-
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.
H.4121 Moving to Ways and Means Committee, email list inside.
- Thread starter late08
- Start date
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Likewise - and would you mind doing one for the entire Legislature? (just kidding)
here's a list of House member emails
If and when the bill comes to a vote it would be great to flood them all with emails, even the ones outside your district.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
Should be out of Ways and Means any day now, then if it doesn't get routed to any more committees it will go to the house floor. There is no specific timetable but it's safe to assume that it will be pretty soon.
At this point the best thing to do is visit, call, write, and email the members of the House Ways and Means committee and remind them that none of the crap in this bill is funded.
Thanks. I'll be writing in tomorrow night.
Fun fact that I'll be writing to the reps about: I just looked up the Freedom in the 50 States rankings for gun control and plotted them against FBI's firearm murder rate by state. There is no correlation! Constitutional carry or strictest gun laws, it simply does not correlate with gun murder rates. This country doesn't have a gun problem, it has a socioeconomic problem. We already knew this, of course, but I think it's worth pointing out the numbers to the anti side. I'll post the data and the plot tonight or tomorrow when I get to a computer.
Fun fact that I'll be writing to the reps about: I just looked up the Freedom in the 50 States rankings for gun control and plotted them against FBI's firearm murder rate by state. There is no correlation! Constitutional carry or strictest gun laws, it simply does not correlate with gun murder rates. This country doesn't have a gun problem, it has a socioeconomic problem. We already knew this, of course, but I think it's worth pointing out the numbers to the anti side. I'll post the data and the plot tonight or tomorrow when I get to a computer.
I emailed everyone on the Ways and Means Committee. Also called my Rep's office today (Sean Garballey) and spoke to an assistant requesting to be called back. The assistant said that Garballey will be voting Yes on the bill.
Jbarila
NES Member
Just sent this,
Dear Mr Garbally,
How can you possibly vote yes on such a flawed piece of legislation? Please listen to your constituents not your speaker and fix this!
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXX
Dear Mr Garbally,
How can you possibly vote yes on such a flawed piece of legislation? Please listen to your constituents not your speaker and fix this!
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXX
I have been on vacation for 2 weeks, missed the rallies, but I just sent this to the Ways and Means Committee, cc'd the Public Safety Committee (there is some overlap), DeLeo, my reps, and the folks at GOAL the following email. I'm going to call Ways and Means people today.
Honorable Members of the House Ways and Means Committee:
I’m writing you to urge you to vote Ought Not to Pass on H.4121, An Act relative to the reduction of gun violence.
I’m sure like many citizens of the Commonwealth, my fundamental political philosophy regarding Civil and Natural Rights which the Founders documented in the Bill of Rights differs from many other citizens of the Commonwealth, their elected officials (maybe many of you), and probably Speaker DeLeo’s. On the morality of usurpation of Rights from citizens by Government under the guise of benefiting “the Greater Good”, I can agree to disagree with others. However, it’s clear that with regards to denying citizens their Second Amendment rights, the de facto philosophy by which the Government may or may not usurp those Rights is encompassed simply in the clause, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. In a Liberal Democracy, the rights of individuals are sacrosanct, and not to be sacrificed to the will of any majority.
With that perspective on political philosophy, my opinion is that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not need more laws infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, which is all this new proposed bill does. Specifically, the following items are particularly onerous:
1) Suitability. The delegation to anyone of subjective control over which citizens can and can’t possess a concealed handgun (or a rifle or shotgun, if this bill is passed) is unconscionable given the 5th Amendment protections of due process. Anyone in a position of power and control assuming that a citizen will or even has the potential to commit a crime is one of the most egregious breaches of our Civil Liberties. Rights of individuals can only be forfeited BY THEIR OWN CRIMINAL ACTIONS for which they are convicted, not by the OPINION of anyone regardless of their position in Society. Suitability should be removed from all existing and proposed laws, and only the definition of a prohibited person (someone whose past actions lead to the forfeiture of their rights) should be considered.
2) New convictions in the definition of Prohibited Persons. Given that suitability should not be the basis for the denial of a Constitutional Right, past convictions in a court of law of crimes that lead to the forfeiture of one’s Civil Rights has been and should continue to be the only, objective measure by which one can be denied their Civil Rights. That said, deviating from Federally established criteria used to classify someone as a prohibited person by expanding the list of misdemeanors to include those punishable by 1 or more years in prison, crimes such as shoplifting (under $100) is unnecessary and an abuse of Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights by the State Government. This precedent of deeming fewer and fewer citizens eligible to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights can not be set, lest we have the disarmament of citizens because of civil infractions like parking tickets, their political affiliations, education, or even Religion.
