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

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
226
Likes
33
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
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
2,148
Likes
192
Anyone no the outcome

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

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.
 

groundscrapers

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
3,568
Likes
992
Location
413
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
50
Likes
47
Location
Central Massachusetts
UPDATE on today's hearing

Anyone no the outcome

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

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 - - -

Hope this is not a dupe.



Thank you for posting my video here!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,179
Likes
500
Location
Under The Rocks
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!!!


how long does that usually take for the chair to call a session ? I also e-mailed the entire list
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
208
Likes
33
Location
MA
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.

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.




 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
50
Likes
47
Location
Central Massachusetts
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.





Anytime you can lose a civil right without due process, it HAS to be stopped!!!!
 

EMTDAD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
3,477
Likes
3,649
Location
North Attleboro, MA
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]
 

Varmint

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
20,159
Likes
12,948
Location
North Shore, MA
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.
 
Top Bottom