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

I have a compromise amendment that should cover the issue :

"Immediately after the passage of this bill, it shall be illegal for anyone in possession of any "bump-fire" stock, trigger crank, or any other such device, or making such modification to a firearm, pistol, or shotgun intended primarily to increase the rate of fire of a firearm, pistol, or shotgun to use any firearm thus modified or with such a device attached to commit murder within the borders of the Commonwealth. Violations are punishable by imprisonment from 5 years to life."
 
The more I find out about this, the more I just shake my head.

This mess came out of an “informal” session. Anyone on the floor could have shut this down by being recognized and saying 7 words “I doubt the presence of a quorum.” That would have ended the session. BTW, votes in a non-quorum are unconstitutional.

An "informal" session - they don't record the names of the members present. Everyone knows, of course, that there's not a legal quorum, but they pretend that there is because no one formally calls for a count of the members present. If a member wants to stop things, he just stands and says "I doubt the presence of a quorum" and the meeting ends (until the next day). And then you do the same thing the next day.

"Informal” sessions are ways that the Legislature slithers bills through that normally would draw scrutiny if the entire body had to deal with them, but which the leadership wants to get passed. They push bills through that got stopped in committee earlier in the year because of opposition at the time.

Remember this when it comes time to vote - there were 3 GOAL endorsed members standing in the room. Brad Hill – 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Essex, Donald Wong – 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Essex, Brad Jones – 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Middlesex. These guys needed to man up and do their duty. Are they with us or NOT?

The two branches are literally competing to see who can beat the other to the punch of banning bump-stocks… and like the 3 reps above, why do they care about what crap gets tacked to it. Just the way Mr. Linsky likes it - rights stomping time.

The people to contact are those in committee, rewriting the language and determining a recommendation to support or not.

Contact these 2 GOAL endorsed representatives:
Todd Smola – 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Hampden
Vinny DeMacedo – Plymouth, Barnstable
Give them your concerns and always remind them that you vote.

Does this at all feel familiar? A couple years back when Richard Ross voted present, and basically allowed a version of the 2014 pile of foolishness out of committee. You all remember that one. When a REALLY BAD bill got watered down, more liberty lost, and the further diminishing of our rights some still call a compromise. Rinse, repeat.
 
The more I find out about this, the more I just shake my head.

This mess came out of an “informal” session. Anyone on the floor could have shut this down by being recognized and saying 7 words “I doubt the presence of a quorum.” That would have ended the session. BTW, votes in a non-quorum are unconstitutional.

An "informal" session - they don't record the names of the members present. Everyone knows, of course, that there's not a legal quorum, but they pretend that there is because no one formally calls for a count of the members present. If a member wants to stop things, he just stands and says "I doubt the presence of a quorum" and the meeting ends (until the next day). And then you do the same thing the next day.

"Informal” sessions are ways that the Legislature slithers bills through that normally would draw scrutiny if the entire body had to deal with them, but which the leadership wants to get passed. They push bills through that got stopped in committee earlier in the year because of opposition at the time.

Remember this when it comes time to vote - there were 3 GOAL endorsed members standing in the room. Brad Hill – 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Essex, Donald Wong – 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Essex, Brad Jones – 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Middlesex. These guys needed to man up and do their duty. Are they with us or NOT?

The two branches are literally competing to see who can beat the other to the punch of banning bump-stocks… and like the 3 reps above, why do they care about what crap gets tacked to it. Just the way Mr. Linsky likes it - rights stomping time.

The people to contact are those in committee, rewriting the language and determining a recommendation to support or not.

Contact these 2 GOAL endorsed representatives:
Todd Smola – 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Hampden
Vinny DeMacedo – Plymouth, Barnstable
Give them your concerns and always remind them that you vote.

Does this at all feel familiar? A couple years back when Richard Ross voted present, and basically allowed a version of the 2014 pile of foolishness out of committee. You all remember that one. When a REALLY BAD bill got watered down, more liberty lost, and the further diminishing of our rights some still call a compromise. Rinse, repeat.
Similar tricks are how the Hughes amendment got passed. Anyone else ever wonder why these tricks never lead to good things?
 
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.

Baloney! DeLeo will take DeLight in sticking it to gun owners whenever he can.
 
The more I find out about this, the more I just shake my head.

This mess came out of an “informal” session. Anyone on the floor could have shut this down by being recognized and saying 7 words “I doubt the presence of a quorum.” That would have ended the session. BTW, votes in a non-quorum are unconstitutional.

An "informal" session - they don't record the names of the members present. Everyone knows, of course, that there's not a legal quorum, but they pretend that there is because no one formally calls for a count of the members present. If a member wants to stop things, he just stands and says "I doubt the presence of a quorum" and the meeting ends (until the next day). And then you do the same thing the next day.

"Informal” sessions are ways that the Legislature slithers bills through that normally would draw scrutiny if the entire body had to deal with them, but which the leadership wants to get passed. They push bills through that got stopped in committee earlier in the year because of opposition at the time.

Remember this when it comes time to vote - there were 3 GOAL endorsed members standing in the room. Brad Hill – 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Essex, Donald Wong – 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Essex, Brad Jones – 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Middlesex. These guys needed to man up and do their duty. Are they with us or NOT?

The two branches are literally competing to see who can beat the other to the punch of banning bump-stocks… and like the 3 reps above, why do they care about what crap gets tacked to it. Just the way Mr. Linsky likes it - rights stomping time.

The people to contact are those in committee, rewriting the language and determining a recommendation to support or not.

