Baker Raises Alarm About Healey's New Gun Ban

[rwl1955]

He, she, the legislature and everyone else concerned and on a need to know basis were in on it TOGETHER. They rightly assumed everyone affected wouldn't even think of that. Its too depressing, but it is obviously the truth.

*******
You guys do understand that we're totally outnumbered and the majority of legislators and citizens of this poor excuse for a free state not only agree with the ban but would support the total ban on all firearms in this State. You can talk all about the 2nd Amendment and the people but people have spoken and it's not for freedom.

 

[42!]

*******
You guys do understand that we're totally outnumbered and the majority of legislators and citizens of this poor excuse for a free state not only agree with the ban but would support the total ban on all firearms in this State. You can talk all about the 2nd Amendment and the people but people have spoken and it's not for freedom.

They don't get it.
The reality is that if Baker had started screaming about the AG's actions and the Legislature got involved we would end up with the AG's interpretation added to the law. And the backlash from the Dems that supported Baker would more than overwhelm the gun owners that support him and he'd definitely be out at the next election. And the loss would likely be to a Dem running on the "hot" issue of gun control (and he/she would not be in favor of guns).

I know it's hard to accept but the neutral position of the Gov and the party lines opposition to the AG's action, along with a meaningful court challenge (thank you NSSF) is about as good as we could have gotten. About the only thing better would have been the Fed stepping in, but that's pretty unlikely of on an issue of State AG action.

The real world is often not "right" or fair.

 

[rwl1955]

They don't get it.
The reality is that if Baker had started screaming about the AG's actions and the Legislature got involved we would end up with the AG's interpretation added to the law. And the backlash from the Dems that supported Baker would more than overwhelm the gun owners that support him and he'd definitely be out at the next election. And the loss would likely be to a Dem running on the "hot" issue of gun control (and he/she would not be in favor of guns).

I know it's hard to accept but the neutral position of the Gov and the party lines opposition to the AG's action, along with a meaningful court challenge (thank you NSSF) is about as good as we could have gotten. About the only thing better would have been the Fed stepping in, but that's pretty unlikely of on an issue of State AG action.

The real world is often not "right" or fair.

*******
Correct, Ma. is so far left we're lucky they haven't passed laws outlawing "hate "speech, which is defined as anything that speaks negatively against far left policies. Remember, Dukakis got a law passed that required homeowners to exit their homes if an armed intruder entered rather than stand and fight. Ed King rescinded the law when he took over. He was the last conservative Governor this miserable State will ever see..

 

[rsj]

They don't get it.
The reality is that if Baker had started screaming about the AG's actions and the Legislature got involved we would end up with the AG's interpretation added to the law. And the backlash from the Dems that supported Baker would more than overwhelm the gun owners that support him and he'd definitely be out at the next election. And the loss would likely be to a Dem running on the "hot" issue of gun control (and he/she would not be in favor of guns).

I know it's hard to accept but the neutral position of the Gov and the party lines opposition to the AG's action, along with a meaningful court challenge (thank you NSSF) is about as good as we could have gotten. About the only thing better would have been the Fed stepping in, but that's pretty unlikely of on an issue of State AG action.

The real world is often not "right" or fair.

If the legislature accepted her def. or voted it in to begin with it would have been on the agenda ahead of time, and people would be contacting their reps. The way it was done gave no warning and limited the political fallout to just the AG. Since the legislature didn't get upset it's power was usurped, and the governor initially supported that color of law command... what are the obvious conclusions?

 

[Horrible]

They don't get it.
The reality is that if Baker had started screaming about the AG's actions and the Legislature got involved we would end up with the AG's interpretation added to the law. And the backlash from the Dems that supported Baker would more than overwhelm the gun owners that support him and he'd definitely be out at the next election. And the loss would likely be to a Dem running on the "hot" issue of gun control (and he/she would not be in favor of guns).

I know it's hard to accept but the neutral position of the Gov and the party lines opposition to the AG's action, along with a meaningful court challenge (thank you NSSF) is about as good as we could have gotten. About the only thing better would have been the Fed stepping in, but that's pretty unlikely of on an issue of State AG action.

The real world is often not "right" or fair.

