-
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.
Letters to Elected Officials
- Thread starter Lynne
- Start date
From: typeo1313
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:24:35 -0700
To: [email protected]
Subject: Position on 2nd amendment rights.
Dear Mr. Harsch,
My name is Bill Charette I am a current Massachusetts
resident with intent to move to Rhode Island
(Cumberland to be exact) once I get married next year.
I have heard that you are pro 2nd amendment. Can you
verify that this is true? Also, Do you have intentions
of resuming the issue of firearms carry & conceal
permits to both residents and non-residents?
Thank you for your time,
Bill Charette
----------------Response---------------
Dear Mr.Charette,
To answer your question directly: Yes, I am a strong supporter of 2nd Ammendment rights.
As someone who grew up with a familiarity with firearms and as a former military member, I am fully supportive of the right to bear arms.
As I am sure you know, the real problem we face are illegal firearms
flooding our streets. Punishing responsible gun owners, and limiting
our constitutional rights, is not something that I believe addresses the
problems of gun violence.
Further, I am strong supporter in enforcing the laws when it comes to
carry permits. That is, as Attorney General I will direct local police
departments to follow the law and issue carry permits rather than passing the buck to the AG's office where first and final authority has been for the last 2 administrations.
I have been meeting with sportsman's associations throughout the state for the last few weeks, and will continue to do so as the election gears up. Hopefully our paths will cross sometime on the campaign trail.
Please feel free to contact me anytime at this email or at the campaign (401) 490 4489 if you have any other questions you would like ask.
All my best,
Bill Harsch
www.BillHarsch.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:24:35 -0700
To: [email protected]
Subject: Position on 2nd amendment rights.
Dear Mr. Harsch,
My name is Bill Charette I am a current Massachusetts
resident with intent to move to Rhode Island
(Cumberland to be exact) once I get married next year.
I have heard that you are pro 2nd amendment. Can you
verify that this is true? Also, Do you have intentions
of resuming the issue of firearms carry & conceal
permits to both residents and non-residents?
Thank you for your time,
Bill Charette
----------------Response---------------
Dear Mr.Charette,
To answer your question directly: Yes, I am a strong supporter of 2nd Ammendment rights.
As someone who grew up with a familiarity with firearms and as a former military member, I am fully supportive of the right to bear arms.
As I am sure you know, the real problem we face are illegal firearms
flooding our streets. Punishing responsible gun owners, and limiting
our constitutional rights, is not something that I believe addresses the
problems of gun violence.
Further, I am strong supporter in enforcing the laws when it comes to
carry permits. That is, as Attorney General I will direct local police
departments to follow the law and issue carry permits rather than passing the buck to the AG's office where first and final authority has been for the last 2 administrations.
I have been meeting with sportsman's associations throughout the state for the last few weeks, and will continue to do so as the election gears up. Hopefully our paths will cross sometime on the campaign trail.
Please feel free to contact me anytime at this email or at the campaign (401) 490 4489 if you have any other questions you would like ask.
All my best,
Bill Harsch
www.BillHarsch.com
Last edited:
Duane Allman
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 77
- Likes
- 0
Dear Senator Joyce,
Governor Patrick has proposed a budget which includes a provision that
we do away with giving gun owning Massachusetts citizens notification of
the expiration of their firearms license.
Seeing as I paid a $100 fee for the firearms license, I can't see why
this notification should be done away with.
Please vote against your neighbor Governor Patrick's budget unless this
issue is resolved. Can I count on you to do so?
Sincerely,
Duane Allman
-------------------------------
Duane,
I'm sympathetic to your argument that there should be continued notice
and will be aware of your views when the matter comes before me.
Brian A. Joyce
Governor Patrick has proposed a budget which includes a provision that
we do away with giving gun owning Massachusetts citizens notification of
the expiration of their firearms license.
Seeing as I paid a $100 fee for the firearms license, I can't see why
this notification should be done away with.
Please vote against your neighbor Governor Patrick's budget unless this
issue is resolved. Can I count on you to do so?
Sincerely,
Duane Allman
-------------------------------
Duane,
I'm sympathetic to your argument that there should be continued notice
and will be aware of your views when the matter comes before me.
Brian A. Joyce
H. 3991 “An Act to Reduce Gun Violence”
Representative / Senator,
Please allow me to introduce myself. I am the Secretary of the Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs (NCLofSC) and a delegate to the Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council (MSC). In addition I also serve as the Legislative Chair for the MSC. I am also an avid salt water angler, boater, hunter (Turkey, Pheasant), and firearms enthusiast. In addition, I belong to GOAL, NRA, Walpole Sportsmen’s Association (delegate to NCLofSC), Norwood Sportsmen’s Association and the Massachusetts Striped Bass Association.
I was recently awarded the Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council (MSC) 2007 Presidents Award and along with that received a citation by the House and the Senate on the occasion as well.
The Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council, Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, all the other County Leagues, the clubs they represent and the individuals that belong to these organizations are deeply concerned about H.3991 “An Act to Reduce Gun Violence” as proposed by Governor Deval Patrick.
Since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act the number of licensed gun owners has been decimated in this State, yet crime rates are soaring out of control. The current over-reaching laws have barred hundreds of thousands of citizens from practicing their civil rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Since the passage of the 1998 Act, the number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts has decreased from 1,500,000 to approximately 270,000. Meanwhile the FBI Violent Crime Report Statistics as of 2004 ranked Massachusetts as number one in violent crime throughout the New England states.
We find it incomprehensible that nearly a decade after the passage of some of the most persecutory gun laws in the nation, Governor Deval Patrick could be holding the remaining 15% of lawful gun owners accountable for the illegal gun supply in Massachusetts. Keeping in mind that under the current laws a citizen’s License to Carry a firearm can be revoked or suspended at any time if the issuing authority suspects that the licensee is “unsuitable”, his accusation is even more unreasonable. (In fact there are many other “equal treatment under the current law issues” that need to be resolved with the 1998 laws.)
Governor Deval Patrick has no evidence to prove, let alone make the accusation that law-abiding citizens are the cause of illegal gun trafficking and by requesting passage of this bill has not allowed due process of the law to those accused. In truth, this bill as “crime control” is a fraud. It cannot be applied to criminals – only to the law-abiding. A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals dictates the scope of liberty the law will allow to the rest of society, in no sense “fights” crime.
Today California, Maryland and Virginia have instituted such laws. Governor Deval Patrick has pointed to those States as having success with this kind of law. However, we all know it didn’t stop the tragedy at Virginia Tech and it won’t curb violent crime in Massachusetts either. In 2004 the South Carolina legislature repealed their one-gun-a-month law because it had the exact opposite effect on the violent crime rate.
I am hoping that we can count on you for your support in defeating this bill in Committee/Senate/House. In addition we are asking you to work with your peers in defeat of the same.
Respectfully submitted,
Representative / Senator,
Please allow me to introduce myself. I am the Secretary of the Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs (NCLofSC) and a delegate to the Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council (MSC). In addition I also serve as the Legislative Chair for the MSC. I am also an avid salt water angler, boater, hunter (Turkey, Pheasant), and firearms enthusiast. In addition, I belong to GOAL, NRA, Walpole Sportsmen’s Association (delegate to NCLofSC), Norwood Sportsmen’s Association and the Massachusetts Striped Bass Association.
I was recently awarded the Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council (MSC) 2007 Presidents Award and along with that received a citation by the House and the Senate on the occasion as well.
The Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council, Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, all the other County Leagues, the clubs they represent and the individuals that belong to these organizations are deeply concerned about H.3991 “An Act to Reduce Gun Violence” as proposed by Governor Deval Patrick.
Since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act the number of licensed gun owners has been decimated in this State, yet crime rates are soaring out of control. The current over-reaching laws have barred hundreds of thousands of citizens from practicing their civil rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Since the passage of the 1998 Act, the number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts has decreased from 1,500,000 to approximately 270,000. Meanwhile the FBI Violent Crime Report Statistics as of 2004 ranked Massachusetts as number one in violent crime throughout the New England states.
We find it incomprehensible that nearly a decade after the passage of some of the most persecutory gun laws in the nation, Governor Deval Patrick could be holding the remaining 15% of lawful gun owners accountable for the illegal gun supply in Massachusetts. Keeping in mind that under the current laws a citizen’s License to Carry a firearm can be revoked or suspended at any time if the issuing authority suspects that the licensee is “unsuitable”, his accusation is even more unreasonable. (In fact there are many other “equal treatment under the current law issues” that need to be resolved with the 1998 laws.)
Governor Deval Patrick has no evidence to prove, let alone make the accusation that law-abiding citizens are the cause of illegal gun trafficking and by requesting passage of this bill has not allowed due process of the law to those accused. In truth, this bill as “crime control” is a fraud. It cannot be applied to criminals – only to the law-abiding. A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals dictates the scope of liberty the law will allow to the rest of society, in no sense “fights” crime.
Today California, Maryland and Virginia have instituted such laws. Governor Deval Patrick has pointed to those States as having success with this kind of law. However, we all know it didn’t stop the tragedy at Virginia Tech and it won’t curb violent crime in Massachusetts either. In 2004 the South Carolina legislature repealed their one-gun-a-month law because it had the exact opposite effect on the violent crime rate.
I am hoping that we can count on you for your support in defeating this bill in Committee/Senate/House. In addition we are asking you to work with your peers in defeat of the same.
Respectfully submitted,
Last edited:
Good letter.
Senate Bill 540 “An Act Establishing A Wildlife Management Commission”
September 17, 2007
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in strong opposition to Senate Bill 540 “An Act Establishing A Wildlife Management Commission” filed by Senator Pamela P. Resor of Middlesex and Worcester.
Under M.G.L. Chapter 131, The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) is responsible for the conservation including restoration, protection and management of fish and wildlife (game/nongame) resources for the benefit and enjoyment of all citizens of the Commonwealth. MassWildlife works to balance the needs of people and wildlife, so that wildlife will be available for everyone's enjoyment today and for future generations.
The citizens (Sportsmen and Women of all persuasions enjoying whatever their pursuit of wildlife may be) of the Commonwealth rely heavily upon the MassWildlife for the sound, wise and thoughtful management practices and scientific methodologies used to accomplish these goals.
MassWildlife has a long standing, proven track record of restoring, conserving, managing and protecting these natural resources. The only legitimate reason to suggest, through legislation (S. 540) a change in authority over certain species would be to offer evidence of neglect and abuse of the public trust. Thus far no evidence has been presented. Those that would view hunting as a violation of that trust are apparently not familiar with MGL Chapter 131, Section 2A, its economic impact1 or origin. Instead we must surmise that this proposed bill, in short, simply seeks to legitimize and provide a voice for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and subvert the wise stewardship2, management and control of specific species from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Thus, we conclude that this proposed bill is without common sense and is purely politically driven in nature. It is our view that passage of this bill would complicate the management of wildlife in the Commonwealth at the risk of destroying the very resources it seeks to protect.
