Ask any professional in the mental health field, there is no such thing as "no risk" The best you will ever hear is "low risk", that's the bottom of the scale. But all the judge will hear is "risk". So if the standard is "risk" then EVERYONE already falls within that. No matter what kind of studies, report, or examination a person gets, the testimony will never be better than "low risk", a.k.a. Guilty!
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
ERPO Response from my Representative
- Thread starter Paul455
- Start date
Yeah in all these cases the subject was either significant or extreme risk where the laws that exist today failed the American public.
amm5061
NES Member
It would actually have been better to go at it from the civil rights, due process, and 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment violations this entails.
Thirwell1216
NES Member
The subjectivity of this proposed law is frightnening in the sense that there isn't really due process. This is from the globe article on the subject: "The state House of Representatives is poised Wednesday to pass a bill that would allow family members, roommates, and current and former romantic partners to petition a court to take away a gun owner’s weapons."
Those firearms would be confiscated for a year if the court finds the person poses a risk. So angry ex-girlfriends or bitter relatives that just found out that your mother left you her house in her will instead of them can just say you are a threat to the public and POOF your guns are gone for a year. Good luck getting them back in one piece. I have heard tales of expensive guns being thrown in the trunk of a cruiser like firewood during bitter divorces in the past by PD.
Those firearms would be confiscated for a year if the court finds the person poses a risk. So angry ex-girlfriends or bitter relatives that just found out that your mother left you her house in her will instead of them can just say you are a threat to the public and POOF your guns are gone for a year. Good luck getting them back in one piece. I have heard tales of expensive guns being thrown in the trunk of a cruiser like firewood during bitter divorces in the past by PD.
namedpipes
NES Member
Yes, but while state reps do take an oath, I don't think it's to defend the Constitution. That's based on 11 seconds of googling, so it's entirely possible I'm wrong on that.
Hardwired
NES Member
They really don't give a s**te. The Scott tissue on your toilet paper holder is more useful than the state constitution penned by John Adams.
They laugh at residents calling in to dispute this unconstitutional "laws". They made it into solely a citizen control bill. They won't ever address the real criminal violence, the phentonyl dealers, and treat the emotionally and mentally ill. It's easy to target the law abiding citizen and praise themselves how tough they are on crime. Nothing is going to change and it gets worse in the Northeast.
Welcome to the Thought police.
Just ask the licensed peasant who walked into BH with a ccw.
amm5061
NES Member
The point is not what the politicians care about. They give no shits about anything other than how much money they can steal. The point is that the masses may actually still care about civil rights other than the right to bear arms. Having more than just Pro-2A people against such bullshit is the idea here.
It's not just 2A groups that bitch about things where due process is shit all over like the no-fly list and FISA courts, you know.
No. Treason is actively engaging in war against the US, or assisting someone actively engaging in war against the US. "War" is not "doing something harmful to the Constitution", "war" is shooting at representatives of one or more states. Net of actively working with (arguably) ISIS or the Taliban, "things you don't like" can't rise to the level of treason the the US.
Doesn't mean someone is not bad, evil, or sleazy, but it does mean they're not "treasonous".
My two cents, worth what you paid for them... Hyperbolic terms like "treason" and "at war" only serve to obfuscate a deeper understanding of our opponents' motivations and way of thinking, and make it harder to persuade.
The NRA can make progress, or at least achieve stalemates (which are arguably wins), at the federal level by mobilizing supporters and recruiting from a large pool of pre-existing sympathizers. Here, we have to persuade, and we can't do that if we're ascribing oversimplified evil intentions to people.
I'd describe many anti politicians and their most rabid supporters as callous but well-intentioned fools who don't have any interest in or understanding of guns. And much of the public as uneducated sheep.
Might sound like a stupid distinction, but fools can be educated and sheep can be herded back in the right direction, while enemies in war are irredeemable.
And that right there is the reason we are in the position we are in .
Some people can't wrap their heads around the fact that there really are evil people in this world.
It may not happen as often here as in other countries but closing your eyes to the fact there are people in positions of authority in this country right now who wouldn't blink giving the order to burn your house to the ground with your family in it or blow your wife's head off while she's holding an infant is delusional.
Take our own lovely AG for example .
How do you think things would go if she suddenly got the go ahead to disarm Ma. gun owners by "Any means " ?
These people aren't ignorant.
People like John Rosenthal have been spreading the same tired lies for years and have been publicly corrected a hundred times on the facts.
They know , they just don't care.
I'll make one amendment to what I said - there are of course some people who are irredeemable headline-chasing pieces of shit, people like Healy and Linsky and Rosenthal. But I do think the average anti legislator is closer what I described than to someone like Healey.
So if properly educated on the topic you think their stance would change?
It doesn't need to be explained to them. They fully understand that there is no such thing as "No Risk" and that's why the standard was changed from "High Risk" to just "Risk". Now, when someone gets nailed with this, the prosecution (or whoever it is that's bringing the case against the victim) can simply say there is no such thing as "No Risk" so the standard of "Risk" has been satisfied.
At one of the statehouse hearings years ago, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis was speaking on some topic, then they did the "any questions?" part at the end. I specifically asked him if he thought it was all the gun owners West of 128 who were the problem murderers in the inner city. He answered no. I asked him then, should they be punishing all lawful gun owners then, when it is obviously not a gun problem, but a people problem in the city areas. Again, he answered no. Then he went right back to doing the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE JUST SAID. That was when I gave up on believing any of them ever. He lied straight to me, face to face. That is a no-go in my book.
slipknot
NES Member
thanks I feel much better now, so anyone with spiteful people better get a lawyer on retainer.