We'll see what happens when nobody shows up to vote for his ass, cept friends and family. The libs in this state will not vote for him over any halfway decent hack the Dems put forward. Call it the "Croakley" effect.

He absolutely had the power to squash this, and so does the legislature. Either they were all in on it, or they have no ****ing spine. Either way, ain't getting my vote!

 

[rwl1955]

We'll see what happens when nobody shows up to vote for his ass, cept friends and family. The libs in this state will not vote for him over any halfway decent hack the Dems put forward. Call it the "Croakley" effect.

He absolutely had the power to squash this, and so does the legislature. Either they were all in on it, or they have no ****ing spine. Either way, ain't getting my vote!

*******
Baker has no power to rescind the AG's decree. They are equal parts of govt. and Healy knew the legislature would never take up a bill to rescind her illegal proclamation. On to the courts so Maura can waste more taxpayer money. Her liberal base stands firmly behind her and will gladly pay whatever cost to get guns out of the hands of deplorables.

 

[42!]

We'll see what happens when nobody shows up to vote for his ass, cept friends and family. The libs in this state will not vote for him over any halfway decent hack the Dems put forward. Call it the "Croakley" effect.

What we'll get is a hard core anti with the clear support of the voters. This will put the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches in alignment against guns. What do you think that will get us?

And some Dems had to support him last time, or do you really think the Reps have enough votes in this state to elect a governor without some Dem support. So yes, some Dems will support him over a Dem candidate.

He absolutely had the power to squash this, and so does the legislature. Either they were all in on it, or they have no ****ing spine. Either way, ain't getting my vote!

There is no doubt the Legislature could have acted but the bills put forward did not have the support necessary to do so.

I'm getting sick and tired of the uniformed saying the Governor "had the power to" act against the AG. He does NOT. If you think he does, please cite it. Could he have spoken out more aggressively against it? Not if he wanted even a small chance at reelection, and it wouldn't have done any good anyway. He wrote a letter questioning it, so he's on record questioning it. He could not demand it be withdrawn, that is outside his authority.

The Legislature could have acted. They have the authority. That's where efforts need to focus. But that's a lot harder.

 

[rwl1955]

"There is no doubt the Legislature could have acted but the bills put forward did not have the support necessary to do so.

I'm getting sick and tired of the uniformed saying the Governor "had the power to" act against the AG. He does NOT. If you think he does, please cite it. Could he have spoken out more aggressively against it? Not if he wanted even a small chance at reelection, and it wouldn't have done any good anyway. He wrote a letter questioning it, so he's on record questioning it. He could not demand it be withdrawn, that is outside his authority.

The Legislature could have acted. They have the authority. That's where efforts need to focus. But that's a lot harder. "
*********
correct, some posters have a hard time accepting the truth. Len Segal explained all this to me in his class last October and he posted his explanation here also. If Baker went full ballistic on Healey's decree he would have cut his own throat and riled up the anti's in this State to pass more restrictive laws. Unfortunately we have to have patience and hope the courts are not stacked with anti-gun, activist Judges. Even thou Baker is a RINO I will gladly vote for me against any moonbat liberal Dem who runs against him. Voting for a Dem or not voting at all is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[42!]

I don't know why I didn't realize this earlier, but Baker's EOPS letter to the AG asking for clarification, and her not responding, should play very well in the NSSF case. What better proof do you need as to the vagueness and confusion than a letter from the Governor's EOPS, the supposed experts, than a letter asking for clarification. I think that letter helps more than we've realized.

 

[rwl1955]

I don't know why I didn't realize this earlier, but Baker's EOPS letter to the AG asking for clarification, and her not responding, should play very well in the NSSF case. What better proof do you need as to the vagueness and confusion than a letter from the Governor's EOPS, the supposed experts, than a letter asking for clarification. I think that letter helps more than we've realized.

*******
You could be right. What our fellow posters don't realize is that if Baker came out guns blazing on Healey's decree all the moonbats would have jumped to her defense and demanded their legislators pass a bill to BAN all "assault weapons".

 

[kevin9]

What we'll get is a hard core anti with the clear support of the voters. This will put the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches in alignment against guns. What do you think that will get us?

And some Dems had to support him last time, or do you really think the Reps have enough votes in this state to elect a governor without some Dem support. So yes, some Dems will support him over a Dem candidate.