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable vote to prevent bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and Senate. A vote against this legislation is simply a vote of confidence in the job well done by MassWildlife with the full support of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, Secretary
1 Enclosure: 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Preliminary Findings issued May 2007 http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2006.pdf 2 Historical Facts
September 17, 2007
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in strong opposition to Senate Bill 540 “An Act Establishing A Wildlife Management Commission” filed by Senator Pamela P. Resor of Middlesex and Worcester.
Under M.G.L. Chapter 131, The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) is responsible for the conservation including restoration, protection and management of fish and wildlife (game/nongame) resources for the benefit and enjoyment of all citizens of the Commonwealth. MassWildlife works to balance the needs of people and wildlife, so that wildlife will be available for everyone's enjoyment today and for future generations.
The citizens (Sportsmen and Women of all persuasions enjoying whatever their pursuit of wildlife may be) of the Commonwealth rely heavily upon the MassWildlife for the sound, wise and thoughtful management practices and scientific methodologies used to accomplish these goals.
MassWildlife has a long standing, proven track record of restoring, conserving, managing and protecting these natural resources. The only legitimate reason to suggest, through legislation (S. 540) a change in authority over certain species would be to offer evidence of neglect and abuse of the public trust. Thus far no evidence has been presented. Those that would view hunting as a violation of that trust are apparently not familiar with MGL Chapter 131, Section 2A, its economic impact1 or origin. Instead we must surmise that this proposed bill, in short, simply seeks to legitimize and provide a voice for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and subvert the wise stewardship2, management and control of specific species from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Thus, we conclude that this proposed bill is without common sense and is purely politically driven in nature. It is our view that passage of this bill would complicate the management of wildlife in the Commonwealth at the risk of destroying the very resources it seeks to protect.
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable vote to prevent bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and Senate. A vote against this legislation is simply a vote of confidence in the job well done by MassWildlife with the full support of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, Secretary
1 Enclosure: 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Preliminary Findings issued May 2007 http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2006.pdf 2 Historical Facts
Senate Bill 466 “An Act Relative to the Prohibition of Fishing Gear Containing Lead”
September 19, 2007
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in opposition to Senate Bill 466 “An Act Relative to the Prohibition of Fishing Gear Containing Lead” filed by Senator Robert A. Antonioni at the request of Emily Norton as written.
We are not opposed to the goodwill and intent of this bill as explained by Emily Norton during the hearing and many others. There is nothing more enjoyable than sighting a Loon in Massachusetts. We share her concern and as Massachusetts’ first conservationists would like to suggest, however, that this be implemented as an inland fishing regulation (MassWildlife 321 CMR 4:00) rather than a statutory law. In fact, this bill does not provide for any penalty for violation indicating that this was in fact Ms. Norton’s original intent.
The act of incorporating this into MGL would be of grave concern. It would open the door to additional sections to Chapter 130 restricting lead use in other venues such as salt water that has no affect on Loon habitat. Saltwater fishing requires the use of much heavier and larger weighting devices due to tide and current conditions making the use of alternative materials much less desirable and practical. We also fear that this could be used as a foothold to directly affect the use of lead in other sporting activities such as trap, skeet, sporting clays, 5-stand and the like using lead shot in shotgun shells.
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable report by marking this bill “Ought Not to Pass”. Instead, we would strongly encourage the Committee to refer this bill to MassWildlife to update 321 CMR 4:00 concerning fishing which already prohibits the use of lead sinkers for fishing in the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs.
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs will gladly work with Ms. Norton, her class and MassWildlife to see that our inland fishing regulations, are amended to prohibit the use of lead on inland waters. MassWildlife should then be authorized and funded to educate the public concerning the regulatory change. In the meantime we will begin our own educational efforts on behalf of Ms. Norton to strongly discourage lead use and encourage our members to use alternatives when fishing Massachusetts’ inland waters.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, Secretary
September 19, 2007
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in opposition to Senate Bill 466 “An Act Relative to the Prohibition of Fishing Gear Containing Lead” filed by Senator Robert A. Antonioni at the request of Emily Norton as written.
We are not opposed to the goodwill and intent of this bill as explained by Emily Norton during the hearing and many others. There is nothing more enjoyable than sighting a Loon in Massachusetts. We share her concern and as Massachusetts’ first conservationists would like to suggest, however, that this be implemented as an inland fishing regulation (MassWildlife 321 CMR 4:00) rather than a statutory law. In fact, this bill does not provide for any penalty for violation indicating that this was in fact Ms. Norton’s original intent.
The act of incorporating this into MGL would be of grave concern. It would open the door to additional sections to Chapter 130 restricting lead use in other venues such as salt water that has no affect on Loon habitat. Saltwater fishing requires the use of much heavier and larger weighting devices due to tide and current conditions making the use of alternative materials much less desirable and practical. We also fear that this could be used as a foothold to directly affect the use of lead in other sporting activities such as trap, skeet, sporting clays, 5-stand and the like using lead shot in shotgun shells.
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable report by marking this bill “Ought Not to Pass”. Instead, we would strongly encourage the Committee to refer this bill to MassWildlife to update 321 CMR 4:00 concerning fishing which already prohibits the use of lead sinkers for fishing in the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs.
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs will gladly work with Ms. Norton, her class and MassWildlife to see that our inland fishing regulations, are amended to prohibit the use of lead on inland waters. MassWildlife should then be authorized and funded to educate the public concerning the regulatory change. In the meantime we will begin our own educational efforts on behalf of Ms. Norton to strongly discourage lead use and encourage our members to use alternatives when fishing Massachusetts’ inland waters.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, Secretary
Senate Bill 487 “An Act To Enhance The Management Of Problem Wildlife”
September 19, 2007
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in support of Senate Bill 487 “An Act To Enhance The Management Of Problem Wildlife” filed by Senator Stephen M. Brewer as written.
Question “1” in 1996, banned the use of effective trapping devices such as padded jaw leg hold and conibear traps. It also transferred control of problem animals to local permitting Boards of Health. Over the last 11 years, there “appears” to have been a large increase in the number of “complaints” with respect to Beaver and Coyotes in particular, but with furbearers in general throughout the Commonwealth.
In 1996, the Norfolk County League of Sportsmen opposed this Question “1” vehemently against its supporters the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals among others. At the time the NCL warned of what we “felt” the resulting imbalance in specific species would be and the overabundance that would result.
Today, 11 years later, we are only “hearing” these reports, but have no scientific or written evidence that Question “1” has had the direct impact predicted. Being Massachusetts’ #1 conservationists, before pursing legislation that would reverse Question “1” altogether, we strongly support this legislation as a cost effective means to gather the necessary facts for use by MassWildlife, the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture and the citizens of the Commonwealth in making future wildlife management decisions with respect to furbearers.
The fact that HSUS and the MSPCA during the hearings on September 17th were opposed to this bill illustrates that they have no interest in gathering the facts, learning or studying the impact of their support for Question “1” in 1996, nor any interest in properly managing the population of furbearing animals of the Commonwealth. Further this suggests an unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions and brings into serious question why any citizen of the Commonwealth would want to place further wildlife management oversight in the hands of such organizations (S.540).
You will never see the Sportsmen or Women shy away from responsibility for their actions, become obstructionists to the truth, nor hide from the facts. We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking this bill “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, Secretary
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/2...eOnEnvironmentNaturalResourcesAgriculture.pdf
September 19, 2007
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, are submitting this letter in support of Senate Bill 487 “An Act To Enhance The Management Of Problem Wildlife” filed by Senator Stephen M. Brewer as written.
Question “1” in 1996, banned the use of effective trapping devices such as padded jaw leg hold and conibear traps. It also transferred control of problem animals to local permitting Boards of Health. Over the last 11 years, there “appears” to have been a large increase in the number of “complaints” with respect to Beaver and Coyotes in particular, but with furbearers in general throughout the Commonwealth.
In 1996, the Norfolk County League of Sportsmen opposed this Question “1” vehemently against its supporters the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals among others. At the time the NCL warned of what we “felt” the resulting imbalance in specific species would be and the overabundance that would result.
Today, 11 years later, we are only “hearing” these reports, but have no scientific or written evidence that Question “1” has had the direct impact predicted. Being Massachusetts’ #1 conservationists, before pursing legislation that would reverse Question “1” altogether, we strongly support this legislation as a cost effective means to gather the necessary facts for use by MassWildlife, the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture and the citizens of the Commonwealth in making future wildlife management decisions with respect to furbearers.
The fact that HSUS and the MSPCA during the hearings on September 17th were opposed to this bill illustrates that they have no interest in gathering the facts, learning or studying the impact of their support for Question “1” in 1996, nor any interest in properly managing the population of furbearing animals of the Commonwealth. Further this suggests an unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions and brings into serious question why any citizen of the Commonwealth would want to place further wildlife management oversight in the hands of such organizations (S.540).
You will never see the Sportsmen or Women shy away from responsibility for their actions, become obstructionists to the truth, nor hide from the facts. We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking this bill “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, Secretary
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/2...eOnEnvironmentNaturalResourcesAgriculture.pdf
Last edited:
Anti-gun Zealots Trying To Ram Disarmament Bill Through Senate
-- Immediate action required
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
You'd think that when rabid, anti-gun legislators like Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy join together to pass anti-gun legislation, it would raise a few red flags.
But these two New York Democrats are currently planning to roll over gun owners with H.R. 2640 -- legislation which would bar you from owning guns if:
* You are a battle-scarred veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, you were diagnosed with ADHD.
Not to mention the fact that your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners have been desperately fighting this bill for several months. You will remember that it passed in the House with an unrecorded voice vote in June and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- also without a recorded vote.
Sen. Schumer is pushing hard to pass this legislation -- dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act -- so he is circulating an "agreement" which would waive the Senate rules in order to bring up and pass the bill.
This agreement could come about in the next few hours or the next couple of days!
This agreement is extremely diabolical, as it would eliminate the ability of pro-gun senators to offer amendments which would clean up the legislation... and would grease the skids for immediate passage!
But there is good news: In order for Schumer's "agreement" to prevail, he must get "unanimous consent." This means that just ONE single senator can block it.
ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators RIGHT AWAY and urge them to OBJECT to Senator Chuck Schumer's "unanimous consent agreement" to steamroll H.R. 2640, the McCarthy anti-gun bill.
