-
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***
Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo
- Thread starter Satcom
- Start date
- Status
193rdsoldier
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,174
- Likes
- 1,139
I did the same today and got a similar response. Good to hear.
Where's Blitz or Brent?
If they went with that then I would just have to get one of these for it:
http://www.handgunsmag.com/2014/06/04/kahr-arms-breaks-ground-new-pennsylvania-hq/ Kahr is moving already.
That is the Kahr in NY, not the one in MA.
They are not one and the same?
"There is nothing in this bill that hurts Smith & Wesson," DeLeo said.
So there is no possible way expanding the AG's power to create a roster of "large capacity" rifles and shotguns could hurt S&W??? Riiiiight....
xero2099
NES Member
This!
Same company. The discussion was about moving out of MA.
JGreen
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,889
- Likes
- 702
I spoke at the WP&R Club tonight and handed a hard copy of the GOAL email alerts with committee members email and tel #'s. We have a good number of Naughton constituents.
Keep up the pressure.
Keep up the pressure.
From Naughton's competitor:
(I have no ties to Brad, but I do think he is strongly on our side.)
this, Make Naughton pay for this with his job
I donated to Brad and offered to help, I think he would be a good rep
Likewise, his homepage says he's a GOA member so that's worth a contribution right there. I made clear to Naughton (or whoever reads his mail) that I would actively oppose his reelection, and that's all they care about.
sent this out to my rep and a slightly altered version to other legislators...I have tomorrow off so I'll pick up the phone again.
It's just incredibly important that folks keep up the pressure. Most of these reps run unopposed, so the speaker can do more to them than the voters can. The more doubt you stir in their minds the better.
This. People are doing a fantastic job on this. I've called my rep and my senator. Please keep it up. At this point a quick vote would work in our favor as the state house has been getting bombed by angry calls. The key piece is not letting them think you've forgotten tied I. With "if you vote for this you've lost my vote". Make it a conditional statement because if they think they've lost you already they have no reason to listen. The only thing these people care about is re election. Make them scared.
Today is a great day to get your wife/girlfriend/sister/female coworker/female shooting partner/etc to call. One thing we've heard is that the people supporting the bill are mostly women. They need to start getting more and more calls from women telling them to oppose the bill as written and to work with GOAL to craft something that works.
Write out a short an sweet script if needed and get them to call.
Write out a short an sweet script if needed and get them to call.
Friday
NES Member
my letter to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
I borrowed a previous poster's email, and edited to fit my thoughts. Feel free to use as you see appropriate. As a constituent of Harold Naughton, my letter to him was a bit more, um "pointed"...
To the Committee:
I am writing in opposition as written to most provisions in Speaker DeLeo’s gun control bill H.4121 “An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence”
I urge you to oppose H.4121 unless it is significantly altered to be more effective in addressing the real problems- Criminals who use guns, instead of further restricting the civil rights of law-abiding citizens.
While there are some sections that I support, such as bringing MA in compliance with NICS, school resource officers, and increased support for mental health, many of the provisions are simply harassment of law-abiding gun owners that will have no effect on crime.
Section 18 would ban private sales. Currently private sales can only be conducted between two people who have valid MA firearms licenses and therefore have already undergone background checks. Section 18 would require a fee to be paid for every firearm transfer. A father handing down a family heirloom to a son would now be subject to transfer fees, for example. This provision will do nothing to stop people who already break the law, and only serve to harass legal firearms owners. Please tell me how this provision stops a criminal with a bag of cash from trading for a gun in some alley? If you check the facts, gun trafficking from licensed MA residents is nearly nonexistent. This provision does nothing to stop illegal gun trafficking.
Section 41 would unreasonably increase penalties for anybody who strays over an invisible property line of a school. How can you justify ruining someone’s life for crossing an invisible line, especially when school properties are often the home of hiking trails? Or public streets?
Sections 19 and 26 propose that an unelected body define who is “suitable” to possess a firearm. We should not leave the decision of who receives fundamental civil rights up to such a body. I prefer this definition: if you are not prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, you shall be issued a MA license. Just as “innocent until proven guilty” applies, so should suitability be an assumed status, unless proven otherwise. Nor should the AGs office, or other appointed individuals, with no voter accountability, be allowed to decide which firearms are suitable for purchase, effectively legislating from behind consumer protection regulations.