3) Banning the private sale of firearms from licensed individual to licensed individual. MA residents who are issued FID/LTC permits are among the most highly vetted individuals in the Commonwealth. There is no reason to change the already restrictive laws regarding private sales. In MA, there is no “gun show loophole”, and in my opinion, this is just political posturing for the gun control advocates to declare some victory by solving a mythical problem in MA.
4) Inventorying firearms by legal firearm owners. In addition to the adverse implications of what registration would mean to law abiding firearm owners if the information got into the wrong hands (such as activist journalists like those in the metro NYC area last year who published the home addresses of concealed carry permit holders), there is no mitigation of the threat of illegal gun violence by having a registry of legally owned firearms.
5) Granting the Attorney General even more power over which common use firearms can be legally transferred in MA is nothing but harassment of law abiding gun owners in MA. Those that deal in illegal arms sales do not pay attention to the list. This provision of the law is simply an end-run around legislative bans and serves only to deny those who abide by the law.
In conclusion, nothing in this bill addresses criminal gun violence or mental health issues related to public safety (which isn’t solely a firearms issue, as mentally ill people can access many, many unregulated items which can bring about harm to themselves or others). Our society does, indeed, have a violence problem, perpetrated by criminals and the severely mentally ill, but firearms are not the root cause. Punishing free, sane, and responsible citizens by denying their Constitutionally guaranteed Civil and Natural Rights will not solve a societal violence problem, and the Speaker’s bill is primarily a political action to appease people who are indifferent to Liberty and Civil Rights, who perceive legislative action as securing their safety from nefarious elements of society. This punishment of law abiding citizens for the not-yet-committed actions of criminals and the severely mentally ill is by definition, infringement.
Please vote Ought Not to Pass on H.4121.
Honorable Members of the House Ways and Means Committee:
I’m writing you to urge you to vote Ought Not to Pass on H.4121, An Act relative to the reduction of gun violence.
I’m sure like many citizens of the Commonwealth, my fundamental political philosophy regarding Civil and Natural Rights which the Founders documented in the Bill of Rights differs from many other citizens of the Commonwealth, their elected officials (maybe many of you), and probably Speaker DeLeo’s. On the morality of usurpation of Rights from citizens by Government under the guise of benefiting “the Greater Good”, I can agree to disagree with others. However, it’s clear that with regards to denying citizens their Second Amendment rights, the de facto philosophy by which the Government may or may not usurp those Rights is encompassed simply in the clause, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. In a Liberal Democracy, the rights of individuals are sacrosanct, and not to be sacrificed to the will of any majority.
With that perspective on political philosophy, my opinion is that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not need more laws infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, which is all this new proposed bill does. Specifically, the following items are particularly onerous:
1) Suitability. The delegation to anyone of subjective control over which citizens can and can’t possess a concealed handgun (or a rifle or shotgun, if this bill is passed) is unconscionable given the 5th Amendment protections of due process. Anyone in a position of power and control assuming that a citizen will or even has the potential to commit a crime is one of the most egregious breaches of our Civil Liberties. Rights of individuals can only be forfeited BY THEIR OWN CRIMINAL ACTIONS for which they are convicted, not by the OPINION of anyone regardless of their position in Society. Suitability should be removed from all existing and proposed laws, and only the definition of a prohibited person (someone whose past actions lead to the forfeiture of their rights) should be considered.
2) New convictions in the definition of Prohibited Persons. Given that suitability should not be the basis for the denial of a Constitutional Right, past convictions in a court of law of crimes that lead to the forfeiture of one’s Civil Rights has been and should continue to be the only, objective measure by which one can be denied their Civil Rights. That said, deviating from Federally established criteria used to classify someone as a prohibited person by expanding the list of misdemeanors to include those punishable by 1 or more years in prison, crimes such as shoplifting (under $100) is unnecessary and an abuse of Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights by the State Government. This precedent of deeming fewer and fewer citizens eligible to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights can not be set, lest we have the disarmament of citizens because of civil infractions like parking tickets, their political affiliations, education, or even Religion.