You can use the Take Action feature to send a pre-written message as an e-mail to your Senators.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pre-written letter from Gun owners of America
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
-- Immediate action required
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
You'd think that when rabid, anti-gun legislators like Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy join together to pass anti-gun legislation, it would raise a few red flags.
But these two New York Democrats are currently planning to roll over gun owners with H.R. 2640 -- legislation which would bar you from owning guns if:
* You are a battle-scarred veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, you were diagnosed with ADHD.
Not to mention the fact that your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners have been desperately fighting this bill for several months. You will remember that it passed in the House with an unrecorded voice vote in June and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- also without a recorded vote.
Sen. Schumer is pushing hard to pass this legislation -- dubbed the Veterans Disarmament Act -- so he is circulating an "agreement" which would waive the Senate rules in order to bring up and pass the bill.
This agreement could come about in the next few hours or the next couple of days!
This agreement is extremely diabolical, as it would eliminate the ability of pro-gun senators to offer amendments which would clean up the legislation... and would grease the skids for immediate passage!
But there is good news: In order for Schumer's "agreement" to prevail, he must get "unanimous consent." This means that just ONE single senator can block it.
ACTION: Please contact your two U.S. Senators RIGHT AWAY and urge them to OBJECT to Senator Chuck Schumer's "unanimous consent agreement" to steamroll H.R. 2640, the McCarthy anti-gun bill.
You can use the Take Action feature to send a pre-written message as an e-mail to your Senators.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pre-written letter from Gun owners of America
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
Dear Senator:
Currently, anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer is trying to get "unanimous consent" to steamroll the Senate in connection with Carolyn McCarthy’s anti-gun bill, H.R. 2640.
If this bill is passed, an American would be barred from owning guns if:
* He is a U.S. veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or
* As a kid, he was diagnosed with ADHD in connection with the IDEA program.
Not to mention the fact that an ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's from a Medicare home health provider (and there goes the family inheritance).
Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."
Please place a hold on the McCarthy bill and object to any unanimous consent agreement to discharge the bill.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
reply to letter
Dear Mr. Vaccaro:
Thank you for your letter on the nation's gun laws. There is no doubt that the easy availability of firearms, particularly handguns, contributes to the unacceptable toll of death and injury from gun violence.
We must end the arms race in our cities, towns, and our neighborhoods. I support tough punishment for violent criminals, but I also believe that is not a sufficient answer to the problem. There are steps we can take to prevent violent crime before it occurs. It is time for Congress to act to place reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons.
Congress took an important first step by enacting the Brady Bill in 1993, which imposed a nation-wide five-day waiting period on the purchase of handguns. We need comprehensive legislation to strengthen the regulation of federal firearms dealers and limit the importation of foreign-made weapons. It is also time to limit the number of guns that may be purchased at one time.
In the past, I have been a sponsor of legislation that follows the example of Massachusetts and requires handgun purchasers throughout the country to obtain a license proving they are qualified and responsible enough to own handguns. More recently, I have introduced the Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act, to protect children from gun violence.
None of these measures will infringe on the legitimate rights of hunters and other sportspeople. The Second Amendment is not a constitutional obstacle to the regulation of firearms, since the amendment by its own terms deals with the rights of the state militia, not individuals. The framers of the Constitution surely did not intend to leave Congress powerless to protect the public from an epidemic of gun-related violence.
I am committed to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, without undue burden to law-abiding citizens who choose to use firearms for legitimate sporting purposes. Reasonable gun control is an important part of the effort to protect the American people from violent crime. Again, thank you for writing to me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
Dear Mr. Vaccaro:
Thank you for your letter on the nation's gun laws. There is no doubt that the easy availability of firearms, particularly handguns, contributes to the unacceptable toll of death and injury from gun violence.
We must end the arms race in our cities, towns, and our neighborhoods. I support tough punishment for violent criminals, but I also believe that is not a sufficient answer to the problem. There are steps we can take to prevent violent crime before it occurs. It is time for Congress to act to place reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons.
Congress took an important first step by enacting the Brady Bill in 1993, which imposed a nation-wide five-day waiting period on the purchase of handguns. We need comprehensive legislation to strengthen the regulation of federal firearms dealers and limit the importation of foreign-made weapons. It is also time to limit the number of guns that may be purchased at one time.
In the past, I have been a sponsor of legislation that follows the example of Massachusetts and requires handgun purchasers throughout the country to obtain a license proving they are qualified and responsible enough to own handguns. More recently, I have introduced the Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act, to protect children from gun violence.
None of these measures will infringe on the legitimate rights of hunters and other sportspeople. The Second Amendment is not a constitutional obstacle to the regulation of firearms, since the amendment by its own terms deals with the rights of the state militia, not individuals. The framers of the Constitution surely did not intend to leave Congress powerless to protect the public from an epidemic of gun-related violence.
I am committed to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, without undue burden to law-abiding citizens who choose to use firearms for legitimate sporting purposes. Reasonable gun control is an important part of the effort to protect the American people from violent crime. Again, thank you for writing to me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
![[puke2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/031.gif "Puke2 [puke2]")
I always hear on the radio and read online that writing to your elected officials and calling their office works. But I feel like it'd be a waste of my time to write to my senators. I suppose if nothing else they'd have to waste their time to read it and respond or pay someone to do it for them... which ultimately I'm paying for.
The Kennedy letter was just disgusting and the guy is so brain dead, he has no idea the reasons for inner city crime revolve around failed social programs by Bacon Hill and the rest of the demorats in MA over the past 30 years.
"...The Second Amendment is not a constitutional obstacle to the regulation of firearms, since the amendment by its own terms deals with the rights of the state militia, not individuals...." - Edward M. Kennedy.
Does not, douchebag.
Does not, douchebag.
I emailed this to Senator James Timilty and Rep. Michael Costello, the Senate and House Chairmen. Plus, to my local Senator and Representative...
I am writing in support of S.1361 An Act Relative to Fair Licensing for Firearms.
The present firearms laws are vague and confusing. The application process is currently handled by local police chiefs, and some chiefs are not only using their own forms and applications, but are inconsistently requiring tests, physician approvals, and personal interviews, none of which are mandated by state law.
Presently, police chiefs have complete discretion to apply any restriction on the issuance of a License to Carry a Class A Firearm. Most chiefs will issue an unrestricted license. An unrestricted license does not encourage the holder to carry a concealed weapon, however, it does require the holder to honor and abide by all laws.
A minority of chiefs however, go to great lengths to discourage citizens from applying for a license, or otherwise include restrictions which are not defined or explained in any way, shape, or form by law. For example, a police chief will restrict a holder to target practice based on his/her philosophy or political agenda while all the surrounding communities issue unrestricted licenses. As a result, residents of certain communities enjoy the full use of their firearms as permitted by law, while others do not.
In my case, my license restricts me to "sporting." Arguably, I cannot even protect my family in a home invasion. I have a responsible job, experience with firearms, no criminal record, and am a lifelong resident of Massachusetts. Yet I do not receive the same consideration as similar applicants in several adjacent communities.
S.1361 will create a fair licensing platform for all the citizens of the commonwealth, and it serves to clarify the existing confusion surrounding the issuance of licenses and the purchase, possession, and use of firearms.
I urge you to give positive consideration to S.1361
Sincerely,
(Wayne Wong)
I am writing in support of S.1361 An Act Relative to Fair Licensing for Firearms.
The present firearms laws are vague and confusing. The application process is currently handled by local police chiefs, and some chiefs are not only using their own forms and applications, but are inconsistently requiring tests, physician approvals, and personal interviews, none of which are mandated by state law.
Presently, police chiefs have complete discretion to apply any restriction on the issuance of a License to Carry a Class A Firearm. Most chiefs will issue an unrestricted license. An unrestricted license does not encourage the holder to carry a concealed weapon, however, it does require the holder to honor and abide by all laws.
A minority of chiefs however, go to great lengths to discourage citizens from applying for a license, or otherwise include restrictions which are not defined or explained in any way, shape, or form by law. For example, a police chief will restrict a holder to target practice based on his/her philosophy or political agenda while all the surrounding communities issue unrestricted licenses. As a result, residents of certain communities enjoy the full use of their firearms as permitted by law, while others do not.
In my case, my license restricts me to "sporting." Arguably, I cannot even protect my family in a home invasion. I have a responsible job, experience with firearms, no criminal record, and am a lifelong resident of Massachusetts. Yet I do not receive the same consideration as similar applicants in several adjacent communities.
S.1361 will create a fair licensing platform for all the citizens of the commonwealth, and it serves to clarify the existing confusion surrounding the issuance of licenses and the purchase, possession, and use of firearms.
I urge you to give positive consideration to S.1361
Sincerely,
(Wayne Wong)
Letter
============================================
Dear Todd
I am writing in support of the following two bills related to firearm licensing and ownership
in our state
S.1361, An Act Relative to Fair Licensing
S.1401, An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency
The first bill, An Act Relative to Fair Licensing, is needed because
the current process for applying for a firearms license in our state
is confusing and seriously lacking in accountability. There have been
cases where applicants for licenses or renewals have waited months for
their licenses to be processed, with responsibility being shuffled
between local and state agencies, while the citizen waits in a very
serious limbo and possible legal jeopardy.
The second bill, An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned
Firearms During a State of Emergency, will prevent the shocking and
distressing situation which occurred in New Orleans, where lawful
citizens were stripped of their only form of protection during a
serious breakdown of civil order.
In Massachusetts, the violent crime is committed by non-licensed
criminals, who would not be eligible for a firearms license. The
number of crimes involving firearms committed by licensed firearms
holders is vanishingly small, and we should not be punished for the
actions of a small core of violent repeat offenders in our cities.
Holders of firearms licenses already are subject to extremely
stringent background checks, screening, and safety requirements, and
we are among the most responsible and civic minded citizens. Please
help pass these laws to make the process less arbitrary and
capricious for us.
Thank you,
Roger
Reply
================================================
Roger - Great to hear from you! I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment and have worked hard as a legislator to protect it. I will do everything that I can to encourage my colleagues to schedule a vote on these bills before the full membership. You have my advocacy! Keep in touch! Todd smola
============================================
Dear Todd
I am writing in support of the following two bills related to firearm licensing and ownership
in our state
S.1361, An Act Relative to Fair Licensing
S.1401, An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency
The first bill, An Act Relative to Fair Licensing, is needed because
the current process for applying for a firearms license in our state
is confusing and seriously lacking in accountability. There have been
cases where applicants for licenses or renewals have waited months for
their licenses to be processed, with responsibility being shuffled
between local and state agencies, while the citizen waits in a very
serious limbo and possible legal jeopardy.
The second bill, An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned
Firearms During a State of Emergency, will prevent the shocking and
distressing situation which occurred in New Orleans, where lawful
citizens were stripped of their only form of protection during a
serious breakdown of civil order.