This section also proposes to prohibit licenses to anybody convicted of a misdemeanor with a potential penalty greater than one year. Drawing in a library book could now deny your civil rights. Non-violent crimes should not prevent you from your fundamental rights of self-defense. I believe Rep. Beaton, in the June 3rd hearing, clearly illustrated how ridiculous this provision is, as it is so broad as to effectively make many, if not all, ineligible to enjoy their civil rights. Again, federal laws already have defined prohibited persons guidelines.
Section 4 proposes to make teachers responsible for mental health of students and their families. While I applaud the concept, the implementation could dramatically increase teacher workload. This is also potentially an unfunded mandate that would burden town school systems. Teachers are there to teach, not provide mental health services and family counseling.
When proposing to restrict rights, you need to identify the achievable gain by enacting only effective laws. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that these proposed laws are not effective.
This bill, while it has some good things in it, such increased scrutiny of Mental health, consolidation of “approved firearms lists”, and elimination of class B licenses, does little to address the issue of gun violence. It seems more a roundabout way to ban firearms in the state by seeking ways to disqualify everyone.
As an active, independent voter, I simply cannot support this bill or anyone in our “representative” government who may support it. Please kill this in committee, keep the good, throw out the bad, and work to find truly effective measure to stop criminals with guns.
I borrowed a previous poster's email, and edited to fit my thoughts. Feel free to use as you see appropriate. As a constituent of Harold Naughton, my letter to him was a bit more, um "pointed"...
To the Committee:
I am writing in opposition as written to most provisions in Speaker DeLeo’s gun control bill H.4121 “An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence”
I urge you to oppose H.4121 unless it is significantly altered to be more effective in addressing the real problems- Criminals who use guns, instead of further restricting the civil rights of law-abiding citizens.
While there are some sections that I support, such as bringing MA in compliance with NICS, school resource officers, and increased support for mental health, many of the provisions are simply harassment of law-abiding gun owners that will have no effect on crime.
Section 18 would ban private sales. Currently private sales can only be conducted between two people who have valid MA firearms licenses and therefore have already undergone background checks. Section 18 would require a fee to be paid for every firearm transfer. A father handing down a family heirloom to a son would now be subject to transfer fees, for example. This provision will do nothing to stop people who already break the law, and only serve to harass legal firearms owners. Please tell me how this provision stops a criminal with a bag of cash from trading for a gun in some alley? If you check the facts, gun trafficking from licensed MA residents is nearly nonexistent. This provision does nothing to stop illegal gun trafficking.
Section 41 would unreasonably increase penalties for anybody who strays over an invisible property line of a school. How can you justify ruining someone’s life for crossing an invisible line, especially when school properties are often the home of hiking trails? Or public streets?
Sections 19 and 26 propose that an unelected body define who is “suitable” to possess a firearm. We should not leave the decision of who receives fundamental civil rights up to such a body. I prefer this definition: if you are not prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, you shall be issued a MA license. Just as “innocent until proven guilty” applies, so should suitability be an assumed status, unless proven otherwise. Nor should the AGs office, or other appointed individuals, with no voter accountability, be allowed to decide which firearms are suitable for purchase, effectively legislating from behind consumer protection regulations.
This section also proposes to prohibit licenses to anybody convicted of a misdemeanor with a potential penalty greater than one year. Drawing in a library book could now deny your civil rights. Non-violent crimes should not prevent you from your fundamental rights of self-defense. I believe Rep. Beaton, in the June 3rd hearing, clearly illustrated how ridiculous this provision is, as it is so broad as to effectively make many, if not all, ineligible to enjoy their civil rights. Again, federal laws already have defined prohibited persons guidelines.
Section 4 proposes to make teachers responsible for mental health of students and their families. While I applaud the concept, the implementation could dramatically increase teacher workload. This is also potentially an unfunded mandate that would burden town school systems. Teachers are there to teach, not provide mental health services and family counseling.
When proposing to restrict rights, you need to identify the achievable gain by enacting only effective laws. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that these proposed laws are not effective.
This bill, while it has some good things in it, such increased scrutiny of Mental health, consolidation of “approved firearms lists”, and elimination of class B licenses, does little to address the issue of gun violence. It seems more a roundabout way to ban firearms in the state by seeking ways to disqualify everyone.