Contact these 2 GOAL endorsed representatives:
Todd Smola – 1[SUP]st[/SUP] Hampden
Vinny DeMacedo – Plymouth, Barnstable
Give them your concerns and always remind them that you vote.

Does this at all feel familiar? A couple years back when Richard Ross voted present, and basically allowed a version of the 2014 pile of foolishness out of committee. You all remember that one. When a REALLY BAD bill got watered down, more liberty lost, and the further diminishing of our rights some still call a compromise. Rinse, repeat.

Any Republican complicit in this crap needs to be gone.
If this passes with Linsky's B.S. in it, any of them who either could have stopped it but didn't or vote for it need to go.
 
The Goal endorsed representatives only want the voters when it's election time.
They are not going to put their necks out and speak against anything that would put their political career in any negative light.
Thinking a politician is going to stand up for something that is seen in a negative light is like wishing upon a star!

We are going to lose our rights to own firearms. It is just a matter of when and who is going to take them!

Those that won't follow the laws will have them and those that do will lose them!
 
From GOAL

10/30/17 Monday Update: The Conference Committee is expected to take up the budget bill today. They will decide which version of the bump stock language will be on the final version. Please call each member of the committee today and urge them to dump the “Linsky language” on the house version as it will create a legal quagmire for licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.

Contact info:

Budget Conference Committee

House:

Representative Jeffrey Sánchez, 617-722-2990 Chair House Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 243
Representative Stephen Kulik, 617-722-2380 Vice Chair House Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 238
Representative Todd Smola, 617-722-2100 Ranking Minority House Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 124
Senate:

Senator Karen Spilka, 617-722-1640 Chair Senate Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 212
Senator Sal N. DiDomenico, 617-722-1650 Vice Chair Senate Way & Means Committee – State House Room 208
Senator Vinny deMacedo, 617-722-1330 Ranking Minority Senate Ways & Means Committee – State House Room 313C
 
Call again today and flood the phones. I just called and it's clear they're not getting enough pushback on this last minute crap.

Review the goal link above for the Linskey text and call the committee member numbers posted above.

Arnold says "Do it now!"
 
From my moonbat:

Thank you for reaching out. I appreciate you taking the time to email me regarding the House’s proposal to ban bump stocks. The House adopted its language two weeks ago, and when the Senate took up the proposal, it adopted its own version. As such, this will be going to a legislative Conference Committee to iron out a compromise version. Again, I appreciate your feedback and will certainly keep your concerns in mind. Thanks.

Sincerely,
RoseLee Vincent
 
Called. Sounds like the calls inbound in favor of this are outnumbering our calls against, at least according to the person answering the office phone.
 
From my moonbat:

Thank you for reaching out. I appreciate you taking the time to email me regarding the House’s proposal to ban bump stocks. The House adopted its language two weeks ago, and when the Senate took up the proposal, it adopted its own version. As such, this will be going to a legislative Conference Committee to iron out a compromise version. Again, I appreciate your feedback and will certainly keep your concerns in mind. Thanks.

Sincerely,
RoseLee Vincent

Call the committee members
 
Last edited:
I bet a lot of from out of state calls to the State House in favor of the Linsky language are being made.
 
I bet a lot of from out of state calls to the State House in favor of the Linsky language are being made.

[bs2]

all they'd have to do is have the 5k people who registered and voted for Hillary the day of the election in NH call in. A$$HOLE$. [sad2]

My rep (Dykema) called again, Eldridge called, but he gives zero craps about anyone who doesn't tow the prog line
 
I bet a lot of from out of state calls to the State House in favor of the Linsky language are being made.

Based on the astroturf against surpressor legalization and the bud loads of shirt wearing gray haired biddies from CT at the 2014 hearings YEP!
 
Called. Sounds like the calls inbound in favor of this are outnumbering our calls against, at least according to the person answering the office phone.

I don't get it, I don't think moonbats even know about it, never mind can tell which language is better for them. Unreal.
 
Called. Got 1/2 voicemails and 1/2 live people. The first number I called (Rep Sanchez), the lady who answered knew exactly what I was calling about and made the assumption (correct of course) that I was against the Linsky language. She said all of the house committee members would be getting a copy of her report on how many callers were were for and against the language, but I still called all three house members, and all three senate members.
 
I don't get it, I don't think moonbats even know about it, never mind can tell which language is better for them. Unreal.

I agreed with your statement, seemed like this was flying under the radar. So i went searching, found this and a few others.

from the glob:
BOSTON (AP) — Lawmakers on Beacon Hill face a deadline to approve a spending bill that could also make Massachusetts the first state to ban “bump stocks” since a deadly shooting in Las Vegas.
The $82 million deficiency budget is needed by Tuesday so the state comptroller can close the books on the 2017 fiscal year, which ended on June 30.
A House-Senate conference committee was appointed on Friday to resolve differences between the chambers.
Attached to both the House and Senate versions are proposals to ban bump stocks, a device that investigators say was used by the gunman who killed 58 people at a music festival.
The House bill would outlaw any device intended to increase the rate of discharge by a firearm. The narrower Senate measure applies specifically to bump stocks and trigger cranks.

Perhaps there are more ambitions moonbats than i thought.
 
Called and emailed the six committee members and my rep and senator. Some live people, mostly voicemails.
 
Hey “ investigators say” .... that good enough for the knee jerks..

lets force our unconstitutional political dictate through...

its not not like investigators have changed their story 6 times or something, it’s concrete.
 
Back
Top Bottom