In Massachusetts, the violent crime is committed by non-licensed
criminals, who would not be eligible for a firearms license. The
number of crimes involving firearms committed by licensed firearms
holders is vanishingly small, and we should not be punished for the
actions of a small core of violent repeat offenders in our cities.
Holders of firearms licenses already are subject to extremely
stringent background checks, screening, and safety requirements, and
we are among the most responsible and civic minded citizens. Please
help pass these laws to make the process less arbitrary and
capricious for us.
Thank you,
Roger
Reply
================================================
Roger - Great to hear from you! I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment and have worked hard as a legislator to protect it. I will do everything that I can to encourage my colleagues to schedule a vote on these bills before the full membership. You have my advocacy! Keep in touch! Todd smola
H.749 "An Act Expanding The Powers of the Director of Fisheries And Wildlife"
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of House Bill’s 749 “An Act Expanding The Powers of the Director of Fisheries And Wildlife” filed by Representative Paul K. Frost as written and H.2315 “An Act To Allow Hunting On Sunday Within The Commonwealth” filed by Representative Anne M. Gobi with amendments.
Simply stated, H.749 is a long overdue proposal that seeks to clarify the fact that management responsibility of our inland fisheries and wildlife is a 24x7, 365 day per year task including Sunday’s.
We would like to suggest that, H.2315 repealing Section 57 of Chapter 131, be amended to include striking in Subsection (1), Section 4, of Chapter 136 the words “and hunting with firearms”.
We feel that the spirit and intent of Section 57 of Chapter 131 was in “Observance Of A Common Day Of Rest”. M.G.L. includes other similar provisions concerning the “Observance Of A Common Day Of Rest” which excluded the purchasing of alcoholic beverages and engaging in other activities deemed to be against certain religious beliefs. In recent years, these “Blue” laws have been repealed citing the separation of church and state and drastic reductions in our citizen’s free time as a basis. It is our view, that this reduction in recreation time is largely equated to higher and more broadly defined taxes (since 1950). It is also related to the high cost of living in Massachusetts necessitating dual income households, which has in turn resulted in fewer citizens actively participating in their government having to weigh the importance of family time against civic involvement.
There are those (HSUS and MSPCA) that have expressed safety concerns around H.2315, citing the same “limited time” issue to enjoy the outdoors, yet go on to complain that hunters make up only 1% of the Commonwealth’s population. We view this argument as hypocritical, since logically then, the “conflict” of encountering a hunter would be extremely low (rare) while being engaged in other outdoor activities.
We teach our children that honesty is the “best policy” and to avoid being viewed as hypocritical. If you are to be revered and respected as wise and honest lawmakers by those who will come after, then you must avoid being viewed in a hypocritical light by applying all law equally to all pursuits whether or not you’ve chosen to engage or participate. This applies to “Blue” laws and statements made by our opposition.
To date, we have not been able to locate a single instance of an associated non-hunter hunting fatality in the Commonwealth. Official statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service make it clear that the injury rate for hunters and non-hunters is lower than that of soccer, football or cheerleading.1
Further, we wish to call to your attention that it was these same hunters who strongly supported a recent law change (Section 14 of Chapter 131) that requires anyone wishing to hunt in Massachusetts to pass a hunter safety education class prior to being able to apply for a hunting license. The course is now mandatory and is given under the direct leadership of a “Master” instructor who has five years experience teaching the International Hunter Education Association (IHEA) http://www.ihea.com/ curriculum. Funding for this is 75% reimbursed by the federal government Pittman-Robertson act and is disbursed through MassWildlife, the remaining 25% comes from the Sportsmen and Women of the Commonwealth through hunting license fees.2
Before HSUS or the MSPCA have ground to criticize or fear Massachusetts hunters, perhaps they’ll sponsor and pass similar legislation, as well as pay for their own “International Outdoor Education Association” that covers non-hunting, hunting and trapping activities as well as compass and wilderness survival to reduce the fear of their members.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking these bills “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/2...eOnEnvironmentNaturalResourcesAgriculture.pdf
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture
State House
Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of House Bill’s 749 “An Act Expanding The Powers of the Director of Fisheries And Wildlife” filed by Representative Paul K. Frost as written and H.2315 “An Act To Allow Hunting On Sunday Within The Commonwealth” filed by Representative Anne M. Gobi with amendments.
Simply stated, H.749 is a long overdue proposal that seeks to clarify the fact that management responsibility of our inland fisheries and wildlife is a 24x7, 365 day per year task including Sunday’s.
We would like to suggest that, H.2315 repealing Section 57 of Chapter 131, be amended to include striking in Subsection (1), Section 4, of Chapter 136 the words “and hunting with firearms”.
We feel that the spirit and intent of Section 57 of Chapter 131 was in “Observance Of A Common Day Of Rest”. M.G.L. includes other similar provisions concerning the “Observance Of A Common Day Of Rest” which excluded the purchasing of alcoholic beverages and engaging in other activities deemed to be against certain religious beliefs. In recent years, these “Blue” laws have been repealed citing the separation of church and state and drastic reductions in our citizen’s free time as a basis. It is our view, that this reduction in recreation time is largely equated to higher and more broadly defined taxes (since 1950). It is also related to the high cost of living in Massachusetts necessitating dual income households, which has in turn resulted in fewer citizens actively participating in their government having to weigh the importance of family time against civic involvement.
There are those (HSUS and MSPCA) that have expressed safety concerns around H.2315, citing the same “limited time” issue to enjoy the outdoors, yet go on to complain that hunters make up only 1% of the Commonwealth’s population. We view this argument as hypocritical, since logically then, the “conflict” of encountering a hunter would be extremely low (rare) while being engaged in other outdoor activities.
We teach our children that honesty is the “best policy” and to avoid being viewed as hypocritical. If you are to be revered and respected as wise and honest lawmakers by those who will come after, then you must avoid being viewed in a hypocritical light by applying all law equally to all pursuits whether or not you’ve chosen to engage or participate. This applies to “Blue” laws and statements made by our opposition.
To date, we have not been able to locate a single instance of an associated non-hunter hunting fatality in the Commonwealth. Official statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service make it clear that the injury rate for hunters and non-hunters is lower than that of soccer, football or cheerleading.1
Further, we wish to call to your attention that it was these same hunters who strongly supported a recent law change (Section 14 of Chapter 131) that requires anyone wishing to hunt in Massachusetts to pass a hunter safety education class prior to being able to apply for a hunting license. The course is now mandatory and is given under the direct leadership of a “Master” instructor who has five years experience teaching the International Hunter Education Association (IHEA) http://www.ihea.com/ curriculum. Funding for this is 75% reimbursed by the federal government Pittman-Robertson act and is disbursed through MassWildlife, the remaining 25% comes from the Sportsmen and Women of the Commonwealth through hunting license fees.2
Before HSUS or the MSPCA have ground to criticize or fear Massachusetts hunters, perhaps they’ll sponsor and pass similar legislation, as well as pay for their own “International Outdoor Education Association” that covers non-hunting, hunting and trapping activities as well as compass and wilderness survival to reduce the fear of their members.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking these bills “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/2...eOnEnvironmentNaturalResourcesAgriculture.pdf
Last edited:
H.2326 "An Act Relative To A Report Of Firearms Statistics"
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of H.2326 “An Act Relative To A Report Of Firearms Statistics” filed by Representative Bradley H. Jones.
For years law-abiding firearm owners of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been subjected to the enactment of “stronger” and “stronger” gun control legislation without any substantive reporting on the actual effectiveness of these laws. Meanwhile we continue to read in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald and other local papers about firearms related crimes committed on a daily basis. Most recently, the tragic death of Steven Odom . Through the constant media attention, these incidents “feel” as though firearm related crime is increasing, not decreasing.
These laws were enacted with the best of intentions, to reduce crime and improve public safety in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. No matter where you stand on this issue, if we are to be honest with ourselves and act in the best interest of public safety, a report as defined in H.2326 needs to be compiled in order to determine what steps need to be taken to see and verify an actual reduction in firearm related crimes. First, we must begin to honestly track statistics designed, not around political agendas, but facts. Secondly, we must examine these facts to determine what if any changes can be made to our current system to improve and address public safety concerns and verify crime reduction. Thirdly, we must be willing to accept these changes and take action whether or not it is politically advantageous or popular and then continue the process of monitoring the implemented change using the same data to determine effectiveness.
The members of the Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs strongly believe that, not signing onto support, voting for, and see that this bill passes is a crime itself.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking these bills “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/Joint Committee On Public Safety & Homeland Security_H.2326.pdf
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of H.2326 “An Act Relative To A Report Of Firearms Statistics” filed by Representative Bradley H. Jones.
For years law-abiding firearm owners of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been subjected to the enactment of “stronger” and “stronger” gun control legislation without any substantive reporting on the actual effectiveness of these laws. Meanwhile we continue to read in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald and other local papers about firearms related crimes committed on a daily basis. Most recently, the tragic death of Steven Odom . Through the constant media attention, these incidents “feel” as though firearm related crime is increasing, not decreasing.
These laws were enacted with the best of intentions, to reduce crime and improve public safety in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. No matter where you stand on this issue, if we are to be honest with ourselves and act in the best interest of public safety, a report as defined in H.2326 needs to be compiled in order to determine what steps need to be taken to see and verify an actual reduction in firearm related crimes. First, we must begin to honestly track statistics designed, not around political agendas, but facts. Secondly, we must examine these facts to determine what if any changes can be made to our current system to improve and address public safety concerns and verify crime reduction. Thirdly, we must be willing to accept these changes and take action whether or not it is politically advantageous or popular and then continue the process of monitoring the implemented change using the same data to determine effectiveness.
The members of the Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs strongly believe that, not signing onto support, voting for, and see that this bill passes is a crime itself.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking these bills “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/Joint Committee On Public Safety & Homeland Security_H.2326.pdf
Last edited:
H.2315 “An Act To Allow Hunting On Sunday Within The Commonwealth”
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of H.2315 “An Act To Allow Hunting On Sunday Within The Commonwealth” filed by Representative Anne M. Gobi with amendments.
We would like to suggest that, H.2315 repealing Section 57 of Chapter 131, be amended to include striking in Subsection (1), Section 4, of Chapter 136 the words “and hunting with firearms”.
We feel that the spirit and intent of Section 57 of Chapter 131 was in “Observance Of A Common Day Of Rest”. M.G.L. includes other similar provisions concerning the “Observance Of A Common Day Of Rest” which excluded the purchasing of alcoholic beverages and engaging in other activities deemed to be against certain religious beliefs. In recent years, these “Blue” laws have been repealed citing the separation of church and state and drastic reductions in our citizen’s free time as a basis. It is our view, that this reduction in recreation time is largely equated to higher and more broadly defined taxes (since 1950). It is also related to the high cost of living in Massachusetts necessitating dual income households, which has in turn resulted in fewer citizens actively participating in their government having to weigh the importance of family time against civic involvement.
