Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[mattyw]

We're not down to "those two" we want to have a lazer focus on those two sections, then continue from there.

Let's knock em out.

because they are the easiest targets or most egregious?

 

[Mike S]

because they are the easiest targets or most egregious?

Yes

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I received a letter in the mail today from Rep Naughton, responding to my mail urging him to do something reasonable with H4121.

Upon reading this, I have formed a new opinion of Mr. Naughton: He is dead to me. Before, I was just displeased with his position, now I am actively campaigning for his opponent. I was clear with him I would not support someone who could stand behind DeLeo's crap.

He may be a house rep, but he is no longer my rep.

View attachment 107501View attachment 107502

Make sure you tell him about how you feel and what you are going to do.

 

[mattyw]

Make sure you tell him about how you feel and what you are going to do.

this, email him a receipt of a donation to his opponent Brad Wyatt

maybe we can ask him if he wants a lawn sign too

 

[xcom]

http://goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html alert issued by GOAL



wonder why we are down to these two. Because FTF are likely going away no matter what?
interesting

That's how I read it.

- - - Updated - - -

I received a letter in the mail today from Rep Naughton, responding to my mail urging him to do something reasonable with H4121.

Upon reading this, I have formed a new opinion of Mr. Naughton: He is dead to me. Before, I was just displeased with his position, now I am actively campaigning for his opponent. I was clear with him I would not support someone who could stand behind DeLeo's crap.

He may be a house rep, but he is no longer my rep.

View attachment 107501View attachment 107502

He or is staff should also learn that "than" and "that" mean different things. Proofread.

 

[jasons]

I have to respectfully disagree with GOAL here. While I agree that those two sections are among the most egregious, there are others (section 18 for example) that are arguably worse. In any case I'm not ready to concede on ANY points of opposition, and whether intended or not, that's how the message is likely to be interpreted.

 

[drgrant]

If I was going to pick one thing the statutory DQ issue makes everything else look insignificant. It has the potential to **** over thousands of license holders at once.

 

[Coyote33]

I received a letter in the mail today from Rep Naughton, responding to my mail urging him to do something reasonable with H4121.

Upon reading this, I have formed a new opinion of Mr. Naughton: He is dead to me. Before, I was just displeased with his position, now I am actively campaigning for his opponent. I was clear with him I would not support someone who could stand behind DeLeo's crap.

He may be a house rep, but he is no longer my rep.

Many saw this coming from him a long, long time ago. It should have been obvious based on the name of his bullshit "tour" alone.

Translation: I am a "yes man" stooge. The speaker of the house handed me a bill and I did as I was told in order to get something passed by the end of this session. In doing so, I anticipate my parking space and office may be nicer next year.

As though there was any doubt that Naughton was an empty suit who just wants to toe the party line.

Brad Wyatt, Liberty Candidate, Running against Naughton needs our help...

Which one of you gave Naughton a FU

 

[BobR51]

Expanding the list of automatic disqualifiers and giving the issuing authority ability to deny a firearms license to individuals with minor misdemeanor convictions of up to 1 year.
This will reduce the numbers of legal gun owners by thousands. This IMO,is what they are after.

 

[SBR]

Expanding the list of automatic disqualifiers and giving the issuing authority ability to deny a firearms license to individuals with minor misdemeanor convictions of up to 1 year.
This will reduce the numbers of legal gun owners by thousands. This IMO,is what they are after.

As above mentioned.

They had better focas on sections 19 and 26 because thes are not open to challange after passed. These two section alone will make 10's of thousands of people prohibated persons. Because of the clause "punishable by term more than one year"
This has to be change to, "punishable by term more than two years"

 

[Mike S]

I have to respectfully disagree with GOAL here. While I agree that those two sections are among the most egregious, there are others (section 18 for example) that are arguably worse. In any case I'm not ready to concede on ANY points of opposition, and whether intended or not, that's how the message is likely to be interpreted.

GOAL isn't conceding anything, we're focusing on two sections at a time - nobody is saying not to continue opposing other sections.

Just like an IDPA match, you shoot the two closest threats first, then continue. That's what's happening here.

Also, I hear from a very good source that the 1 year misdemeanor BS will not be on the bill.

 

[GlockJock]

I received a letter in the mail today from Rep Naughton, responding to my mail urging him to do something reasonable with H4121... Upon reading this, I have formed a new opinion of Mr. Naughton: He is dead to me. Before, I was just displeased with his position, now I am actively campaigning for his opponent. I was clear with him I would not support someone who could stand behind DeLeo's crap.

He may be a house rep, but he is no longer my rep.

View attachment 107501View attachment 107502

Someone else posted on a website/chat forum a while back about Naughton - that maybe the only way he will ever understand truly the ramifications of what he seeks to accomplish in Massachusetts would be if he were to be held at knife point while being forced to watch his wife and / or daughter being violently raped and stabbed in front of him, (a la Willie Horton, etc). That maybe THEN this liberal jackass might "get it"....