3) Banning the private sale of firearms from licensed individual to licensed individual. MA residents who are issued FID/LTC permits are among the most highly vetted individuals in the Commonwealth. There is no reason to change the already restrictive laws regarding private sales. In MA, there is no “gun show loophole”, and in my opinion, this is just political posturing for the gun control advocates to declare some victory by solving a mythical problem in MA.
4) Inventorying firearms by legal firearm owners. In addition to the adverse implications of what registration would mean to law abiding firearm owners if the information got into the wrong hands (such as activist journalists like those in the metro NYC area last year who published the home addresses of concealed carry permit holders), there is no mitigation of the threat of illegal gun violence by having a registry of legally owned firearms.
5) Granting the Attorney General even more power over which common use firearms can be legally transferred in MA is nothing but harassment of law abiding gun owners in MA. Those that deal in illegal arms sales do not pay attention to the list. This provision of the law is simply an end-run around legislative bans and serves only to deny those who abide by the law.
In conclusion, nothing in this bill addresses criminal gun violence or mental health issues related to public safety (which isn’t solely a firearms issue, as mentally ill people can access many, many unregulated items which can bring about harm to themselves or others). Our society does, indeed, have a violence problem, perpetrated by criminals and the severely mentally ill, but firearms are not the root cause. Punishing free, sane, and responsible citizens by denying their Constitutionally guaranteed Civil and Natural Rights will not solve a societal violence problem, and the Speaker’s bill is primarily a political action to appease people who are indifferent to Liberty and Civil Rights, who perceive legislative action as securing their safety from nefarious elements of society. This punishment of law abiding citizens for the not-yet-committed actions of criminals and the severely mentally ill is by definition, infringement.
Please vote Ought Not to Pass on H.4121.
StevieP
NES Member
He should explain his reasoning for voting YES on this nonsense. There is not one thing in this bill which will have an actual effect on "gun violence." Note I said "reasoning" and not explain how he "feels" about guns.
Jbarila
NES Member
Not a peep out of him.
I sent similar testimony from the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security over to every member of the Ways and Means committee.
I included this additional paragraph:
In addition to my testimony below, I want to point out that this bill creates large financial liability for the Commonwealth and serves as potential unfunded mandates for the cities and towns of the Commonwealth. The existing firearms laws have been subject to several lawsuits against the Commonwealth and cities and towns. For example, Wesson v. Fowler cost the Town of Natick approximately $14,000 to defend. The state undoubtedly spent huge sums of money to defend against this suit. The enforcement of the law was found to violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. When the state loses these cases, it often has to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees. H.4121 has so many constitutional problems that the Commonwealth and its cities and towns will likely face millions of dollars in additional legal costs.
Edit: WTF. They need to upgrade to GMAIL or something... what are they using AOL? Who has a full email box in 2014?
[email protected]
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly
I included this additional paragraph:
In addition to my testimony below, I want to point out that this bill creates large financial liability for the Commonwealth and serves as potential unfunded mandates for the cities and towns of the Commonwealth. The existing firearms laws have been subject to several lawsuits against the Commonwealth and cities and towns. For example, Wesson v. Fowler cost the Town of Natick approximately $14,000 to defend. The state undoubtedly spent huge sums of money to defend against this suit. The enforcement of the law was found to violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. When the state loses these cases, it often has to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees. H.4121 has so many constitutional problems that the Commonwealth and its cities and towns will likely face millions of dollars in additional legal costs.
Edit: WTF. They need to upgrade to GMAIL or something... what are they using AOL? Who has a full email box in 2014?
[email protected]
The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly
Last edited:
Jbarila
NES Member
Got it thanks!
yanici
NES Member
Interesting note in today's GOAL Friday News. It states that Jim Wallace met with Speaker DeLeo and they talked for an hour. It states that the Speaker had many questions for Jim. Be nice if DeLeo is listening.
I just forwarded my copy of the Friday News to Linda Dean Campbell. I changed the title to "What your colleagues did on Wednesday."
I think everyone should do the same. Takes just a few seconds.
I think everyone should do the same. Takes just a few seconds.
Calls made, emails sent.
Mike S
NES Member
Love it, if you do that, be sure to follow the "forward email" link on the email, and don't forward it from your inbox or you could become unsubscribed. You can also email this link which is the safest way to do it. http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs136/1101878640504/archive/1117707174923.html
Too late, Mike, but good to know.
If I get unsubbed, I'll just re-up.
If I get unsubbed, I'll just re-up.
Similar threads