There are those (HSUS and MSPCA) that have expressed safety concerns around H.2315, citing the same “limited time” issue to enjoy the outdoors, yet go on to complain that hunters make up only 1% of the Commonwealth’s population. We view this argument as hypocritical, since logically then, the “conflict” of encountering a hunter would be extremely low (rare) while being engaged in other outdoor activities.
We teach our children that honesty is the “best policy” and to avoid being viewed as hypocritical. If you are to be revered and respected as wise and honest lawmakers by those who will come after, then you must avoid being viewed in a hypocritical light by applying all law equally to all pursuits whether or not you’ve chosen to engage or participate. This applies to “Blue” laws and statements made by our opposition.
To date, we have not been able to locate a single instance of an associated non-hunter hunting fatality in the Commonwealth. Official statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service make it clear that the injury rate for hunters and non-hunters is lower than that of soccer, football or cheerleading. 1
Further, we wish to call to your attention that it was these same hunters who strongly supported a recent law change (Section 14 of Chapter 131) that requires anyone wishing to hunt in Massachusetts to pass a hunter safety education class prior to being able to apply for a hunting license. The course is now mandatory and is given under the direct leadership of a “Master” instructor who has five years experience teaching the International Hunter Education Association (IHEA) http://www.ihea.com/ curriculum. Funding for this is 75% reimbursed by the federal government Pittman-Robertson act and is disbursed through MassWildlife, the remaining 25% comes from the Sportsmen and Women of the Commonwealth through hunting license fees. 2
Before HSUS or the MSPCA have ground to criticize or fear Massachusetts hunters, perhaps they’ll sponsor and pass similar legislation, as well as pay for their own “International Outdoor Education Association” that covers non-hunting, hunting and trapping activities as well as compass and wilderness survival to reduce the fear of their members.
Massachusetts is one of only seven remaining States that prohibit Sunday hunting. 3
It’s time for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to recognized that the people`s right to choose for themselves what they do, or don`t do, on Sunday is more consistent with America`s founding principles.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking this bill “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, President
1 Centers for Disease Control, “Sports-Related Injuries Among High School Athletes, United States, 2005-06 School Year.”
2 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, “2005 Annual Report”, Wayne F. MacCallum, Director, Susan Langlois, Coordinator.
3 Sunday Hunting Fact Sheet, “The Truth About Sunday Hunting: Why Hunters Shouldn`t Be Treated as Second-Class Citizens”, NRA ILA, [ http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=174&issue=021 ] 2005.
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/Joint Committee On Public Safety & Homeland Security_H.2315.pdf
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of H.2315 “An Act To Allow Hunting On Sunday Within The Commonwealth” filed by Representative Anne M. Gobi with amendments.
We would like to suggest that, H.2315 repealing Section 57 of Chapter 131, be amended to include striking in Subsection (1), Section 4, of Chapter 136 the words “and hunting with firearms”.
We feel that the spirit and intent of Section 57 of Chapter 131 was in “Observance Of A Common Day Of Rest”. M.G.L. includes other similar provisions concerning the “Observance Of A Common Day Of Rest” which excluded the purchasing of alcoholic beverages and engaging in other activities deemed to be against certain religious beliefs. In recent years, these “Blue” laws have been repealed citing the separation of church and state and drastic reductions in our citizen’s free time as a basis. It is our view, that this reduction in recreation time is largely equated to higher and more broadly defined taxes (since 1950). It is also related to the high cost of living in Massachusetts necessitating dual income households, which has in turn resulted in fewer citizens actively participating in their government having to weigh the importance of family time against civic involvement.
There are those (HSUS and MSPCA) that have expressed safety concerns around H.2315, citing the same “limited time” issue to enjoy the outdoors, yet go on to complain that hunters make up only 1% of the Commonwealth’s population. We view this argument as hypocritical, since logically then, the “conflict” of encountering a hunter would be extremely low (rare) while being engaged in other outdoor activities.
We teach our children that honesty is the “best policy” and to avoid being viewed as hypocritical. If you are to be revered and respected as wise and honest lawmakers by those who will come after, then you must avoid being viewed in a hypocritical light by applying all law equally to all pursuits whether or not you’ve chosen to engage or participate. This applies to “Blue” laws and statements made by our opposition.
To date, we have not been able to locate a single instance of an associated non-hunter hunting fatality in the Commonwealth. Official statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service make it clear that the injury rate for hunters and non-hunters is lower than that of soccer, football or cheerleading. 1
Further, we wish to call to your attention that it was these same hunters who strongly supported a recent law change (Section 14 of Chapter 131) that requires anyone wishing to hunt in Massachusetts to pass a hunter safety education class prior to being able to apply for a hunting license. The course is now mandatory and is given under the direct leadership of a “Master” instructor who has five years experience teaching the International Hunter Education Association (IHEA) http://www.ihea.com/ curriculum. Funding for this is 75% reimbursed by the federal government Pittman-Robertson act and is disbursed through MassWildlife, the remaining 25% comes from the Sportsmen and Women of the Commonwealth through hunting license fees. 2
Before HSUS or the MSPCA have ground to criticize or fear Massachusetts hunters, perhaps they’ll sponsor and pass similar legislation, as well as pay for their own “International Outdoor Education Association” that covers non-hunting, hunting and trapping activities as well as compass and wilderness survival to reduce the fear of their members.
Massachusetts is one of only seven remaining States that prohibit Sunday hunting. 3
It’s time for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to recognized that the people`s right to choose for themselves what they do, or don`t do, on Sunday is more consistent with America`s founding principles.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report by marking this bill “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, President
1 Centers for Disease Control, “Sports-Related Injuries Among High School Athletes, United States, 2005-06 School Year.”
2 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, “2005 Annual Report”, Wayne F. MacCallum, Director, Susan Langlois, Coordinator.
3 Sunday Hunting Fact Sheet, “The Truth About Sunday Hunting: Why Hunters Shouldn`t Be Treated as Second-Class Citizens”, NRA ILA, [ http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=174&issue=021 ] 2005.
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/Joint Committee On Public Safety & Homeland Security_H.2315.pdf
Last edited:
S.1361 “An Act Relative To Fair Licensing”
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of S.1361 “An Act Relative To Fair Licensing” filed by Senators Stephen M. Brewer, Robert A. Antonioni, Robert L. Hedlund, and Michael R. Knapik.
For far too long the state’s firearm licensing laws have been overly complex and lacking in accountability. The current laws leave law-abiding firearms owners often confused about what they can legally own, how or if they can carry, or transport various firearms. They often question how and why they have restrictions imposed on them and why they can be denied certain licenses for no apparent reason.
In addition, law enforcement officers themselves are sometimes confused by the complexity. In fact, Chief Ronald C. Glidden of Lee, Massachusetts along with Attorney John M. Collins found Massachusetts laws so unwieldy that they took it upon themselves to author and have published a 409 page book entitled “Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law” “A practical guide for police on Massachusetts and federal firearms law.” now in its 12th edition.
Lastly, some of these laws pertaining to licensing are truly discriminatory, discretionary, and arbitrary with 351 different licensing authorities, and a minimum of 4 (excluding Class E) classes of licenses not only does this make law enforcement a further challenge, but does not provide for a fair and impartial licensing process to be applied to all law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth.
This bill is, but a single small step toward simplifying the licensing laws, and adding some much needed accountability and clarifying many ambiguities to establish a fair licensing standard.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report of this bill by marking S.1361 “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, President
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/2007_S.1361_JointCommitteeOnPublicSafety&HomelandSecurity.pdf
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of S.1361 “An Act Relative To Fair Licensing” filed by Senators Stephen M. Brewer, Robert A. Antonioni, Robert L. Hedlund, and Michael R. Knapik.
For far too long the state’s firearm licensing laws have been overly complex and lacking in accountability. The current laws leave law-abiding firearms owners often confused about what they can legally own, how or if they can carry, or transport various firearms. They often question how and why they have restrictions imposed on them and why they can be denied certain licenses for no apparent reason.
In addition, law enforcement officers themselves are sometimes confused by the complexity. In fact, Chief Ronald C. Glidden of Lee, Massachusetts along with Attorney John M. Collins found Massachusetts laws so unwieldy that they took it upon themselves to author and have published a 409 page book entitled “Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law” “A practical guide for police on Massachusetts and federal firearms law.” now in its 12th edition.
Lastly, some of these laws pertaining to licensing are truly discriminatory, discretionary, and arbitrary with 351 different licensing authorities, and a minimum of 4 (excluding Class E) classes of licenses not only does this make law enforcement a further challenge, but does not provide for a fair and impartial licensing process to be applied to all law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth.
This bill is, but a single small step toward simplifying the licensing laws, and adding some much needed accountability and clarifying many ambiguities to establish a fair licensing standard.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report of this bill by marking S.1361 “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, President
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/2007_S.1361_JointCommitteeOnPublicSafety&HomelandSecurity.pdf
Last edited:
S.1401 "An Act Prohibiting The Confiscation Of Lawfully Owned Firearms During....
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of S.1401 “An Act Prohibiting The Confiscation Of Lawfully Owned Firearms During A State Of Emergency” filed by Senator Richard T. Moore.
Recently our nation saw firsthand the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and the resulting lawlessness that followed. Adding insult to nature’s fury were the actions of many state and local governments that poorly prepared, failed to issue evacuation orders, and were caught flat-footed by this act of nature. One of the most tragic government actions was the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms, literally robbing law-abiding citizens of their most basic civil right – the right to defend their own lives.
Many law enforcement officers abandoned their posts and abdicated their sworn obligation to the public to attend to their own families. The Chief of Police in New Orleans ordered remaining officers and reinforcements from other states to go door to door, confiscating all firearms, and leaving good people at the mercy of criminals and looters. One TV camera caught on tape an elderly woman having her arm broken as she was thrown to the ground because she questioned the officer’s right to confiscate her firearm. Court action regarding these confiscations is still pending, as the city of New Orleans has been held in contempt of court for failure to return these firearms to citizens.
