Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
cmcgraw2 said:
I almost told her to put me on twice since I'm schizophrenic but that might be inappropriate..
Click to expand...

However, had you said you were FOR the bill, she would no doubt put down your name at least three times.



original.jpg
 
CWulf said:
... and agreed that it wasn't going to get guns out of the hands of criminals...
Click to expand...

Assuming you aren't embellishing this portion, it would have been fun to get that recorded for playback at the hearing.
 
Called Deleo's office, Called my Rep - Dykema and my Senator, Eldridge. Eldridge's aide says he has no position until the senate see their version of the bill.

Dykema's aide (it was her fist day) didn't know what her position was on the bill. WTF.

Told the aide I was going to the hearing

Left my name and phone number with both
 
Interesting. Called my rep, had to leave a message. Called the other rep for my town, was asked for my street address and was transferred to some random guy who works for the third rep in my town. He listened patiently for a full 4 minutes then thanked me. Deleos office simply took my name and town saying my opposition would be noted....click....dial tone. Guess that lady is sick of hearing how much her boss' idea sucks. Will do a full round of calls for the rest of the week too.
 
Royal said:
Assuming you aren't embellishing this portion, it would have been fun to get that recorded for playback at the hearing.
Click to expand...

No embellishment... it surprised me when she agreed with me. Unfortunately, based on what I read in this thread I wasn't even expecting to talk to anyone so I didn't have a recorder handy.... [laugh].
 
JJ4 said:
Anyone know or can reasonably estimate the amount of money the state and towns have spent defending LOSING cases in court over the past decade?

E.g. Davis v Grimes, the one about resident alien ltcs... etc

It would be good testimony to say that these bad laws have cost the state and towns money.
Click to expand...

Chevy 2 65 said:
They don't care about money. its not their money
Click to expand...


Natick spent approx $14,000 defending against Wesson v. Fowler through May 2014 (the small amount of marijuana prohibition case recently won by Comm2a).

One way of looking at these laws and the burden they place on towns to defend is that they are unfunded mandates. Towns and cities hate unfunded mandates. It looks like some of the school mental health stuff will be in there as unfunded mandates as well, e.g. as mentioned by another member above:

H.4121 Line 62 said:
(b) Each school district, charter school, approved private day or residential school and 63 collaborative school shall develop and adhere to a plan to address the general mental health needs of its students, including their families, teachers and school administrators.
Click to expand...
 
JJ4 said:
Natick spent approx $14,000 defending against Wesson v. Fowler through May 2014 (the small amount of marijuana prohibition case recently won by Comm2a).

One way of looking at these laws and the burden they place on towns to defend is that they are unfunded mandates. Towns and cities hate unfunded mandates. It looks like some of the school mental health stuff will be in there as unfunded mandates as well, e.g. as mentioned by another member above:
Click to expand...

Well, Natick probably could have spent less than $4K if their lawyer didn't put up absurd and erroneous legal arguments... [grin] Even I knew the muni cases he kept quoting, including the LA abuse list case, were factually distinguished from the state actor situation we had here.

ETA: Given what the state will eventually pay our attorneys, the state paid extra because of that too.
 
Apathesis said:
Until the gun clubs in this state get a ****ing clue and partner up with GOAL to bus people in by the thousands, shit will. not. change.

Even then, it might not.
Click to expand...

Two emails to my club president and no response. Maybe someone that knows the president from the INDEPENDENCE SPORTSMAN can let him know this is important.

Sbr
 
Apathesis said:
Until the gun clubs in this state get a ****ing clue and partner up with GOAL to bus people in by the thousands, shit will. not. change.

Even then, it might not.
Click to expand...

This!

Too many are just plain sticking their heads in the sand too scared to act, I left a club because of that before and have no doubt ill.do it again. I have no time for Fudd

Sent from the blind
 
My feeling is that if I get a chance to speak tomorrow, I plan on hammering the inconsistencies of the language between the provisions and their stated purposes rather than arguing policy.

Better chance of swing antis if you attack the bill as simply bad .
 
Here's a pretty good 2 minute testimony. I timed it at almost exactly two minutes. I would give this testimony but I cannot make the hearing.

If someone wants to use some or all of it, feel free.

This bill requires that an unelected, unaccountable committee come up with standards that will determine who is "suitable" to own a gun. Fraidy cat legislators. You ought to debate the classification out in the open and then sign your names to it with your votes. Instead you pass off the stripping of Constitutional rights to a back room with no public input and no accountability. Do it out in the open so that I can show my neighbors who you really are, what you really stand for and what you sign your name to. If you think the public supports your opinion, you do this out in the open and you don't abdicate your responsibilities to some appointed committee.

This bill requires that two people travel together or meet together at a gun store and pay a $25 fee to the gun store so that the gun store owner can log onto the state run website to conduct the sale of a gun to one another. Logging into the website verifies each other's licenses and performs a background check. This already happens, just not at the gun store. Under current law, it is already required that the two parties log onto the website to conduct the deal, just not at the store. How does this new law do ANYTHING??? If they are law breakers and they aren't going to log into the website on their own, does anyone in their right mind think that they are instead going to travel to a gun store and pay $25 dollars to do something that they weren't going to do before? This is stupid and serves ONLY to inconvenience gun owners. It serves NO other purpose.

