Gun Ballot Question for November 2009?

[mikem317]

I tried searching, but couldn't pull up anything on NES.

Has there been any meaningful discussion on initiating or organizing a ballot question aimed at helping lawful gun owners protect their fleeting gun rights in Massachusetts? Has GOAL tried doing this in previous years? With studies suggesting that many believe (rightfully) that there is an unalienable and individual right to keep and bear arms, is it time to strike the iron?

Perhaps reinstating lifetime licensing or augmenting the life of the license?

Changing to a non-discretionary (shall issue) state?

Any other thoughts or comments?

 

[terraformer]

Those polls are national, and they are vague. When the rubber hits the road, the sheeple in this state will vote it down and when they do, it will embolden the moonbats even more. This is one for the courts and to some extent the legislature. Maybe even the governor to get his/her AG in line a bit.

 

[Pete85]

In this state, we'd have to be extremely careful how we worded it if we wanted to get any public support. Around here, people hear the word gun and immediately think gang banger. Something like easing the responsibility of local law enforcement when it comes to licensing may pass, but saying that we want to take away the discretion of the local chief to deny an applicant for no reason at all would never fly around here. A "give and take" approach might work better too. Remove xyz unreasonible restriction (AWB, may-issue, duty to retreat) and strengthen manditory sentences for those who use a gun in the commission of a crime (an actual crime, not just posession).

The problem is, people like Menino and Coakley have far too much power and influence for use to even get this off the ground and have a favorable outcome.

 

[mikem317]

Those polls are national, and they are vague. When the rubber hits the road, the sheeple in this state will vote it down and when they do, it will embolden the moonbats even more. This is one for the courts and to some extent the legislature. Maybe even the governor to get his/her AG in line a bit.

True. But I'd like to think that a good number of folks believe that peaceable, law-abiding, "normal" folk have a RKBA. I don't know if there's any Massachusetts-centric polling, but I'd think it would be over 50%.

In this state, we'd have to be extremely careful how we worded it if we wanted to get any public support. Around here, people hear the word gun and immediately think gang banger. Something like easing the responsibility of local law enforcement when it comes to licensing may pass, but saying that we want to take away the discretion of the local chief to deny an applicant for no reason at all would never fly around here. A "give and take" approach might work better too. Remove xyz unreasonible restriction (AWB, may-issue, duty to retreat) and strengthen manditory sentences for those who use a gun in the commission of a crime (an actual crime, not just posession).

The problem is, people like Menino and Coakley have far too much power and influence for use to even get this off the ground and have a favorable outcome.

Sure. The fine folks at smallgovernmentact.org ("YES" on Question 1) spin it up as a "$3,700 tax break for working families" and "cut 40% waste". So whatever catchy motto, that's true and appropriate, would be sufficient.

Not "take away discretion", but "to allow for any one without a disqualifying characterization" shall be issued a license by the CLEO. Maybe allow lawful gun owners to carry openly on their person too?

I have no qualms about increasing the penalty for folks that break the law, namely criminals. However, I feel that this is purely political and would only have marginal effects on crime, maybe that could be part of the referendum text?

 

[Pete85]

Looking at the election information on GOAL's site, we can have a majority of gun friendly legislature after this election. That would make it much easier to get gun friendly laws passed including possibly repealing things like the AG's list and the AWB.

Check the GOAL site for who is running for Senator/Representative in your district for how you can help change the laws for the better.

 

[Admin]

I tried searching, but couldn't pull up anything on NES.

Has there been any meaningful discussion on initiating or organizing a ballot question aimed at helping lawful gun owners protect their fleeting gun rights in Massachusetts? Has GOAL tried doing this in previous years? With studies suggesting that many believe (rightfully) that there is an unalienable and individual right to keep and bear arms, is it time to strike the iron?

Perhaps reinstating lifetime licensing or augmenting the life of the license?

Changing to a non-discretionary (shall issue) state?

Any other thoughts or comments?

If the selling liquor at the grocery store question failed there is NO WAY IN HELL any gun question will pass. Remember how much money the Police were pumping in to TV adds on the alcohol question? Rosenthal would empty his checking account running adds nightly. No way it would work.