There is no doubt the Legislature could have acted but the bills put forward did not have the support necessary to do so.

I'm getting sick and tired of the uniformed saying the Governor "had the power to" act against the AG. He does NOT. If you think he does, please cite it. Could he have spoken out more aggressively against it? Not if he wanted even a small chance at reelection, and it wouldn't have done any good anyway. He wrote a letter questioning it, so he's on record questioning it. He could not demand it be withdrawn, that is outside his authority.

The Legislature could have acted. They have the authority. That's where efforts need to focus. But that's a lot harder.

Yes, Gov. Baker's ability to act directly against the AG is limited, at best. The most he might be able to do, if he truly opposed Healy's action, would be to cut/reduce AGO funding in his submitted budget, or possibly line-item veto them on the other side. That would probably be a symbolic gesture at best, given legislative leadership support for Healy's actions.

What sticks in my craw is Faker clearly supported her ruling when it first came out (Gov. Charlie Baker: AG Maura Healey has authority to clarify assault weapons ban)'s, and his subsequent "questioning" of the ruling is simply a request for clarification, not any opposition to the actual ruling itself. The bottom line is he fundamentally supports a full assault weapon ban, in contrast to his statements as candidate Baker where he questioned the utility of the federal AWB. I knew he wasn't great on 2A, but his prior statements also gave little evidence that he support more gun control. Even his stated support for the changes in the law signed by Cadillac were mostly around the positive crumbs we got tossed in that update. I feel we got baited and switched, and I'll remember that.

If and who I vote for in the next gubernatorial election depends entirely on who is running. I absolutely will not support Faker at the primary level. For the general election, I'll rate Faker as an E on gun control, and vote (or not) accordingly. It pains me to admit this, but there are Democrat politicians in MA who are better, some much better, than Faker on gun control. I realize it's unlikely any of them would make it as the MA Democrat gubernatorial candidates, but I think it slightly more likely than us getting a better Republican candidate this time around. If they do ... then hell might freeze over and the earth stand still on November 6, 2018.

 

[rwl1955]

"It pains me to admit this, but there are Democrat politicians in MA who are better, some much better, than Faker on gun control. I realize it's unlikely any of them would make it as the MA Democrat gubernatorial candidates, but I think it slightly more likely than us getting a better Republican candidate this time around. If they do ... then hell might freeze over and the earth stand still on November 6, 2018."
*****
There are no other electable R's in this State that could even possibly contend for the Governors office. Baker is the best we'll get and I see no one on the horizon that has a chance.

 

[kevin9]

"It pains me to admit this, but there are Democrat politicians in MA who are better, some much better, than Faker on gun control. I realize it's unlikely any of them would make it as the MA Democrat gubernatorial candidates, but I think it slightly more likely than us getting a better Republican candidate this time around. If they do ... then hell might freeze over and the earth stand still on November 6, 2018."
*****
There are no other electable R's in this State that could even possibly contend for the Governors office. Baker is the best we'll get and I see no one on the horizon that has a chance.

That's what I said, or tried to: That it is more likely we'll see a Democrat candidate who's better on gun control than Fake, than we're going to see a viable Republican primary candidate who's better than Faker. Both possibilities are remote. It's more probable we'll have a choice of $#!t sandwiches and we'll have to decide between a D and an F, or none of the above.

 

[rwl1955]

That's what I said, or tried to: That it is more likely we'll see a Democrat candidate who's better on gun control than Fake, than we're going to see a viable Republican primary candidate who's better than Faker. Both possibilities are remote. It's more probable we'll have a choice of $#!t sandwiches and we'll have to decide between a D and an F, or none of the above.

*****
The best thing about Baker is that he's not a rabid anti-gun Dem but he knows that this State is. He is a politician who will do what he has to do to get re-elected, which I see happening.

 

[Spanz]

*****
The best thing about Baker is that he's not a rabid anti-gun Dem but he knows that this State is. He is a politician who will do what he has to do to get re-elected, which I see happening.

But the reason he will not be next election's governor, is because when Healey foisted anti gun and anti constitutional new rules on us...Baker 1st praised it (having known this was coming all along), and only MONTHS afterward when some smart pollster told baker he really F'ed up with all the gun owners in the stake, now he is giving limp wristed "displeasure" with Healey.