I am NOT suggesting that I hope for something like that to happen, only repeating what the comment was, relative to the question of why Naughton was such an incredible as*hole.

Having said that, and distanced myself from the remark, let me just say that it gives you an idea as to just how despised this scumbag truly is.

And the dirtbag secretly (well, almost, eh Harold??) and despite what he's told some constituents, actually OWNS A GUN.

Sorta like a guy like famous gun-controller/guns are BAD type Bill Maher... who, of course, wants to completely eliminate YOUR right to carry a gun, yet keeps two in HIS home.

Naughton is an elitist scumbag puke who would, if we were to ever be attacked, drive (while fleeing, with HIS family safely in tow) his truck over your mother, sister or daughter as they ran ahead of him down the middle of the road He is rat puke scum, and will never be anything BUT.

Accept this, and you'll be less angry and less frequently wishing him dead.

 

[mattyw]

Also, I hear from a very good source that the 1 year misdemeanor BS will not be on the bill.

this is what I was hoping for when I read the alert, after the meeting with DeLeo, then this, my first thought was "maybe they already know something won't be included"

 

[Coyote33]

Time for the one-two punch. We have them running. Now, let's hit them with some bills of our own! Let's UP THE ANTE and call EVEN MORE to our own Senators and representatives, as well as those on the committees this bill goes to.

 

[Win]

Oppose - Empowering the Attorney General's office to have input over the Approved Firearms Roster.

I thought the AG already had this power? GOAL is asking to add something to the bill to take away this power?

 

[jasons]

I thought the AG already had this power? GOAL is asking to add something to the bill to take away this power?

The AG uses (abuses) her power to regulate consumer safety to effectively ban a different set of guns. The list is a separate thing maintained by a separate organization. This bill would basically give the AG "veto" power over the list, effectively leaving us with the worst of both.

 

[Friday]

this, email him a receipt of a donation to his opponent Brad Wyatt

maybe we can ask him if he wants a lawn sign too

As I mentioned in another thread, I invited Brad to join me and wifey at Polito's fundraiser brekkie this week in worc, We will be donating to Brad's campaign, and "Hank the spank" will get his own Wyatt lawn sign when the time comes.

I've also told him that not only has he lost my support, but he has earned my activism in opposing him.

 

[Mike S]

The AG uses (abuses) her power to regulate consumer safety to effectively ban a different set of guns. The list is a separate thing maintained by a separate organization. This bill would basically give the AG "veto" power over the list, effectively leaving us with the worst of both.

this

 

[Bill Katt]

If I was going to pick one thing the statutory DQ issue makes everything else look insignificant. It has the potential to **** over thousands of license holders at once.

THIS^

Expanding the list of automatic disqualifiers and giving the issuing authority ability to deny a firearms license to individuals with minor misdemeanor convictions of up to 1 year.
This will reduce the numbers of legal gun owners by thousands. This IMO,is what they are after.

THIS^

As above mentioned.

They had better focas on sections 19 and 26 because thes are not open to challange after passed. These two section alone will make 10's of thousands of people prohibated persons. Because of the clause "punishable by term more than one year"
This has to be change to, "punishable by term more than two years"

and THIS^

Also, I hear from a very good source that the 1 year misdemeanor BS will not be on the bill.

GOOD!! I just hope that it's true and not BS itself.

 

[Quiet]

GOAL isn't conceding anything, we're focusing on two sections at a time - nobody is saying not to continue opposing other sections.

Just like an IDPA match, you shoot the two closest threats first, then continue. That's what's happening here.

Also, I hear from a very good source that the 1 year misdemeanor BS will not be on the bill.

I don't understand why GOAL is concentrating on a piece of this legislation (FID may issue) that can be struck down easily (and if they were stupid bring down the whole bill with it, and maybe even take down the entire licensing scheme with it) as it is in direct violation of McDonald/Heller.

Is GOAL just looking to have a PR "win" here?

 

[Coyote33]

I still haven't seen one comment from GOAL about Naughton. I believe he has an A rating or close to it from them. Not only should he have an F rating, but they should be denouncing him in the open. Is there some hidden agenda here? I realize they only do annual ratings changes. Sure, that could change, but I think it needs to go beyond that for the ones who infringe the most.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

the suitability thing is BS and a complete violation of rights, that should be thrown out.

 

[LoginName]

I don't understand why GOAL is concentrating on a piece of this legislation (FID may issue) that can be struck down easily (and if they were stupid bring down the whole bill with it, and maybe even take down the entire licensing scheme with it) as it is in direct violation of McDonald/Heller.

Is GOAL just looking to have a PR "win" here?

I've had mixed feelings about the "may issue" FID thing.

