• 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.

Linsky's Amendment is back in play - Call your rep NOW!

Mass-diver said:
It's unreal how anti-gun he is, we all know he's a spineless RINO, but he's supports this stuff with literal glee.
Click to expand...

There are still people who don't want to believe he conspired with Healy on her shitshow.
And will vote for him again.
The F*cker need to lose and lose big and he and the Republican party in this state needs to know who and why.
No more rinos.
The same for any other rino who signs this pos bill.
We're getting to be like the battered wife who will never press charges .
 
Dadstoys said:
There are still people who don't want to believe he conspired with Healy on her shitshow.
And will vote for him again.
The F*cker need to lose and lose big and he and the Republican party in this state needs to know who and why.
No more rinos.
The same for any other rino who signs this pos bill.
We're getting to be like the battered wife who will never press charges .
Click to expand...

Amen
 
pastera said:
Called Pacheco's office - they were obviously getting a lot of calls so they shepherded me off the phone real quick
Left a message on O'Connell's phone saying I was very unhappy about her voting for the ban - she called me back very quickly and we spoke for a while
She stated that we should contact the committee members - I let her know that I would but expected her to also speak to them directly which would be much more effective
She also gave the line that one would need "intent" in order to be convicted - I replied that in Mass intent would be implied and that adding a target trigger would be seen as intent so how does that work for her daughters that are on the rifle team (they would have target triggers...)

I don't think she is really interested in pushing for or against this given the political climate but I would hope she would at least advocate for the Senate version
Click to expand...


I was disappointed with her response to my email as well. Similar tone.
 
Dadstoys said:
There are still people who don't want to believe he conspired with Healy on her shitshow.
And will vote for him again.
The F*cker need to lose and lose big and he and the Republican party in this state needs to know who and why.
No more rinos.
The same for any other rino who signs this pos bill.
We're getting to be like the battered wife who will never press charges .
Click to expand...

^ this, I will campaign against Faker. Rs of this state need to find an honest person. S/he may loose, but for the right reasons.

my reps are moon of moonbats, but still worth it.
 
dennism said:
I was disappointed with her response to my email as well. Similar tone.
Click to expand...

They are not "getting it". We need a more clear message to them, and everyone else, on WHY THIS IS BAD. Yes, we do get it, but we are not convincing anyone. That is where the breakdown is happening. We have ZERO social media presence, no uniform, consistent message that convinces people. Sure, we are right, and proven more right time after time; but people are lazy and don't want to engage unless it directly affects them. I'm not sure how to overcome that, but that is the task.

To date, the best way has been to convert more people into gun owners, so we have a larger audience on our side. Take someone to the range, like a friend, neighbor, coworker. I need to bring some of my kids' friends' parents to the range, and also want to invite a neighbor. Also need to involve the kids. Help out at a Women on Target or other program which helps new shooters. Be active in your local club. Get online (Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, email) and let people know in small doses and sound bites just how ridiculous these new laws and many of the old laws actually are.

Most of all, don't give up.
 
When this latest BS is past ("past", and hopefully not "passed"), how about we all kick in WHATEVER $$ we can and support anyone - literally anyone - who will run against and defeat this lunatic leftwing scumball Linsky.
I'd vote for a Dianne Wilkerson or Tom Finneran clone before I'd vote this f*cker back into office. Additionally, where's the "dirt" on this dirtball? He's a MA politician. There must be SOMETHING in his past that can be used against the maggot.
But focus on his latest nonsense first...and then find his mistress or gay lover or tranny hooker or...(actually, better find some other dirt...issues like those would probably make his poll numbers go UP, here in the CommonPuke of LiberChusetts).

Just sayin'

(MEANWHILE, CALL, EMAIL, TEXT AND VISIT YOUR REPS!!!)
 
GlockJock said:
When this latest BS is past ("past", and hopefully not "passed"), how about we all kick in WHATEVER $$ we can and support anyone - literally anyone - who will run against and defeat this lunatic leftwing scumball Linsky.
I'd vote for a Dianne Wilkerson or Tom Finneran clone before I'd vote this f*cker back into office. Additionally, where's the "dirt" on this dirtball? He's a MA politician. There must be SOMETHING in his past that can be used against the maggot.
But focus on his latest nonsense first...and then find his mistress or gay lover or tranny hooker or...(actually, better find some other dirt...issues like those would probably make his poll numbers go UP, here in the CommonPuke of LiberChusetts).