As an active, independent voter, I simply cannot support this bill or anyone in our “representative” government who may support it. Please kill this in committee, keep the good, throw out the bad, and work to find truly effective measure to stop criminals with guns.
Yesterday, I sent snail mail to my legislators. In order to keep it to one page I did not list all of my objections.
In retrospect, I think I weakened the message with the comment on the suicide prevention hotline.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Xxxxxx,
I am a voter in your district.
I urge you to oppose Speaker DeLeo’s bill H.4121, which is now being fast-tracked through the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.
This bill, like others before it, is based on the presumption that disarming lawful gun owners will hinder the unlawful. Reduced violent crime was promised with the Gun Control Act of 1998 but, while gun suicides and crimes have decreased, overall violent crime has not. Most of the country has seen a decrease in violent crime since 1998. Massachusetts has seen an increase.
H.4121 has one reasonable item and many bad ones.
I support sending NICS the records of mental health confinements. The other mental health items however, while they are good in concept, are flawed by poor writing, unfunded mandates and that ridiculous idea of putting the suicide prevention hotline on the License to Carry. By this logic, Alcoholics Anonymous information should be on every driver’s license.
The remaining items run the gamut from badly written, through outrageous, to unconstitutional. I will not itemize the flaws. They were all addressed in the Committee’s hearing on June 3.
Please oppose this terrible bill.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
rlee
In retrospect, I think I weakened the message with the comment on the suicide prevention hotline.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Xxxxxx,
I am a voter in your district.
I urge you to oppose Speaker DeLeo’s bill H.4121, which is now being fast-tracked through the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.
This bill, like others before it, is based on the presumption that disarming lawful gun owners will hinder the unlawful. Reduced violent crime was promised with the Gun Control Act of 1998 but, while gun suicides and crimes have decreased, overall violent crime has not. Most of the country has seen a decrease in violent crime since 1998. Massachusetts has seen an increase.
H.4121 has one reasonable item and many bad ones.
I support sending NICS the records of mental health confinements. The other mental health items however, while they are good in concept, are flawed by poor writing, unfunded mandates and that ridiculous idea of putting the suicide prevention hotline on the License to Carry. By this logic, Alcoholics Anonymous information should be on every driver’s license.
The remaining items run the gamut from badly written, through outrageous, to unconstitutional. I will not itemize the flaws. They were all addressed in the Committee’s hearing on June 3.
Please oppose this terrible bill.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
rlee
Mike S
NES Member
GOAL has just released a printable .pdf with the intention of starting a fax campaign.
Leaving no stone unturned.
Here's the link --> http://goal.org/Documents/stop-H4121-fax-proof.pdf
Print it out and fax it, or save it to your computer and fax it from your computer.
Most of the MA legislators have their fax # listed with their contact info.
Leaving no stone unturned.
Here's the link --> http://goal.org/Documents/stop-H4121-fax-proof.pdf
Print it out and fax it, or save it to your computer and fax it from your computer.
Most of the MA legislators have their fax # listed with their contact info.
StevieP
NES Member
Working on it. Signed it & printed my name & phone number at the bottom so they know it's not just a robodial.
******
Me too. He never replies to my emails so I don't know where he stands on this bill. I called his office yesterday and no answer so I left a voice mail and stated my objection to this heinous bill.
Minor point (or maybe not so minor)... GOAL is saying that "giving the issuing authority ability to deny a firearms license
to individual with minor misdemeanor convictions of up to one year is ridiculous...".
It's not "up to one year"... it's more than one year.
Mike S
NES Member
good catch, thanks, just edited and uploaded corrected .pdf
lancecolonel
NES Member
but isn't that what "suitability" is anyways? you can be denied for any reason? it's not the exact wording in the new bill but the idea has existed here for quite awhile it seems.
Billsail
NES Member
True, but with the new bill, a COP would be prohibited from issuing a license, even if he felt the applicant would be otherwise suitable. It's way worse than before!
Mike S
NES Member
I think they are two different things, should H.4121 pass the licensing authority would be able to deny you based on the >1year conviction, or even if you have a perfect record, because he wants to, which is the "chiefs discretion" "suitability" clause.
daltrey99
NES Member
I just had everyone at work send a copy that was signed and printed with name and address to every fax number we could find (over 20 numbers) for the statehouse and committee. We have many Pro 2A people here. They were more than happy to take part. Many of them didn't know this bill was going on until I informed them.
- Status