What about TAKING HEALEY TO COURT to stop her usurping our rights? How about joining all lawsuits and measures GOAL has going right now?

 

[Len-2A Training]

But the reason he will not be next election's governor, is because when Healey foisted anti gun and anti constitutional new rules on us...Baker 1st praised it (having known this was coming all along), and only MONTHS afterward when some smart pollster told baker he really F'ed up with all the gun owners in the stake, now he is giving limp wristed "displeasure" with Healey.

What about TAKING HEALEY TO COURT to stop her usurping our rights? How about joining all lawsuits and measures GOAL has going right now?

There aren't enough voting gun owners in MA to make a difference in his election (or not). Even amongst gun owners, there is a LARGE percentage that would be happy to see ARs and AKs banned, so don't count on their votes wrt 2A! Most sheep in MA are liberals and being anti-2A is in their blood. He probably gained voters due to his wishy-washy support of the AG!

And the Rep. party is not going to allow anyone to challenge him on the Rep. ballot, so it is going to be him against Maura, you can take that to the bank. I won't predict who will win however.

 

[Freddy B]

And the Rep. party is not going to allow anyone to challenge him on the Rep. ballot, so it is going to be him against Maura, you can take that to the bank.

Agree with the first part about the Republican party not permitting anyone else on the ballot, not so sure about the 2nd part. Healey's political career is being very carefully managed. A race against a popular Baker is by no means a sure win for her. I suspect she'll take a pass and wait for either Warren or Markey's senate seat to open up. It will be a brawl between her and Seth Moulton for that, but I think she'll win as the Democratic party will line up to support her, Moulton having stepped on some toes.

 

[Dadstoys]

But the reason he will not be next election's governor, is because when Healey foisted anti gun and anti constitutional new rules on us...Baker 1st praised it (having known this was coming all along), and only MONTHS afterward when some smart pollster told baker he really F'ed up with all the gun owners in the stake, now he is giving limp wristed "displeasure" with Healey.

What about TAKING HEALEY TO COURT to stop her usurping our rights? How about joining all lawsuits and measures GOAL has going right now?

Your wasting your time.
Most of us voted for him and he screwed us without a seconds hesitation.
Some of us will do it again anyway and believe it , he'll do it again. Probably worst considering he'll know he has a dog that likes to be kicked.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

 

[rsj]

That's what I said, or tried to: That it is more likely we'll see a Democrat candidate who's better on gun control than Fake, than we're going to see a viable Republican primary candidate who's better than Faker. Both possibilities are remote. It's more probable we'll have a choice of $#!t sandwiches and we'll have to decide between a D and an F, or none of the above.

You're right. Romney then Baker, both Repubs proved to be out to ban semi auto rifles- pure backstabbing traitors. I don't hold any hope for the governor office. Maybe a blue dog democrat, but they don't represent the limousine liberals of this state so we wouldn't get one of those either.

 

[GM-GUY]

Don't forget Scotty - the folks in NH didn't.

 

[rwl1955]

But the reason he will not be next election's governor, is because when Healey foisted anti gun and anti constitutional new rules on us...Baker 1st praised it (having known this was coming all along), and only MONTHS afterward when some smart pollster told baker he really F'ed up with all the gun owners in the stake, now he is giving limp wristed "displeasure" with Healey.

What about TAKING HEALEY TO COURT to stop her usurping our rights? How about joining all lawsuits and measures GOAL has going right now?

********
He would be cutting his own throat that's why. The legislature would be howling and the Globe would have front page coverage and every anti in the State would be weighing in. Rosenthal would have a field day and he would get mucho face time on every local network.

 

[rwl1955]

Don't forget Scotty - the folks in NH didn't.

*******
Right, they elected a Obama supporter over a moderate Republican. Good move, NOT!

 

[Whutmeworry]

If Scotty's a "moderate Republican" (especially on the issue of gun rights), I'm an astronaut.

 

[GM-GUY]

*******
Right, they elected a Obama supporter over a moderate Republican. Good move, NOT!

They didn't elect an 0bama supporter - they just refused to be shat on and stayed home or blanked it. I know I turned in a blank ballot Scotty v. Lizzy : I refuse to endorse with my vote a known bad actor - just like voting for Johnson in the 0bama v Mittens race.