Just sayin'

(MEANWHILE, CALL, EMAIL, TEXT AND VISIT YOUR REPS!!!)
Click to expand...

Wondering if he has had a Weinstein moment in his past....There always a Monica in every politicians past. [rolleyes]
 
pastera said:
Called Pacheco's office - they were obviously getting a lot of calls so they shepherded me off the phone real quick
Left a message on O'Connell's phone saying I was very unhappy about her voting for the ban - she called me back very quickly and we spoke for a while
She stated that we should contact the committee members - I let her know that I would but expected her to also speak to them directly which would be much more effective
She also gave the line that one would need "intent" in order to be convicted - I replied that in Mass intent would be implied and that adding a target trigger would be seen as intent so how does that work for her daughters that are on the rifle team (they would have target triggers...)

I don't think she is really interested in pushing for or against this given the political climate but I would hope she would at least advocate for the Senate version
Click to expand...

OK Shauna... My "intent" is to say you're just as fake, phoney, duplicitous ("Well, yeah, I voted for the ban but, um, um, er, um..") and (likely) just as corrupt as literally every other snake slithering under the Golden Dome now appears to be.

Is that "Intent" enough for Blondie?
 
Don't forget to object to the process of this bill. They are pulling this crap More and moreto jam stuff through. I hammered my Senators and Representative on this has well.

The amendment came out of nowhere and gets rushed through the house and senate. Then they have the balls to have an open forum for public opinion. This is the same type of crap that the AG used by doing it at the end of the legislative session to eliminate resistance.

Bob
 
HorizontalHunter said:
Don't forget to object to the process of this bill. They are pulling this crap More and moreto jam stuff through. I hammered my Senators and Representative on this has well.

The amendment came out of nowhere and gets rushed through the house and senate. Then they have the balls to have an open forum for public opinion. This is the same type of crap that the AG used by doing it at the end of the legislative session to eliminate resistance.

Bob
Click to expand...

... and out of the other side of their mouth, when we present them a well thought out bill, and put it on the plate 6 months in advance, they claim there "isn't enough time" to do it. Can't have it both ways.
 
So what/where is this pos legislation at this point??

I see this posted on non-mass site
Status: (Engrossed) 2017-10-27 - Committee of conference appointed (Spilka-DiDomenico-deMacedo), in concurrence [H3979 Detail]
Click to expand...

What's the actual text now and what committee has it now to complain?

Shouldn't the message be No such amendments? What is the reasoning for recommending Tarr language? What gets banned next and burdens citizenry next if they can jam shit thru on appropriations bills last minute with no real public debate.
 
Is anyone planning to go in person? Would it help or hurt? I work close and could stop in, if that won't hurt GOAL's efforts on site.
 
VTski4x4 said:
Anyone know what happened?
Click to expand...
Hardwired said:
So what/where is this pos legislation at this point??

I see this posted on non-mass site


What's the actual text now and what committee has it now to complain?

Shouldn't the message be No such amendments? What is the reasoning for recommending Tarr language? What gets banned next and burdens citizenry next if they can jam shit thru on appropriations bills last minute with no real public debate.
Click to expand...

The house and senate bills are in the hands of the committee listed below. The committee is supposed to resolve the differences and produce a single bill that the House and Senate then vote on. I see 4 options:
  1. Committee picks the Linsky language. Third least likely given the Senate rejected it, but I think the Senate committee members might be more likely to cave than the House members [puke][puke][puke]
  2. Committee picks the Tarr language. Second least likely given the House rejected it and went back to the Linsky language. [puke]
  3. Committee makes up their own compromise language. Most likely. I bet they replace Linsky's definition with Tarr definitions of bump stock and trigger crank, keep it as a ban and call it done [puke][puke]
  4. Committee cannot agree and both amendments get dropped. Best case for us, but least likely given the near unanimous push to "do something"

Noreaster78 said:
Stole this from GOALs facebook post:

The committee members are:
Budget Conference Committee
House:
Representative Jeffrey Sánchez, Chair House Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 243 – phone: 617-722-2990
Representative Stephen Kulik, Vice Chair House Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 238 – phone: 617-722-2380
Representative Todd Smola, Ranking Minority House Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 124 – phone: 617-722-2100
Senate:
Senator Karen Spilka, Chair Senate Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 212 – phone: 617-722-1640
Senator Sal N. DiDomenico, Vice Chair Senate Way & Means Committee – State House Room 208 – phone: 617-722-1650
Senator Vinny deMacedo, Ranking Minority Senate Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 313C – phone: 617-722-1330
Click to expand...
 
