got tied up with the health insurance Bill last week but they should be getting on your Bill real soon. It's not held up in any way." Soooooooo, I ask again, "Where does the Senator stand on this Bill?" He replies "I don't know for sure. I'll have to ask her but looking at it, everyone seems to be on-board with it so she's probably for it." I thanked him for finally returning my call and asked him to call me back when he finds out for sure where Senator Murray sits on this Bill.
Click to expand...

Like pulling teeth, and still no definate answer. [rolleyes]
 
derek said:
Like pulling teeth, and still no definate answer. [rolleyes]
Click to expand...
Yup, they must have already checked the voter registration list and saw the little "R" after my name.
To top it off, because I have emailed her office, I'm now on her frigging email list!
 
Did anyone ever get an answer from GOAL regarding the questions or problems on page one of this thread? The a) b) and c) parts and the "2 trumps 1" questions?

How can we ask them to support something if we are not sure the wording is right? Should we ask them to amend it?

Why can't GOAL put in some bills which would overhaul the firearms laws and create a separate area of the law for just definitions and stuff, then the laws themselves, etc.

Maybe a "model laws" forum on here...
 
I personally think the bill will pass....

the kicker here is.... Will the AG obey it? Will the definition of "Target
Handgun" that gets hammered out be rammed down the throat of the
AG? (His CMRs have an exemption but it is poorly defined, with the possible
exception of things like the S+W 22A, but there arent a whole lot of
exceptions.... so its hard to see how he would react...) This all
hinges on wether or not he is forced to adopt the definition that is used to
make guns exempt from testing.... if he is forced to use the same definition,
then, great... if not, then we really haven't accomplished anything.

-Mike
 
I believe further back in this thread, someone states that the AG is on-board with this. I don't know if that is officially stated anywhere though.
 
JonJ said:
I believe further back in this thread, someone states that the AG is on-board with this. I don't know if that is officially stated anywhere though.
Click to expand...

Well, knowing how Reilly appears to operate, it could be "Yeah, I'm on board with it
(because it doesn't restrict my ability to be an a**h*** and interpret things the way I
feel)". Whenever any variables are given in the law, Reilly
defaults to being overly restrictive. (This is evident with the whole
Glock fiasco... Paint was good enough for Beretta, but not for Glock?) The only way to
defeat this guy is if something is burned in stone saying he has to abide by the definitions.
We'll see what pans out when the dust settles.

-Mike
 
JonJ said:
I thanked him for finally returning my call and asked him to call me back when he finds out for sure where Senator Murray sits on this Bill.
Click to expand...

Stay on him Jon. Give him 2 days and call back. Be a royal PITA. MAKE her answer.
 
According to Don Kusser (GOAL BOD) last night at the BR&P meeting, Reilly and Barrios (Sen Chmn Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee) have asked that the bill be HELD UP and NOT put to a vote until after the elections (which is a whole new cycle of file bills, wait, pray it moves, etc. all over again).

GOAL has asked that Sen Travelini's (sp?)office (Senate President) be called by all to request that it be put to a vote. The Senate President can single-handedly put a bill on the floor for a vote or bury it so that it never sees the light of day!
 
LenS said:
According to Don Kusser (GOAL BOD) last night at the BR&P meeting, Reilly and Barrios (Sen Chmn Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee) have asked that the bill be HELD UP and NOT put to a vote until after the elections (which is a whole new cycle of file bills, wait, pray it moves, etc. all over again).

GOAL has asked that Sen Travelini's (sp?)office (Senate President) be called by all to request that it be put to a vote. The Senate President can single-handedly put a bill on the floor for a vote or bury it so that it never sees the light of day!
Click to expand...


Umm that means please contact Sen Travelini's office and ask him to move the bill to a vote. [wink]
 
LenS said:
According to Don Kusser (GOAL BOD) last night at the BR&P meeting, Reilly and Barrios (Sen Chmn Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee) have asked that the bill be HELD UP and NOT put to a vote until after the elections (which is a whole new cycle of file bills, wait, pray it moves, etc. all over again).

GOAL has asked that Sen Travelini's (sp?)office (Senate President) be called by all to request that it be put to a vote. The Senate President can single-handedly put a bill on the floor for a vote or bury it so that it never sees the light of day!
Click to expand...


See my thread farther down...

I've said that's what my rep also said to do. I posted his e-mail address, postal address, and phone number.

We need to hound this guy to get it moving.
 
drgrant said:
Well, knowing how Reilly appears to operate, it could be "Yeah, I'm on board with it
(because it doesn't restrict my ability to be an a**h*** and interpret things the way I
feel)". Whenever any variables are given in the law, Reilly
defaults to being overly restrictive. ... if something is burned in stone saying he has to abide by the definitions.
We'll see what pans out when the dust settles....
Click to expand...

Better yet, can this bill as is and rewrite it to make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR what his role is. Why is GOAL pussyfooting around and why can't they answer the questions on the previous page here? I can only half heartedly support this if at all, especially when it is poorly worded as suggested on page one here.
 
Hey I just noticed somebody made it sound like because I wasn't too excited about the guns in the bill, I wasn't making the calls and all. Couldn't be further from the truth!

I'm always on top of this stuff when I see it on the goal page. Don't even care if I'm talking to a brick wall or not. All parties given another round of calls by me today.
 
Coyote33 said:
Better yet, can this bill as is and rewrite it to make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR what his role is. Why is GOAL pussyfooting around and why can't they answer the questions on the previous page here? I can only half heartedly support this if at all, especially when it is poorly worded as suggested on page one here.
Click to expand...

If GOAL could get away with doing that, they probably would have.

The problem is, in MA, for this stuff to pass, the wind has to be blowing in
the right direction and the right politicos need to be swansonged to death to
even get them to take a look at it. Most pols don't know a barrel from a firing pin,
so these laws are basically passed by virtue of defeating ignorance
in the legislature. That still doesnt fix the "political overtone" problem.
In MA it is very difficult to get pols to pass gun reg fixes..... they have to
be designed and massaged in such a way as to avoid the liberal brady bunch
radar. Most of the stuff that goal has gotten pushed through in the past
few years has basically been by the "this is common sense and the existing
law is extremely dumb and unfair, and our improvements
will not -actually- lessen gun control measures in any REAL way" mode
of persuasion. The way GOAL has done its work, its impossible for the antis to
go up and talk crap about the improvements without looking like idiots themselves.

The other mode of persuasion, the "We're submitting this bill to you because the
laws here are wholly and completely unconstitutional and in effect,
are SERIOUS civil rights violations, and you should all be jailed for treason" mode
doesn't really fly in communist states. GOAL has to tread carefully
when it pushes laws as to be able to garner adequate support. It's easier
to get the support needed by massaging than it is by peeing in the
cakemix.

-Mike
 
Coyote33 said:
CAN the AG "lobby" for or against anything? Where do we turn as consumers?
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten about how he lobbied for "in-state" tuition for illegal aliens?
He even used AG stationary that WE paid for to lobby for that.
Where do you turn as a consumer? First, you're not a consumer, you're a prisoner. Second, the ballot box.
 

Similar threads

C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
211
milktree
milktree
Mass Legal Combat Shotguns
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Knob Creek
Knob Creek
A real "hmm" on duty to retreat in a mass-shooting...
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
  • Locked
Registration on Mass. Portal
Replies
14
Views
886
M1911
M1911
Even judges are idiots in Mass.
Replies
10
Views
764
Parker Schreiber
Parker Schreiber
Back
Top Bottom