 

[rwl1955]

If Scotty's a "moderate Republican" (especially on the issue of gun rights), I'm an astronaut.

*******
He's a moderate.

 

[rwl1955]

They didn't elect an 0bama supporter - they just refused to be shat on and stayed home or blanked it. I know I turned in a blank ballot Scotty v. Lizzy : I refuse to endorse with my vote a known bad actor - just like voting for Johnson in the 0bama v Mittens race.

*******
So instead of electing an R that would have opposed Barry's reign of terror they elected Jeanne Jeanie who supported all of Obama's EO's and anti-American/anti-gun policies. Good job voters, so much for Live Free or Die.

 

[Dadstoys]

*******
So instead of electing an R that would have opposed Barry's reign of terror they elected Jeanne Jeanie who supported all of Obama's EO's and anti-American/anti-gun policies. Good job voters, so much for Live Free or Die.

But what makes you think Scotty would have opposed Obama ?
Nothing in his record from Ma. would suggest that.
What happened to him is exactly what needs to happen to Charlie.
Once he's out and tries to scam his way onto another Republican ticket elsewhere we need to sound the alarm long and loud.
Scotty's bullshit followed him in large part thanks to gun owners in Ma.
I saw a few letters to the editors in NH papers from Ma. gun owners warning the folks in NH what he was all about.
That stank won't wash off so easy.

 

[rwl1955]

But what makes you think Scotty would have opposed Obama ?
Nothing in his record from Ma. would suggest that.
What happened to him is exactly what needs to happen to Charlie.
Once he's out and tries to scam his way onto another Republican ticket elsewhere we need to sound the alarm long and loud.
Scotty's bullshit followed him in large part thanks to gun owners in Ma.
I saw a few letters to the editors in NH papers from Ma. gun owners warning the folks in NH what he was all about.
That stank won't wash off so easy.

******
So you're a big supporter of Jeannie and Maggie, two left wing liberals. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Brown, like Baker is a politician, and they vote and govern they way their constituents tell them to hopefully. The vast majority of Ma. citizens support repressive gun control but NH doesn't. Baker and Brown are not anti-gun, they're representing the majority of Ma. citizens and we're a small minority.

- - - Updated - - -

But what makes you think Scotty would have opposed Obama ?
Nothing in his record from Ma. would suggest that.
What happened to him is exactly what needs to happen to Charlie.
Once he's out and tries to scam his way onto another Republican ticket elsewhere we need to sound the alarm long and loud.
Scotty's bullshit followed him in large part thanks to gun owners in Ma.
I saw a few letters to the editors in NH papers from Ma. gun owners warning the folks in NH what he was all about.
That stank won't wash off so easy.

******
So you're a big supporter of Jeannie and Maggie, two left wing liberals. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Brown, like Baker is a politician, and they vote and govern they way their constituents tell them to hopefully. The vast majority of Ma. citizens support repressive gun control but NH doesn't. Baker and Brown are not anti-gun, they're representing the majority of Ma. citizens and we're a small minority.

 

[rwl1955]

Was at the Harvard pistol range Saturday shooting my G19 and one other shooter was there. He asked me what I was shooting and showed him the G19 and he was shooting a Ruger 9mm. I started ranting about the ban on Glocks and AR's in this State and he looked at me and asked what do you mean you can't buy a new Glock/AR in Ma. I started explaining about Scotty and Maura Healey and he had no idea what I was talking about, he was probably around 70yrs old. Perfect example of why we have no power.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Was at the Harvard pistol range Saturday shooting my G19 and one other shooter was there. He asked me what I was shooting and showed him the G19 and he was shooting a Ruger 9mm. I started ranting about the ban on Glocks and AR's in this State and he looked at me and asked what do you mean you can't buy a new Glock/AR in Ma. I started explaining about Scotty and Maura Healey and he had no idea what I was talking about, he was probably around 70yrs old. Perfect example of why we have no power.

It's precisely these people who simply need to be informed by us gun owners who're in the know. I guarantee a good portion of these people like the one you mention in your post would help us spread the word about the ridiculous laws we have if they only knew about them. It's the job of each and every one of us to get the word out. Will it make any real difference in this God-forsaken state? Certainly no less difference than if we do nothing.