If your Rep is Linsky, call his office in opposition. I know you think it is pointless but hear me out on this.

When we were fighting some lousy proposed restrictions in Westford a few years ago, we intentionally DID NOT call the the selectman (Jeffries) who had proposed the restrictions. After I spoke with another selectman and found out that Jeffries had no idea what they were dealing with and that there was so much opposition, we started calling Jeffries. Eventually he folded. Remember, people like Linsky surround themselves with an echo chamber. Pro gun people sometimes figure it's not worth the phone call as Linsky has made up his mind. But Linsky is just like any other politician - give him enough push back and he will start to wonder if he will be able to win re-election. By NOT flooding his phones, he feels that he IS in the right.

SO I would suggest EVERYONE call Linsky's office.

Trust me, these guys know that you don't have to be in their district to affect the outcome of their next election.
 
Ever sit back and wonder when the legislature turned into the judicial system? Responsible MA gun owners have been tried and found guilty of a crime committed by a psycho on the other side of the country. Our sentance is confiscation of property without due process which might as well be a fine, a threat of jail time of we do not comply (up to 20 years) and of course then we have "suitability" that looms overhead. This isn't politicing a law, a law looks forward and changes the current. No, this is a sentencing hearing after a trial that only one person attended after the verdict had been made.
 
Just wondering out loud if there would be any legal issues for setting up a Gofundme and offering a reward for any information on Linsky that might result in him either resigning or in jail ?
I mean shit, they guy went out of his way to try and decriminalize molesting pets and farm animals , I bet his personal life is a pip.
 
Dadstoys said:
Just wondering out loud if there would be any legal issues for setting up a Gofundme and offering a reward for any information on Linsky that might result in him either resigning or in jail?.
Click to expand...

If the president can't pay foreign operatives for dirt I don't think it's legal for you to either, but then again, if Hillary can do it maybe it's ok. I dunno, I'm so confused.
 
Drix said:
Ever sit back and wonder when the legislature turned into the judicial system? Responsible MA gun owners have been tried and found guilty of a crime committed by a psycho on the other side of the country. Our sentance is confiscation of property without due process which might as well be a fine, a threat of jail time of we do not comply (up to 20 years) and of course then we have "suitability" that looms overhead. This isn't politicing a law, a law looks forward and changes the current. No, this is a sentencing hearing after a trial that only one person attended after the verdict had been made.
Click to expand...

That's 100% correct. Each time there is a shooting or some kind of related event, they want to take the guns away from all the people that didn't do it.
 
kevin9 said:
  1. Committee cannot agree and both amendments get dropped. Best case for us, but least likely given the near unanimous push to "do something"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this scenario would be good for us.

If this amendment gets dropped, Linsky (or Creem or Chang-Diaz) would immediately file a much more "comprehensive" gun bill where bump fire stocks are just the tip of the iceberg. House and Senate leadership would fast-track it because "Trump isn't going to do anything about bump fire stocks" and to show that Massachusetts is a leader in gun control legislation. If the amendment stays in, DeLeo won't have an overarching reason to let another gun bill hit the floor.
 
EddieCoyle said:
I'm not sure that this scenario would be good for us.

If this amendment gets dropped, Linsky (or Creem or Chang-Diaz) would immediately file a much more "comprehensive" gun bill where bump fire stocks are just the tip of the iceberg. House and Senate leadership would fast-track it because "Trump isn't going to do anything about bump fire stocks" and to show that Massachusetts is a leader in gun control legislation. If the amendment stays in, DeLeo won't have an overarching reason to let another gun bill hit the floor.
Click to expand...

Fair point too. We'll just have to see what the monkeys at the circus do.
 

Similar threads

Propaganda. This trans person is insanely pro-second amendment.
Replies
8
Views
379
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Missouri law being passed: If you home school, your home is now considered a school and you can't own guns
Replies
17
Views
609
Nhusa
N
The First Amendment Is Getting In The Way Of Government Removing Posts It Doesn't Agree With
Replies
20
Views
397
Uzi2
U
Now Dr Asking..
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Broc
Broc
Going back to carrying p320x
Replies
8
Views
254
IPSC_DRL
IPSC_DRL
Back
Top Bottom