 

[Admin]

Not "take away discretion", but "to allow for any one without a disqualifying characterization" shall be issued a license by the CLEO. Maybe allow lawful gun owners to carry openly on their person too?

I can see the TV commercial now.

"Do you want the guy who had a DUI and a restraining order to have a gun?"

"Will you feel safe with your children at the bus stop with this man carrying a gun?"

NO CHANCE.

 

[pdm]

Rosenthal would empty his checking account running adds nightly. No way it would work.

I don't see any downside to this.

 

[Mikey]

Derek is right, no way. Let GOAL keep fighting them in the legislature.

 

[Pete85]

I can see the TV commercial now.

"Do you want the guy who had a DUI and a restraining order to have a gun?"

The guy who had a DUI can't get a gun (DUI is a felony in MA). If he HAS a restraining order, he can't get a gun. If he HAD a restraining order, that has expired there should be no problem.

"Will you feel safe with your children at the bus stop with this man carrying a gun?"

It depends on who "this man" is. If it's the average "joe-sixpack" then yes, I would feel safe with my child at the bus stop and him being nearby. If "this guy" your typical criminal, then may-issue or shall-issue doesn't matter since he doesn't have a valid license anyway and therefore this law makes it easier for him to commit his crime (less responsible people around who could stop him).

Sorry, I do realize that rational thinking is rare in this state, so what I said above probably wouldn't matter to the average voter.

 

[Bob P]

Sorry, I do realize that rational thinking is rare in this state, so what I said above probably wouldn't matter to the average voter.

Bingo.

 

[GSG]

The guy who had a DUI can't get a gun (DUI is a felony in MA). If he HAS a restraining order, he can't get a gun. If he HAD a restraining order, that has expired there should be no problem.



It depends on who "this man" is. If it's the average "joe-sixpack" then yes, I would feel safe with my child at the bus stop and him being nearby. If "this guy" your typical criminal, then may-issue or shall-issue doesn't matter since he doesn't have a valid license anyway and therefore this law makes it easier for him to commit his crime (less responsible people around who could stop him).

Sorry, I do realize that rational thinking is rare in this state, so what I said above probably wouldn't matter to the average voter.

Rational thinking has little to do with voting, unfortunately. Have you ever read the Brady Campaign website? There's all these cleverly worded things that make it sound like anyone can buy a silenced machine gun or grenade launcher from your local gun store with no background check, etc. etc.

They have an agenda, and they will lie and confuse to advance it.

 

[drgrant]

If the selling liquor at the grocery store question failed there is NO WAY IN HELL any gun question will pass. Remember how much money the Police were pumping in to TV adds on the alcohol question? Rosenthal would empty his checking account running adds nightly. No way it would work.

Not to mention the legislature would probably bend over and go WAAAH! when MCOPA surely whines about the referendum, just like they did with the Katrina bill.

-Mike

 

[mikem317]

I can see the TV commercial now.

"Do you want the guy who had a DUI and a restraining order to have a gun?"

"Will you feel safe with your children at the bus stop with this man carrying a gun?"

NO CHANCE.

DUI and restraining orders are disqualifiers, no?

The purpose of this thread is to conjure up some dialogue.

Perhaps something not as over reaching as becoming a non-discretionary state, but maybe allowing open carry? Reducing permit prices? Reintroducing lifetime permits? Relief for non-residents who are paying an exorbitant $100 fee.

 

[drgrant]

DUI and restraining orders are disqualifiers, no?

Not if they don't result in convictions or get vacated. The idea in the red asshat towns is that presumably the chief could still deny a permit for someone that got arrested for DUI like 3 times but never got convicted, etc, crap like that... EG, it's a tacit endorsement that some socialists in MA like the concept of assigning guilt without applying due process.

-Mike

 

[mikem317]

Maybe that shouldn't be the focus of the ballot question. Maybe something about invaliding the EOPS roster, or recognizing OC has a protected method of carry?

 

[FPrice]

Any other thoughts or comments?

You don't vote on rights.

 

[mikem317]

You don't vote on rights.

No. We vote to defend them.