Hurricane Katina taught us the ugly, but undeniable fact that civilization as we know it can still break down. Good people, who have become victims of such disasters, are often left without basic services provided by their local communities – water, electricity, and fire and law enforcement services. Should a disaster of equal or greater proportion strike the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, lets ensure that we do not further victimize the law-abiding by disarming them and leaving them defenseless to the criminal elements that will certainly thrive in such chaos.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report of this bill, ensuring the future safety of all law-abiding citizens, by marking S.1401 “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, President
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/2007_S.1401_JointCommitteeOn PublicSafety&HomelandSecurity.pdf
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in support of S.1401 “An Act Prohibiting The Confiscation Of Lawfully Owned Firearms During A State Of Emergency” filed by Senator Richard T. Moore.
Recently our nation saw firsthand the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and the resulting lawlessness that followed. Adding insult to nature’s fury were the actions of many state and local governments that poorly prepared, failed to issue evacuation orders, and were caught flat-footed by this act of nature. One of the most tragic government actions was the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms, literally robbing law-abiding citizens of their most basic civil right – the right to defend their own lives.
Many law enforcement officers abandoned their posts and abdicated their sworn obligation to the public to attend to their own families. The Chief of Police in New Orleans ordered remaining officers and reinforcements from other states to go door to door, confiscating all firearms, and leaving good people at the mercy of criminals and looters. One TV camera caught on tape an elderly woman having her arm broken as she was thrown to the ground because she questioned the officer’s right to confiscate her firearm. Court action regarding these confiscations is still pending, as the city of New Orleans has been held in contempt of court for failure to return these firearms to citizens.
Hurricane Katina taught us the ugly, but undeniable fact that civilization as we know it can still break down. Good people, who have become victims of such disasters, are often left without basic services provided by their local communities – water, electricity, and fire and law enforcement services. Should a disaster of equal or greater proportion strike the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, lets ensure that we do not further victimize the law-abiding by disarming them and leaving them defenseless to the criminal elements that will certainly thrive in such chaos.
We urge the Committee to consider a favorable report of this bill, ensuring the future safety of all law-abiding citizens, by marking S.1401 “Ought to Pass”.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Bokleman, President
http://www.nclsportsmen.org/Files/2007_S.1401_JointCommitteeOn PublicSafety&HomelandSecurity.pdf
Last edited:
Jeff,
Thanks for contacting me about S.1361, An Act Relative to Fair Licensing for Firearms, sponsored by Senator Stephen Brewer (D-Barre). I agree with you that there should be a uniform and fair firearms licensing system across the state instead of the current system where licensing varies from town to town. This bill has been referred to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and while I am not of member of this Committee I will certainly keep your support for S.1361, and all bills that protect our second amendment rights, should they come to the House floor for debate. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Sincerely, Rep. Ross
Thanks for contacting me about S.1361, An Act Relative to Fair Licensing for Firearms, sponsored by Senator Stephen Brewer (D-Barre). I agree with you that there should be a uniform and fair firearms licensing system across the state instead of the current system where licensing varies from town to town. This bill has been referred to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and while I am not of member of this Committee I will certainly keep your support for S.1361, and all bills that protect our second amendment rights, should they come to the House floor for debate. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Sincerely, Rep. Ross
I am forwarding this letter to senators and representatives who have not responded to my earlier emails including Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security - Senator James Timilty and Representative Michael Costello.
Dear ...
I am writing in support of S.1361 An Act Relative to Fair Licensing for Firearms.
Massachusetts is one of nine “may issue” states in the United States. Each individual Massachusetts police chief has wide discretion in issuing, denying, modifying, and restricting firearms permits. This practice is completely at odds with the practices of 37 “shall issue” and two “unrestricted” states, which provide for full concealed carry licensing for citizens who meet statutory requirements.
Chapter 140 of the General laws governs the issue of firearms, and allows individual police chiefs to apply restrictions on licenses. Consider two applicants for Licenses to Carry Firearms who apply to their respective police chiefs in two contiguous towns. Both applicants are identical in all respects. The chief of police in Community A accepts the $100 license fee and issues a permit for all lawful purposes. The chief of police in Community B accepts the $100 and issues a restricted license for target practice and hunting only.
The courts have allowed the licensing authorities to set up their own rules as to license restrictions, unless they are applying those standards inconsistently from person to person. Therefore, the local police chief becomes the ultimate authority over the issuance of a statewide permit. It is especially unreasonable that the resident of Community A can lawfully carry a firearm for self defense in Community B, however the resident of Community B has been denied this right in his own community.
Police chiefs decide their local policies based on their philosophies, opinions, whims, or political aspirations. I maintain that police chiefs have business enforcing the laws, advising their communities, and managing their departments. They do not have business ruling over the law abiding citizens who have hired him or her to run their local police departments.
Even their own attorney advises chiefs to use caution when applying restrictions. Attorneys for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, in an advisory dated November 1998, state:
...There is no lawful requirement to impose any restrictions. This article is not intended to encourage chiefs to do so when there is no perceived need. In fact, the use of excessive restrictions is likely to prove difficult to administer. Moreover, it will put pressure on the legislature to curb a chief’s ability to issue any restrictions if there is a perception of abuse or over use … - John M. Collins, Esquire
At best, the guidelines in Chapter 140 for issuing Licenses to Carry Firearms do not preserve the rights of all Massachusetts citizens equally. The current system is administered inconsistently and unfairly. In many, if not most cases, it is arbitrary and political.
Passage of S. 1361 will address these issues and put our laws in line with the 39 other states that allow citizens who meet statutory standards to carry concealed firearms for lawful purposes. I urge you to support this bill.
Yours truly,
Wayne Wong
Feel free to use this as a template or borrow some content if you believe as I do that the current situation is unacceptable. Even if you have an ALP permit, keep in mind that a new regime in your community could result in a restriction at the time of your next renewal.
Dear ...
I am writing in support of S.1361 An Act Relative to Fair Licensing for Firearms.
Massachusetts is one of nine “may issue” states in the United States. Each individual Massachusetts police chief has wide discretion in issuing, denying, modifying, and restricting firearms permits. This practice is completely at odds with the practices of 37 “shall issue” and two “unrestricted” states, which provide for full concealed carry licensing for citizens who meet statutory requirements.
Chapter 140 of the General laws governs the issue of firearms, and allows individual police chiefs to apply restrictions on licenses. Consider two applicants for Licenses to Carry Firearms who apply to their respective police chiefs in two contiguous towns. Both applicants are identical in all respects. The chief of police in Community A accepts the $100 license fee and issues a permit for all lawful purposes. The chief of police in Community B accepts the $100 and issues a restricted license for target practice and hunting only.
The courts have allowed the licensing authorities to set up their own rules as to license restrictions, unless they are applying those standards inconsistently from person to person. Therefore, the local police chief becomes the ultimate authority over the issuance of a statewide permit. It is especially unreasonable that the resident of Community A can lawfully carry a firearm for self defense in Community B, however the resident of Community B has been denied this right in his own community.
Police chiefs decide their local policies based on their philosophies, opinions, whims, or political aspirations. I maintain that police chiefs have business enforcing the laws, advising their communities, and managing their departments. They do not have business ruling over the law abiding citizens who have hired him or her to run their local police departments.
Even their own attorney advises chiefs to use caution when applying restrictions. Attorneys for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, in an advisory dated November 1998, state:
...There is no lawful requirement to impose any restrictions. This article is not intended to encourage chiefs to do so when there is no perceived need. In fact, the use of excessive restrictions is likely to prove difficult to administer. Moreover, it will put pressure on the legislature to curb a chief’s ability to issue any restrictions if there is a perception of abuse or over use … - John M. Collins, Esquire
At best, the guidelines in Chapter 140 for issuing Licenses to Carry Firearms do not preserve the rights of all Massachusetts citizens equally. The current system is administered inconsistently and unfairly. In many, if not most cases, it is arbitrary and political.
Passage of S. 1361 will address these issues and put our laws in line with the 39 other states that allow citizens who meet statutory standards to carry concealed firearms for lawful purposes. I urge you to support this bill.
Yours truly,
Wayne Wong
Feel free to use this as a template or borrow some content if you believe as I do that the current situation is unacceptable. Even if you have an ALP permit, keep in mind that a new regime in your community could result in a restriction at the time of your next renewal.
H.2343 An Act to Close a Loophole in the Assault Weapons Ban and Further Reduced.....
January 23, 2008
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Chariman Timilty and Chairman Costello, and members of the Committee,
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in strong opposition to H.2343 “An Act to Close a Loophole in the Assault Weapons Ban and Further Reduce Gun Violence in the Commonwealth” filed by Rep. David P. Linsky and others.
The Sixteenth clause in Section 123, of Chapter 140 reads as follows:
Sixteenth, That no licensee shall sell, lease, rent, transfer or deliver or offer for sale, lease, rent, transfer or delivery to any person any assault weapon or large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.
H.2343 attempts to replace the bolded phrase with “unless such sale, lease, rent, transfer or delivery is made to a law enforcement agency.”
First and foremost this bill is incorrectly titled, as there is no loophole in the law. Section 123 of Chapter 140 was debated and discussed by the legislature at the time of its introduction and these exemptions were placed into law on October 22, 1998 for the reason of alignment with the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The legislature, at that time, followed the lead of the Federal Government with respect to grandfathering in firearms and devices by using the starting date of the Federal ban. How soon we forget that, at the time, this would have been viewed as a confiscation program of these so-called “Assault Weapons” or “Large Capacity” feeding devices and rejected by the public. Now, 10 years later, the authors of this bill are attempting to do exactly that.
The law-abiding Sportsmen and Women of Massachusetts are often told – trust us – “This new law, will do more to reduce crime.” “This new law will further reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth.” Yet, time and time again, the noose gets tighten as we walk down that slippery slope toward a total firearms ban (unsuccessful in 1976) and yet we are constantly told there is no “slippery slope”. Meanwhile, no evidence is ever presented that the previous “new law” ever reduced crime here in the Commonwealth when – in fact – quite the opposite holds true.
The effect of this law as it was written in 1998 singularly created a market for firearms and large capacity feeding devices that were lawfully possessed prior to September 13, 1994. This caused the value of these firearms to increase significantly and (for those able to afford them) pay heavily to acquire them, whether that be for investment purposes in the newly legislated market or for all lawful purposes as defined under M.G.L. In some cases these individual firearms are now worth in excess of $15,000.00.
H.2343 would destroy this same market by making it impossible for anyone to sell these firearms or feeding devices to anyone other than law enforcement. Cities and towns are having a hard time balancing their budgets, let alone reimburse anyone for a firearm now worth $15,000.00 dollars due in total to prior legislation. In addition, in the case of a deceased collector or owner there would be no way to transfer the firearm to another member of their family – even if that person was duly licensed to possess such a firearm or device under M.G.L. This puts the legal firearm owner between a “rock and a hard place” with no alternative other than to surrender, without compensation, said firearm or device to law enforcement making this as we stated before an “Uncompensated Confiscation Program”. In many ways, this suggested law change bears strong resemblance to the very program that the British attempted to enforce at Lexington-Concord that resulted in the Revolutionary War or the recent “Gun-Grab” that took place in New Orleans I the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Surely, this is not the intent of the authors of this bill.