Part of me would like to see it passed and serve as an avenue to the SCOTUS challenging the whole MA licensing scheme.

OTOH... it could take anywhere from 3-5 years to get that far (DC v Heller took a little over 5 years from the time of filing,

to the court announcing it's decision), and that's assuming the court even decides to hear the case.

In that time frame, there could easily be at least one or two new justices appointed... and God help us all if HRC gets to

be the one who makes the nominations.

It wouldn't surprise me if that scenario is exactley what the anti's are hoping for.

 

[mattyw]

I don't understand why GOAL is concentrating on a piece of this legislation (FID may issue) that can be struck down easily (and if they were stupid bring down the whole bill with it, and maybe even take down the entire licensing scheme with it) as it is in direct violation of McDonald/Heller.

Is GOAL just looking to have a PR "win" here?

probably not best to rake him publicly while you are trying to get him and others who like him to ammend/vote down a bill

I certainly hope after this bill does whatever it does in the house, regardless of outcome, that they will publicly denounce him and promote his opponent

 

[30Mauser]

Latest email to Rep. John Fernandes... I happen to know him personally

Hi John, was really nice to bump into you and Jennifer the other day. Grill has been delivered and can't wait to start burning some meat on it! ;-)

Sincerely appreciate all you're doing to carefully weigh the pros and cons of De Leo's H.4121 proposal. If I could reiterate the four items that concern me the most...

1. Expansion of suitability to the issuance of FID cards. Although it may seem "sensible", there is no evidence that the current suitability clause for LTCs does anything to prevent or reduce crime, and in fact is sometimes arbitrarily, or even intentionally, abused by local chiefs without any citizen recourse possible (not Milford or Hopedale, thankfully). Any restriction of a human right must be constrained to real threats, and the burden of proof must rest upon the restrictor.

2. Empowering the Attorney General's office to have input over the Approved Firearms Roster. The "approved firearms" rosters (plural, there are two, which are secretive and follow no rhyme or reason) do *nothing* to restrict firearms from unlawful hands, nothing to ensure that only safe-to-use firearms are available to MA residents, nothing to ensure that only firearms meeting our already restrictive capacity and configuration laws are sold. The power of the AG here is arbitrary and capricious and should be eliminated, not expanded.

3. Elimination of lawful personal transfers of firearms. Background checks are required for every MA gun owner even to buy ammunication, much less a firearm. The validity of their license is updated in the EOPS database and checked during every electronic registration of a transfer. Eliminating this ability will NOT change the way or frequency with which criminals trade in firearms.

4. Reducing the disqualifying misdemeanor conviction from 2 years to 1 year. This means that someone who littered in a state park 20 years ago could be prohibited for life from getting a license in Massachusetts. There is no reason behind this, there is no proof whatsoever that this will improve safety. It is just another tactic to squeeze out lawful gun ownership in Massachusetts.

Thanks again for lending an ear, and sorry to be such a "one issue" writer these days...

 

[Horrible]

I don't understand why GOAL is concentrating on a piece of this legislation (FID may issue) that can be struck down easily (and if they were stupid bring down the whole bill with it, and maybe even take down the entire licensing scheme with it) as it is in direct violation of McDonald/Heller.

Is GOAL just looking to have a PR "win" here?

Because it costs time and money to fight. I would rather see Comm 2A and GOAL fighting to undo the '98 crap (which they have been doing) rather than burning resources battling a new set of crap!

 

[Bob P]

Because it costs time and money to fight. I would rather see Comm 2A and GOAL fighting to undo the '98 crap (which they have been doing) rather than burning resources battling a new set of crap!

Struck down easily? Far from. It takes years and thousands of dollars. Much easier to kill it before. If it were that easy to do it would already be done.

 

[cekim]

Struck down easily? Far from. It takes years and thousands of dollars. Much easier to kill it before. If it were that easy to do it would already be done.

Yeah, the courts aren't going to protect us like they've done with other forms of discrimination.

Giving up their prior bigotries against skin color and sexual orientation didn't really cost them any power or wealth. It was/is an inexpensive pander with a huge payoff for them.

Giving up their bigotry against those who know that government serves us and not the other way around stands to cost them a great deal of ill gotten power and wealth.

 

[Quiet]

I assume if the FID may issue became law, Comm2A would file for an immediate RO in Federal court based on SCOTUS decisions in McDonald/Heller, and they'd get paid back all of their legal expenses when they win.

But hey, I could be way off base.

 

[LoginName]

I assume if the FID may issue became law, Comm2A would file for an immediate RO in Federal court based on SCOTUS decisions in McDonald/Heller, and they'd get paid back all of their legal expenses when they win.

But hey, I could be way off base.

I wonder if they might have to wait until someone gets denied an FID based on suitability first before they could file a case?

Probably shouldn't take very long for that to happen.

I'm just wondering which red town CLEO would be the frist one to do it?