The only risk will be when people have had enough of this bullshit
Healey, Rosenthal, and Linsky? No. But many legislators, yes.
The first three for sure. At least something we agree upon.
I think you under estimate the strategy behind the anti gun movement politically. It’s not being done because of morals. Purely control of the unwashed.
These people are very well organized and well funded.
Check out the websites, for Pete's sake:
Never Again MSD - Wikipedia
Response
George and Amal Clooney donated $500,000 to the organization to help with the cost of organizing the March for Our Lives demonstration, which they will also participate in.[54] Following the Clooneys' announcement, other celebrities including Oprah Winfrey, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Steven Spielberg pledged to match the $500,000 donation.[55][56]
Check out the websites, for Pete's sake:
Never Again MSD - Wikipedia
Response
George and Amal Clooney donated $500,000 to the organization to help with the cost of organizing the March for Our Lives demonstration, which they will also participate in.[54] Following the Clooneys' announcement, other celebrities including Oprah Winfrey, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Steven Spielberg pledged to match the $500,000 donation.[55][56]
For those from Tewksbury or Wilmington, you may know that James Miceli (a Democrat, but a very strong 2A ally) passed away a few months back.
There are two Republicans running, Erin Buckley (Erin Buckley for State Representative) and Pina Prinzivalli (Pina Prinzivalli for State Representative). Pina was expected to be the only R in the race, but Buckley jumped in after Rep. Miceli passed.
Both are strong 2A supporters and have anti-ERPO social media posts. Buckley has an LTC and pictures of her at the range. Pina has promised to refile Rep. Miceli's 2A civil rights bill. Buckley has a more substantial political history but she's a late comer to the race.
Anyone know anything about them? This is a majority-Trump (and 5% Gary Johnson) district, so a strong R should have the edge.
There are two Republicans running, Erin Buckley (Erin Buckley for State Representative) and Pina Prinzivalli (Pina Prinzivalli for State Representative). Pina was expected to be the only R in the race, but Buckley jumped in after Rep. Miceli passed.
Both are strong 2A supporters and have anti-ERPO social media posts. Buckley has an LTC and pictures of her at the range. Pina has promised to refile Rep. Miceli's 2A civil rights bill. Buckley has a more substantial political history but she's a late comer to the race.
Anyone know anything about them? This is a majority-Trump (and 5% Gary Johnson) district, so a strong R should have the edge.
This is why the legislature is the swamp: they vote to give more and more and more power to the judiciary and the executive branches. They're only focus is budgets and taxes and the fiscal side of things. When it comes to laws, declaring war, etc. they pass legislation saying it's up to this judge or that justice or the President/Governor to decide.
The legislative branch may as well not even exist. When such an overwhelming number vote to pass a bill, it shows there's no real debate or discourse in the Congress or State Legislatures, they all walk in lock step and make sure to squeeze the working class and producers for everything they can.
Screw these Swamp Creatures, they're demon spawn and can go back to Hell where they came from.
The legislative branch may as well not even exist. When such an overwhelming number vote to pass a bill, it shows there's no real debate or discourse in the Congress or State Legislatures, they all walk in lock step and make sure to squeeze the working class and producers for everything they can.
Screw these Swamp Creatures, they're demon spawn and can go back to Hell where they came from.
It's the big lie that the Anti's keep repeating. They paint the legal gun owner as the criminal because the legal gun owner isn't going to revolt because they're not criminals. They're basically meek individuals and the authority loves to stomp on them because the meek don't fight back. The real criminals aren't easy to identify until after they've committed a crime and they don't care about spending 5-10 years in jail, they don't care if they kill people or cops. They're not meek and no cop in the Boston area joins to "serve and protect" they do it for the power trip, the pension, etc.
An armed populace would be better at reducing crime then an army of police, surveillance cameras, and all other facets of the police state. The police and the politicians want a police state because it gives them more power. They know it's not the legal gun owner that's the issue, they just can't support an armed populace because it interferes with their police state.
They are Nazi's, whether they're wearing a BPD uniform or a pantsuit in the capitol building, they are the fascist Nazis they claim we are.
GM-GUY
NES Member
This is where 'consent of the governed' comes into play. We no longer give consent to take our rights because of something someone else did in another state, that we never met, spoke with or even corresponded with on an anonymous message board.
Where to from here? Is this one of those "conference committee" last minute things? Why is our "friend" Michael Moore not weighing in on our side? He is chairman of the Public Safety Committee, so I would think his and his committee's words would hold a LOT of weight in this.
It may go to conference, or one house may agree to simply vote on the other's bill. It's unclear.
It's a bill that everyone supports. It's conceptually appealing because it's supposed to only takes guns from 'dangerous' people, and it's clear the Demanding Moms and David Hogg loser kids are the only ones really bothering to call their representatives, and they're doing it in droves.
Anyone who can read the political tea leaves on Beacon Hill knew months ago that this was happening. Not that they were trying to pass it, but that it was going to pass. And GOAL should have spent that time lobbying them to make the ERPO bill palatable.
Instead they spent their time opposing the bill, filing smoke and mirrors alternative bills that were never going to happen, talking disingenuously about mental health, making gobbeldygook statements about "cruel and dangerous" and paranoid-sounding statements about "gun grabs".
GOAL's messaging strategy has been atrocious, and IMHO this defeat can be laid at their door. There will be many more defeats to come if they can't figure out how to communicate in a manner that appeals to the general public and legislators that aren't already on our side.
