Mass Update! Tasers, Suppressors, Repealing Assault Weapons Ban and More

Last edited:
We need to keep this at the top until after it happens, keep awareness at the highest level possible

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
hollowman said:
Anyone no the outcome

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I believe these are just public hearings, not votes. I don't really think anything happens except people have their say about the bills, but I could be totally wrong. I don't know when the votes are.

Neither of these bills actually gets Rid of the AWB either, which would be the obvious best choice.
 
 
UPDATE on today's hearing

hollowman said:
Anyone no the outcome

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I just got done speaking with my state rep. Today's testimony will be "taken under advisement". Next the committee chair will call an executive session where a vote will happen on the bill' dispositions. Ought to pass, ought not to pass, or further study...

I will have more info on the channel once it happens... www.youtube.com/jyanis

- - - Updated - - -

northframingham said:
Hope this is not a dupe.

Click to expand...


Thank you for posting my video here!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jyanis said:
I just got done speaking with my state rep. Today's testimony will be "taken under advisement". Next the committee chair will call an executive session where a vote will happen on the bill' dispositions. Ought to pass, ought not to pass, or further study...

I will have more info on the channel once it happens... www.youtube.com/jyanis

- - - Updated - - -



Thank you for posting my video here!!!
Click to expand...


how long does that usually take for the chair to call a session ? I also e-mailed the entire list
 
jyanis said:
Redundant...absolutely but VERY DANGEROUS if Extreme Risk Protection Orders make it through here in MA!!! These bill have been filed in 20 states and is financially backed my Bloomberg.
Click to expand...

A verison of it passed in OR IIRC.

The way H.3081 is written its to much minority report and taking people rights away without due process which is dangerous and not the road we should be going down. M.G.L. Chapter 123, Sections 12 (a) and 12 (b) can accomplish what they are seeking but they are to ignorant and just want to go after guns because guns.

 
TheTrueQuaid said:
A verison of it passed in OR IIRC.

The way H.3081 is written its to much minority report and taking people rights away without due process which is dangerous and not the road we should be going down. M.G.L. Chapter 123, Sections 12 (a) and 12 (b) can accomplish what they are seeking but they are to ignorant and just want to go after guns because guns.

Click to expand...

Anytime you can lose a civil right without due process, it HAS to be stopped!!!!
 
My conversation with Brownsberger...

[FONT=&quot]I respect that your heart is in the correct place. However, this appears to be a simple infringement on rights, purely due to firearms. So I ask, if the Government has the authority to forcibly take personal property (in this case, specifically firearms) from suicidal people, where does it end? Do you take the car away because the person may hook a hose to the tailpipe (like that poor boy was encouraged to do)? Do you remove all the knives and razors from the home, as he or she may slice a wrist? Do you confiscate all sleeping pills and alcohol from the home? At that point, maybe the person should just be committed to an institution to protect themselves.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Also, the process is backward. You propose to remove the right, BEFORE due process. You perceive that the government has the right to confiscate personal property, simply because a person is perceived to be suicidal. The actual hearing where the accused, comes later (and given court schedules, likely at some point much later). It becomes the person's obligation to prove in court that he is fit to obtain his property, where it should be the government's responsibility to prove he is unfit. Clearly backwards procedure here.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Seriously.. Given Linksy's history against responsible firearm ownership, and the fact that this is such a shortsighted fix to an unfixable problem. A person who is intent on taking their own life, cannot be legislated out of doing it. It's not the government's responsibility to keep us safe from ourselves. Thus, I cannot respect your position on this issue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
From: State Senator Will Brownsberger <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:17 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Please Oppose H.3081


Sir, from a constitutional perspective, here are two things that should give you comfort:

  1. It's not just anyone who can ask for a protective order -- only people you are very close to (family, girlfriend), or health care provider or police.
  2. You can at any time go in for a hearing to have it removed.
Not a perfect solution, but there is so much suicide going on -- sadly, all too often among those who have served our country in the most honorable possible way.
Best regards,
Will Brownsberger
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)
Visit Will Brownsberger dot com for news.
Just let us know by reply email if you want your email address removed from our database.
[FONT=&quot]I respectfully disagree with you. The purpose of a restraining order does not require anyone to forfeit a constitutional right. Just make sure it's well thought out, such that it cannot be abused by overzealous authorities, unlike the majority of other legislation that comes down from the Hill.


XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX
North Attleboro, MA 02760






From: State Senator Will Brownsberger <[email protected]>
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: Please Oppose H.3081


Thanks for writing about gun violence restraining orders.
I am a cosponsor of this legislation.
I think it responds to a reasonable set of circumstances that may not be fully covered by existing restraining order law -- we do want to take weapons away from people who are suicidal.
There is strong precedent for this approach under our law -- it does not raise constitutional issues: We follow the same approach in domestic violence cases.
I listened recently to lengthy testimony on the bill -- both pro and con -- and my commitment to this legislation has been renewed and increased.
I appreciate hearing from you and I understand that you have a different view.
Best regards,
/w.
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)
Visit Will Brownsberger dot com for news.
Just let us know by reply email if you want your email address removed from our database.
Dear Senator William Brownsberger:
As a law-abiding Second Amendment supporter in Massachusetts, I urge you to please oppose H.3081.
H.3081 would create two new protective orders and would allow for these protective orders to infringe Second Amendment rights based on third party allegations and little, if any, real evidence. The issuance of an order would result in the immediate suspension and surrender of any license to carry firearms and firearms identification card which the respondent may hold. The respondent would also be required to surrender all firearms and ammunition.
Constitutional rights are generally restricted only upon conviction of a felony. The reasons for this are two-fold. It limits restrictions on constitutional rights to only the most serious offenses, and, perhaps more importantly, felony convictions provide greater procedural protections to the accused, which results in more reliable convictions. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should be restricted only upon conviction of a felony, like other constitutional rights.
Once again, as your constituent, I urge you to please oppose H.3081. Thank you.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX
XX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX
North Attleboro, MA 02760-4018










[/FONT]


[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
Notice he says he wants to 'take weapons away from the suicidal.' Not things they can use to hurt themselves. It's about taking weapons, by any excuse or means necessary.
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Washington bans assault weapons
Replies
5
Views
382
DJBrad
DJBrad
Assault-Weapons Bans Gain Momentum in Democratic-Controlled States
Replies
17
Views
533
Lucus
Lucus
"Assault Rifle" has been replaced with "Weapons of War" moniker.
2
Replies
38
Views
800
robjax
R
More "Ghost Guns" Seized In Mass Drug Bust
Replies
20
Views
667
dgrantdoherty
dgrantdoherty
Ban on selling assault weapons clears Washington state House
Replies
15
Views
628
BigGreen2000
B
Back
Top Bottom