We are sure that the supporters of this bill will raise the December 12, 2006 incident at the New Bedford, Foxy Lady strip club involving Scott Medeiros. From the various Associated Press articles that we’ve read he was in legal possession of a firearm, but it is unknown to us whether that firearm was a “Pre-Ban” or “Post-Ban” firearm or whether or not he was in possession of or used large capacity magazines during that assault killing three.
H.2343 is a discriminatory law aimed solely at the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women of Massachusetts as it can only affect those who obey the law. As such, it is clear, that this bill will have no affect on the criminal misuse of any firearm or device falling under this M.G.L or “Further Reduce Gun Violence in the Commonwealth” because by definition the law-abiding do not commit these crimes.
Lastly, the author’s of this bill have not provided any evidence that this so-called “loophole” has resulted in anything other than a high priced market for these firearms and devices in the Commonwealth. Even in the Scott Medeiros case, the legislature must realize that the world is not a safe place no matter how hard we try to protect the public under the law. Personal safety is and always has been proven to be – an individual responsibility.
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable vote to prevent bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and Senate. A vote against this legislation is simply a vote of confidence in the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women of the Commonwealth who have already gone through a lengthy, costly and burdensome licensing process to prove their unparalleled character.
Respectfully submitted,
(Also posted in the here: http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=381262#post381262)
January 23, 2008
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Chariman Timilty and Chairman Costello, and members of the Committee,
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in strong opposition to H.2343 “An Act to Close a Loophole in the Assault Weapons Ban and Further Reduce Gun Violence in the Commonwealth” filed by Rep. David P. Linsky and others.
The Sixteenth clause in Section 123, of Chapter 140 reads as follows:
Sixteenth, That no licensee shall sell, lease, rent, transfer or deliver or offer for sale, lease, rent, transfer or delivery to any person any assault weapon or large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.
H.2343 attempts to replace the bolded phrase with “unless such sale, lease, rent, transfer or delivery is made to a law enforcement agency.”
First and foremost this bill is incorrectly titled, as there is no loophole in the law. Section 123 of Chapter 140 was debated and discussed by the legislature at the time of its introduction and these exemptions were placed into law on October 22, 1998 for the reason of alignment with the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The legislature, at that time, followed the lead of the Federal Government with respect to grandfathering in firearms and devices by using the starting date of the Federal ban. How soon we forget that, at the time, this would have been viewed as a confiscation program of these so-called “Assault Weapons” or “Large Capacity” feeding devices and rejected by the public. Now, 10 years later, the authors of this bill are attempting to do exactly that.
The law-abiding Sportsmen and Women of Massachusetts are often told – trust us – “This new law, will do more to reduce crime.” “This new law will further reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth.” Yet, time and time again, the noose gets tighten as we walk down that slippery slope toward a total firearms ban (unsuccessful in 1976) and yet we are constantly told there is no “slippery slope”. Meanwhile, no evidence is ever presented that the previous “new law” ever reduced crime here in the Commonwealth when – in fact – quite the opposite holds true.
The effect of this law as it was written in 1998 singularly created a market for firearms and large capacity feeding devices that were lawfully possessed prior to September 13, 1994. This caused the value of these firearms to increase significantly and (for those able to afford them) pay heavily to acquire them, whether that be for investment purposes in the newly legislated market or for all lawful purposes as defined under M.G.L. In some cases these individual firearms are now worth in excess of $15,000.00.
H.2343 would destroy this same market by making it impossible for anyone to sell these firearms or feeding devices to anyone other than law enforcement. Cities and towns are having a hard time balancing their budgets, let alone reimburse anyone for a firearm now worth $15,000.00 dollars due in total to prior legislation. In addition, in the case of a deceased collector or owner there would be no way to transfer the firearm to another member of their family – even if that person was duly licensed to possess such a firearm or device under M.G.L. This puts the legal firearm owner between a “rock and a hard place” with no alternative other than to surrender, without compensation, said firearm or device to law enforcement making this as we stated before an “Uncompensated Confiscation Program”. In many ways, this suggested law change bears strong resemblance to the very program that the British attempted to enforce at Lexington-Concord that resulted in the Revolutionary War or the recent “Gun-Grab” that took place in New Orleans I the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Surely, this is not the intent of the authors of this bill.
We are sure that the supporters of this bill will raise the December 12, 2006 incident at the New Bedford, Foxy Lady strip club involving Scott Medeiros. From the various Associated Press articles that we’ve read he was in legal possession of a firearm, but it is unknown to us whether that firearm was a “Pre-Ban” or “Post-Ban” firearm or whether or not he was in possession of or used large capacity magazines during that assault killing three.
H.2343 is a discriminatory law aimed solely at the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women of Massachusetts as it can only affect those who obey the law. As such, it is clear, that this bill will have no affect on the criminal misuse of any firearm or device falling under this M.G.L or “Further Reduce Gun Violence in the Commonwealth” because by definition the law-abiding do not commit these crimes.
Lastly, the author’s of this bill have not provided any evidence that this so-called “loophole” has resulted in anything other than a high priced market for these firearms and devices in the Commonwealth. Even in the Scott Medeiros case, the legislature must realize that the world is not a safe place no matter how hard we try to protect the public under the law. Personal safety is and always has been proven to be – an individual responsibility.
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable vote to prevent bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and Senate. A vote against this legislation is simply a vote of confidence in the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women of the Commonwealth who have already gone through a lengthy, costly and burdensome licensing process to prove their unparalleled character.
Respectfully submitted,
(Also posted in the here: http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=381262#post381262)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 47
- Likes
- 3
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the DC gun ban interpreting that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. Their reasoning was that the Bill of Rights was was written to protect individual rights excepting the the tenth which covers states and the people.
By Sen. Kennedy's logic since I'm a member of the MA national guard do i need a license to keep and bear arms.
Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary H.2290
February 27, 2008
Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary
State House
Room 136 / 413C
Boston, MA 02133
Chariman Creedon and Chairman O’Flaherty, and members of the Committee,
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in strong opposition to H.2290 “An Act Relative To Gun Use” filed by Representative Antonio F. D. Cabral, Senator Mark C. Montigny and others.
Section 121 of Chapter 140 was debated and discussed by the legislature at the time of its introduction and these exemptions were placed into law on October 22, 1998 for the reason of alignment with the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The legislature, at that time, followed the lead of the Federal Government with respect to grandfathering in firearms and devices by using the starting date of the Federal ban. Today, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) contains: “Subsec. (a)(30). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 110102(b), which added par. (30) defining "semiautomatic assault weapon", was repealed by Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 110105(2)”. Therefore, U.S.C no longer contains any definition of a “semiautomatic assault weapon”, yet Massachusetts has chosen to adopt a now repealed definition as State law. Had these firearms not been made exempt the Federal Government at that time, it would have been viewed as instituting an unconstitutional confiscation program of these so-called “Assault Weapons” and it would have been rejected by the public. Now, 10 years later, the authors of this bill are attempting to do exactly that.
The law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of Massachusetts are often told – trust us – “This new law, will do more to reduce crime.” “This new law will further reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth.” Yet, time and time again, the noose gets tighten as we walk down that slippery slope toward a total firearms ban/confiscation (unsuccessful in 1976) and yet we are constantly told there is no “slippery slope”. Meanwhile, no evidence is ever presented that the previous “new law” reduced crime here in the Commonwealth when – in fact – there is mounting evidence that indeed the opposite holds true.
The effect of this law as it was written in 1998 singularly created a market for firearms and large capacity feeding devices that were lawfully possessed prior to September 13, 1994. This caused the value of these firearms to increase significantly and (for those able to afford them) pay heavily to acquire them, whether that be for investment purposes in the newly legislated market or for all lawful purposes as defined under M.G.L. In some cases these individual firearms are now worth in excess of $15,000.00.
H.2290 would destroy this same market by making it impossible for anyone to sell these firearms to anyone other than a local club. Worse this bill attempts to include “(ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action;” which would effectively mean a long-gun ban, no matter the ammunition capacity, as every single long-gun manufactured in the world is operated by one of these methods. This would include the very popular Ruger 10-22 .22 caliber rifle that holds 10 rounds of ammunition.
We are sure that the supporters of this bill will raise the December 12, 2006 incident at the New Bedford, Foxy Lady strip club involving Scott Medeiros. From the various Associated Press articles that we’ve read he was in legal possession of a firearm, but it is unknown to us whether that firearm was a “Pre-Ban” or “Post-Ban” firearm or whether or not he was in possession of or used large capacity magazines during that assault killing three. Repeated phone calls to the Bristol County District Attorney’s office to provide the exact make, model, feeding capacity and ammunition type used have gone unanswered – yet you being asked to believe their testimony without any real evidence being presented. In fact, when speaking to the DA’s Director of Communications Gregg Miliote asking the DA to provide such details he said quote “It was probably some kind of machine gun.”, which would most likely be entirely inaccurate fear mongering by the DA’s office.
H.2290 also attempts to, unconstitutionally, redefine a Class A LTC after such licensees have been operating under such law for over 10 years by stripping away the right to possess “assault weapons” which may have been owned or possessed prior to the September 13, 1994 date for any lawful purpose including hunting. Clearly, Section 131 of Chapter 140 which already states that “No large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device shall be removed from the premises except for the purposes of:” was ignored by Scott C. Medeiros. What makes New Bedford Police Chief Ronald E. Teachman, Bristol County DA C. Samuel Sutter, New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang believe that changing the existing law would have stopped Mr. Medeiros from committing this crime as it already made illegal his actions?
H.2290 is a discriminatory law aimed solely at the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of Massachusetts as it can only affect those who obey the law. As such, it is clear, that this bill will have no affect on the criminal misuse of any firearm under M.G.L or “Further Reduce Gun Violence in the Commonwealth” because by definition the law-abiding do not commit these crimes.
In the Scott Medeiros case, the legislature must realize that the world is not a safe place no matter how hard we try to protect the public under the law. Personal safety is and always has been proven to be – an individual responsibility. (1, 2)
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable vote to prevent bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and Senate. A vote against this legislation is simply a vote of confidence in the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of the Commonwealth who have already gone through a lengthy, costly and burdensome licensing process to prove their unparalleled character.
Respectfully submitted,
1 Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
2 Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''
February 27, 2008
Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary
State House
Room 136 / 413C
Boston, MA 02133
Chariman Creedon and Chairman O’Flaherty, and members of the Committee,
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in strong opposition to H.2290 “An Act Relative To Gun Use” filed by Representative Antonio F. D. Cabral, Senator Mark C. Montigny and others.
