I called got put on "the list" not sure how helpful that is.
I almost told her to put me on twice since I'm schizophrenic but that might be inappropriate..
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 June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
I called got put on "the list" not sure how helpful that is.
I almost told her to put me on twice since I'm schizophrenic but that might be inappropriate..
... and agreed that it wasn't going to get guns out of the hands of criminals...
Assuming you aren't embellishing this portion, it would have been fun to get that recorded for playback at the hearing.
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.
They don't care about money. its not their money
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.
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.
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:
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.
FIFYUntil the majority of gun owners in this state get a ****ing clue and start voting for candidates that care about the Second Amendment, shit will. not. change.
Even then, it might not.
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.
The first paragraph originally called them "chicken shit legislators". I toned it down.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.
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 .
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?
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?
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...
Two of the more hardcore anti's are gone... Jacques and Barrios, and there's still Naughtons version to be introduced.
... Two of the more hardcore anti's are gone... Jacques and Barrios, and there's still Naughtons version to be introduced. ....
The recommendations come from a special legislative commission and the House Committee on Public Safety, headed by state Rep. Harold P. Naughton, D-Clinton.
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.
Your call, but it would be great if you showed up in uniform (assuming it wouldn't violate any dept policy).
I thought this was a combination of the crap from DeLeo and Naughton's bills to begin with?
-Mike
What are you talking about? Naughton helped introduce this. It is his baby.
Naughton, DeLeo push tougher gun laws:
Massachusetts House leaders unveil gun violence bill
Hey, there he is now!
Guess what he said?
Yeah, I can't do that.
Generally more "productive", though at this point, they need to hear yelling to, so bring it all.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.
Just remember, a compromise BOTH sides give something, and BOTH sides get something. We ALREADY GAVE, so they owe us.