This bill includes a provision that says if you're ever in your life been convicted of any misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of more than 1 year, you lose your Constitutional rights for life. It does not matter what sentence you received. Such as "Littering an inland waterway" you likely pleaded guilty to it 30 years ago, Paid your $20 fine for throwing your gum wrapper in the Charles and that was the end of it. Or so you thought.

Vote NO on this bill.
Click to expand...
The first paragraph originally called them "chicken shit legislators". I toned it down. :D
 
Last edited:
OfficerObie59 said:
My feeling is that if I get a chance to speak tomorrow, I plan on hammering the inconsistencies of the language between the provisions and their stated purposes rather than arguing policy.

Better chance of swing antis if you attack the bill as simply bad .
Click to expand...

Your call, but it would be great if you showed up in uniform (assuming it wouldn't violate any dept policy).
 
After this meeting tomorrow, can they then just vote on it in the middle of the night if they wanted? And pass it no matter what?
 
ntomsw said:
After this meeting tomorrow, can they then just vote on it in the middle of the night if they wanted? And pass it no matter what?
Click to expand...

CWulf said:
Its possible but I think it has to be passed by both the MA House and Senate and this is the House bill. We have some time...
Click to expand...

They could if they wanted to, but I really can't see that happening.

It's not a replay of 98 in one sense in since that time, we're more interconnected, informed and organized.

Two of the more hardcore anti's are gone... Jacques and Barrios, and there's still Naughtons version to be introduced.

It's too soon to tell if we're far from being out of the woods just yet, but it's not hopeless either.
 
LoginName said:
Two of the more hardcore anti's are gone... Jacques and Barrios, and there's still Naughtons version to be introduced.
Click to expand...

I thought this was a combination of the crap from DeLeo and Naughton's bills to begin with?

-Mike
 
LoginName said:
... Two of the more hardcore anti's are gone... Jacques and Barrios, and there's still Naughtons version to be introduced. ....
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Naughton helped introduce this.

Naughton, DeLeo push tougher gun laws:

The recommendations come from a special legislative commission and the House Committee on Public Safety, headed by state Rep. Harold P. Naughton, D-Clinton.
Click to expand...


Massachusetts House leaders unveil gun violence bill

Hey, there he is now!
15054321-mmmain.jpg


Guess what he said?
The Legislature plans to hold a public hearing on the bill June 3. It will then go to the House for debate and, if it passes, the Senate. Rep. Harold Naughton, a Clinton Democrat and chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, said he hopes Gov. Deval Patrick can sign the bill into law before the legislative session ends in July.
Click to expand...


Peek-a-boo!
Speaker DeLeo unveils sweeping new gun legislation
052714gunlegislationjw01.jpg



Yoo hoo, over here!
DeLeo pushes tighter gun law
More police say on ownership; curbs on sales
wiggs_Deleo_10687-002.r.jpg
 
Last edited:
LoginName said:
Your call, but it would be great if you showed up in uniform (assuming it wouldn't violate any dept policy).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't do that.

It's just as inappropriate for chiefs to show up in uniform and support the bill. The key there is no one will try to punish them for taking that position.
 
Last edited:
The more I read this, the more I think that specific objections to the precise language in this bill should be the way to go.

Simply saying "i oppose" gets you chucked in a bucket.

Tell them exactly what you don't like.

My reps are tools of the establishment machine. Telling them that I oppose this means nothing to them. I don't vote for them or contribute to their campaigns. I'm nothing to them.

Cite chapter and verse. Give them bulletized talking points. Tell them where we can compromise. Just how much do I care about a suicide prevention number that stays in my wallet? Is that a hill to die on?

We're not going to get nothing. A law will get passed. Focus on what's in it. And what is not. That should be our strategy.

I'm sorry to trade principles for expediency, but Pandora is already out of the box. Let's limit her impact as best we can.
 
Last edited:
Just remember, a compromise BOTH sides give something, and BOTH sides get something. We ALREADY GAVE, so they owe us.
 
Coyote33 said:
Just remember, a compromise BOTH sides give something, and BOTH sides get something. We ALREADY GAVE, so they owe us.
Click to expand...

This is their idea of compromise:

Them: Give us $20.
Us: No way! Not unless we get something in return.
Them: Okay, let's compromise. How about you give us $10?
Us: ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The 10 Commandments of Gun Safety
Replies
2
Views
266
deerdad
deerdad
Gang-related music videos driving gun violence in DC: report
Replies
4
Views
228
StevieP
StevieP
Video: Threat of gun violence stressing out Americans
Replies
12
Views
436
thesyguy
thesyguy
What are the stages of the LTC application?
2
Replies
34
Views
545
VetteGirlMA
VetteGirlMA
Here's a list of states suing the BATFE/FEDS in opposition to the new ruling of who's a dealer and who's not.
Replies
5
Views
373
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Back
Top Bottom