Section 121 of Chapter 140 was debated and discussed by the legislature at the time of its introduction and these exemptions were placed into law on October 22, 1998 for the reason of alignment with the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The legislature, at that time, followed the lead of the Federal Government with respect to grandfathering in firearms and devices by using the starting date of the Federal ban. Today, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) contains: “Subsec. (a)(30). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 110102(b), which added par. (30) defining "semiautomatic assault weapon", was repealed by Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 110105(2)”. Therefore, U.S.C no longer contains any definition of a “semiautomatic assault weapon”, yet Massachusetts has chosen to adopt a now repealed definition as State law. Had these firearms not been made exempt the Federal Government at that time, it would have been viewed as instituting an unconstitutional confiscation program of these so-called “Assault Weapons” and it would have been rejected by the public. Now, 10 years later, the authors of this bill are attempting to do exactly that.
The law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of Massachusetts are often told – trust us – “This new law, will do more to reduce crime.” “This new law will further reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth.” Yet, time and time again, the noose gets tighten as we walk down that slippery slope toward a total firearms ban/confiscation (unsuccessful in 1976) and yet we are constantly told there is no “slippery slope”. Meanwhile, no evidence is ever presented that the previous “new law” reduced crime here in the Commonwealth when – in fact – there is mounting evidence that indeed the opposite holds true.
The effect of this law as it was written in 1998 singularly created a market for firearms and large capacity feeding devices that were lawfully possessed prior to September 13, 1994. This caused the value of these firearms to increase significantly and (for those able to afford them) pay heavily to acquire them, whether that be for investment purposes in the newly legislated market or for all lawful purposes as defined under M.G.L. In some cases these individual firearms are now worth in excess of $15,000.00.
H.2290 would destroy this same market by making it impossible for anyone to sell these firearms to anyone other than a local club. Worse this bill attempts to include “(ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action;” which would effectively mean a long-gun ban, no matter the ammunition capacity, as every single long-gun manufactured in the world is operated by one of these methods. This would include the very popular Ruger 10-22 .22 caliber rifle that holds 10 rounds of ammunition.
We are sure that the supporters of this bill will raise the December 12, 2006 incident at the New Bedford, Foxy Lady strip club involving Scott Medeiros. From the various Associated Press articles that we’ve read he was in legal possession of a firearm, but it is unknown to us whether that firearm was a “Pre-Ban” or “Post-Ban” firearm or whether or not he was in possession of or used large capacity magazines during that assault killing three. Repeated phone calls to the Bristol County District Attorney’s office to provide the exact make, model, feeding capacity and ammunition type used have gone unanswered – yet you being asked to believe their testimony without any real evidence being presented. In fact, when speaking to the DA’s Director of Communications Gregg Miliote asking the DA to provide such details he said quote “It was probably some kind of machine gun.”, which would most likely be entirely inaccurate fear mongering by the DA’s office.
H.2290 also attempts to, unconstitutionally, redefine a Class A LTC after such licensees have been operating under such law for over 10 years by stripping away the right to possess “assault weapons” which may have been owned or possessed prior to the September 13, 1994 date for any lawful purpose including hunting. Clearly, Section 131 of Chapter 140 which already states that “No large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device shall be removed from the premises except for the purposes of:” was ignored by Scott C. Medeiros. What makes New Bedford Police Chief Ronald E. Teachman, Bristol County DA C. Samuel Sutter, New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang believe that changing the existing law would have stopped Mr. Medeiros from committing this crime as it already made illegal his actions?
H.2290 is a discriminatory law aimed solely at the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of Massachusetts as it can only affect those who obey the law. As such, it is clear, that this bill will have no affect on the criminal misuse of any firearm under M.G.L or “Further Reduce Gun Violence in the Commonwealth” because by definition the law-abiding do not commit these crimes.
In the Scott Medeiros case, the legislature must realize that the world is not a safe place no matter how hard we try to protect the public under the law. Personal safety is and always has been proven to be – an individual responsibility. (1, 2)
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable vote to prevent bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and Senate. A vote against this legislation is simply a vote of confidence in the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of the Commonwealth who have already gone through a lengthy, costly and burdensome licensing process to prove their unparalleled character.
Respectfully submitted,
1 Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
2 Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''
Emailed to Senatory Timilty
Dear Senator Timilty:
Recently the Gun Owners Action League contacted the entire State legislature regarding drastic increases in crime that followed the Gun Control Act of 1998. Of significant interest was a reported 78% increase in firearms related assaults that followed the enactment. There are many other examples of the Act's failures provided in GOAL's letter and I urge you to read it carefully.
Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in DC versus Heller which, as you know, will most certainly address the issue of the 2nd amendment being an individual vs. collective right, and what may constitute reasonable restrictions on this right. It is my opinion that the Gun Control Act of 1998 is an unreasonable infringement on the constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens. It is also my opinion that the Gun Control Act cannot even be considered reasonable because it is an abject failure and cannot even be supported by any quantifiable evidence.
GOAL has sponsored many bills and has provided the legislature with good information that will allow you to take positive action and would put Massachusetts in the same category of at least 40 other states that have passed pro 2nd amendment legislation and respect the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Voters such as myself are waiting for the decision of the US Supreme Court and are anticipating action that is positive to our position. I am urging you to continue to take positive action on GOAL's proposals. I am urging you to to take the Act Relative to Fair Licensing out of study and bring it to the forefront, since the current laws will be indefensible in the event of a pro-individual rights decision.
Dear Senator Timilty:
Recently the Gun Owners Action League contacted the entire State legislature regarding drastic increases in crime that followed the Gun Control Act of 1998. Of significant interest was a reported 78% increase in firearms related assaults that followed the enactment. There are many other examples of the Act's failures provided in GOAL's letter and I urge you to read it carefully.
Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in DC versus Heller which, as you know, will most certainly address the issue of the 2nd amendment being an individual vs. collective right, and what may constitute reasonable restrictions on this right. It is my opinion that the Gun Control Act of 1998 is an unreasonable infringement on the constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens. It is also my opinion that the Gun Control Act cannot even be considered reasonable because it is an abject failure and cannot even be supported by any quantifiable evidence.
GOAL has sponsored many bills and has provided the legislature with good information that will allow you to take positive action and would put Massachusetts in the same category of at least 40 other states that have passed pro 2nd amendment legislation and respect the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Voters such as myself are waiting for the decision of the US Supreme Court and are anticipating action that is positive to our position. I am urging you to continue to take positive action on GOAL's proposals. I am urging you to to take the Act Relative to Fair Licensing out of study and bring it to the forefront, since the current laws will be indefensible in the event of a pro-individual rights decision.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 99
- Likes
- 5
June 3, 2008
State House
ATTN: State Senator Susan C. Tucker
Room 424
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Dear State Senator Susan C. Tucker:
I am writing you regarding S.1401 "An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During the State of Emergency". I ask you to release S.1401 with a favorable report.
During Hurricane Katrina, thousands of legally owned firearms were illegally taken from citizens by government officials. During this period of lawlessness, many police officers who had been sworn to protect and serve the citizens of the city of New Orleans walked off the job. Many who stayed on the job actually began engaging in illegal activity such as burglary and shoplifting. With a decimated police force, stranded citizens were forced to protect themselves. Many of these citizens now relied on their own lawfully owned firearms for their safety.
Sadly, many of these law abiding citizens were held at gunpoint by police who confiscated their arms; many times refusing to give receipts and leaving no record of the event other than the word of the owner. Many of these firearms that had substantial value were taken by police for their own private gain; others were dumped into the rivers. This was a gross violation of the 2nd and 4th amendments of the Constitution.
My Bill of Rights is not negotiable, not one single part, not ever. I feel that S.1401 will help protect the life and liberty of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and also guide law enforcement to act professionally with in the standards of the law.
Please consider S.1401 "An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During the State of Emergency" for favorable review. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
SineMetu82
____________________________________________________________
June 19 2008
Dear SineMetu82,
Thank you for contacting me regarding S.1401, An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency.
I believe that any effort to keep weapons out of the wrong hands should take into account the legitimate interests of hunters, recreational target shooters, and individuals who use arms for authorized security purposes. It is essential to strike an appropriate balance between enforcement of our criminal laws and the rights of law-abiding citizens. This bill, which is currently before the Senate Commitee on Ways and Means, will have my full consideration when it reaches the Senate floor.
It is important for me to hear from those I represent. Please continue to contact me regarding matters of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Sue Tucker
State Senator
_____________________________________________________________
1st time any of them ever wrote me back. Not bad, but I think I need to write her again and tell her that my interests are not what she needs to consider, but my RIGHTS are something she should consider.
State House
ATTN: State Senator Susan C. Tucker
Room 424
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Dear State Senator Susan C. Tucker:
I am writing you regarding S.1401 "An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During the State of Emergency". I ask you to release S.1401 with a favorable report.
During Hurricane Katrina, thousands of legally owned firearms were illegally taken from citizens by government officials. During this period of lawlessness, many police officers who had been sworn to protect and serve the citizens of the city of New Orleans walked off the job. Many who stayed on the job actually began engaging in illegal activity such as burglary and shoplifting. With a decimated police force, stranded citizens were forced to protect themselves. Many of these citizens now relied on their own lawfully owned firearms for their safety.
Sadly, many of these law abiding citizens were held at gunpoint by police who confiscated their arms; many times refusing to give receipts and leaving no record of the event other than the word of the owner. Many of these firearms that had substantial value were taken by police for their own private gain; others were dumped into the rivers. This was a gross violation of the 2nd and 4th amendments of the Constitution.
My Bill of Rights is not negotiable, not one single part, not ever. I feel that S.1401 will help protect the life and liberty of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and also guide law enforcement to act professionally with in the standards of the law.
Please consider S.1401 "An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During the State of Emergency" for favorable review. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
SineMetu82
____________________________________________________________
June 19 2008
Dear SineMetu82,
Thank you for contacting me regarding S.1401, An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency.
I believe that any effort to keep weapons out of the wrong hands should take into account the legitimate interests of hunters, recreational target shooters, and individuals who use arms for authorized security purposes. It is essential to strike an appropriate balance between enforcement of our criminal laws and the rights of law-abiding citizens. This bill, which is currently before the Senate Commitee on Ways and Means, will have my full consideration when it reaches the Senate floor.
It is important for me to hear from those I represent. Please continue to contact me regarding matters of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Sue Tucker
State Senator
_____________________________________________________________
1st time any of them ever wrote me back. Not bad, but I think I need to write her again and tell her that my interests are not what she needs to consider, but my RIGHTS are something she should consider.
