I'm setting up a meeting with Spilka and she wants to do it with another concerned constituent there. I don't like this, I have no idea who they are or what their position is. On the other hand, if I could find out who they are and we could coordinate our discussion it could work. Are you this person?
-
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.
Meeting with Spilka 9/16 is this you
- Thread starter 42!
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,477
- Likes
- 33,465
I am in her district. I could be that person but, if not, I could help with preparation. There are certain points that need to be properly presented to address her stated conclusion that the AG's decision is "consistent with legislative intent".
I know she's already seen one of my EBRs in person when she was reaching out to gun clubs (pre-Healy) to learn about guns and the people who shoot them.
I know she's already seen one of my EBRs in person when she was reaching out to gun clubs (pre-Healy) to learn about guns and the people who shoot them.
Last edited:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. She already has this unknown person scheduled. I'm trying to find out who they are and figured they might be on NES.
But if I'm forced into this shared meeting, bringing another person might be a good idea. The mystery person could be an anti and I wouldn't want to be outnumbered.
I've asked for a one on one meeting, I'll let you know how that goes.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,477
- Likes
- 33,465
The problem with the "meeting two people" without knowing the other person is that you cannot coordinate your message, or work with each other to make sure nobody says something stupid.
EJFudd
NES Member
Yep. She is as against the rights of gun owners as it gets... and completely in step with anti-2A Dem leadership.Good luck
She is as anti as they come. Here is an excerpt of the reply from the Senator in response to my inquiry about supporting the Tarr bill:
The "two concerned constituents at a time" thing, both unknown to each other, sounds awfully weird and suspicious to me.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
I've rescheduled for 9/12 without the mysterious other person. It's also at the State House, not her local District "office" (a.k.a. local restaurant). The email also made a reference to my meeting with one of her aids (GOAL lobby day), so apparently that wasn't a waste of time... not that I think it will change her mind, but I'm going to try.
amm5061
NES Member
Mike S
NES Member
Don't discuss guns, at all.
Discuss the big picture, that Healey went beyond the limits of her office and destroyed due process. Ask her how she would feel about this if a conservative AG in a conservative state used the same method to deny LGBT rights (or pick another "progressive" touchy feely action)
Ask her which statute recognizes that she has the power to do what she did, remind her that the AG answers to the legislature, not the other way around.
amm5061
NES Member
I like Jim, and he's a personable guy, but with Spilka that would probably send the wrong message.
EJFudd
NES Member
You forget that the ends always justify the means when it comes to anti-2A gun-grabbing Dems. They are applauding her "ingenuity and craftiness" in getting around that pesky, slow law-making process... not dissing it.
You forget that the ends always justify the means when it comes to anti-2A gun-grabbing Dems. They are applauding her "ingenuity and craftiness" in getting around that pesky, slow law-making process... not dissing it.
May consider then asking this question head on - do you believe that the end always justifies the means. I doubt anyone will say "yes of course" - they will start huffing and puffing which gets them on the defensive.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,477
- Likes
- 33,465
Yup, and they are trying to craft the current action as "honoring legislative intent" when the legislation was, in fact, a carefully crafted deal with give and take on both sides. Well, maybe no "give" from the other side but limited "take". This is exactly why GOAL endorsed a law that actually contained a magazine ban.
You forget that the ends always justify the means when it comes to anti-2A gun-grabbing Dems. They are applauding her "ingenuity and craftiness" in getting around that pesky, slow law-making process... not dissing it.
I believe this is absolutely correct. Virtually all of the people supporting Healey know that they cannot get past the legislative process or the will of the people, so they go the statist route.
Ask Karen this: Given that you did not see fit to outlaw these firearms explicitly in the legislation YOU worked on and YOU voted for in 2014, how is it that you support the AG unilaterally stating that they are illegal now? If you couldn't get this past your own legislative body, how can you support it now?
Are the ends the correct ones? You support outlawing firearms that are never used in crimes in MA, but do nothing to address the actual causes of violent crime. Why? Black people in the cities are dying almost daily due to criminals with illegally possessed guns, and your solution is to make white people in the suburbs criminals? (Sorry folks, the stats are the stats.)
amm5061
NES Member
In all fairness, and trying to be objective here, I re-read her email and she never actively took a stance on supporting Healey's actions. She just states that "it appears that the Attorney General’s clarification of the definition of “copies” and “duplicates” is consistent with the legislative intent of the 1998 law."
I believe the actual intent of the law is the real crux of the issue here. If someone can prove to her that this is not what the law was intended to do, I think that may at least make her question what's going on. I doubt we can actually swing her full support, but if we can at least keep her neutral then I would say it's a victory. Can we frame this as Healey taking advantage of a "loophole" in the law to ban all sorts of shit? Also, what grounds does she have for doing it? Isn't her regulatory authority over firearms meant to protect the consumer? In this case the consumer would be the person who purchases the firearm. As such that gives weight to her Glock ban, but how does this relate to consumer safety other than "guns?"
I believe the actual intent of the law is the real crux of the issue here. If someone can prove to her that this is not what the law was intended to do, I think that may at least make her question what's going on. I doubt we can actually swing her full support, but if we can at least keep her neutral then I would say it's a victory. Can we frame this as Healey taking advantage of a "loophole" in the law to ban all sorts of shit? Also, what grounds does she have for doing it? Isn't her regulatory authority over firearms meant to protect the consumer? In this case the consumer would be the person who purchases the firearm. As such that gives weight to her Glock ban, but how does this relate to consumer safety other than "guns?"
The problems with this argument:
1. Spilka specifically uses the terms 'hunters, sportsmen, and collectors'. This explicitly ignores those of us who primarily use firearms for personal defense and protection, and typically belies the fact that the person does not recognize the meaning of the Second Amendment.
2. She refers to keeping 'dangerous weapons' off the streets. This exposes the fact that she sees AR-15's as somehow more dangerous than other firearms.
3. See my earlier post. This law has been on the books and understood NATIONALLY to mean one thing. This understanding was shared by all sides of the argument. Spilka is explicitly supporting the AG's interpretation. If the AG said 'going forward, we interpret the law as meaning that all fetuses are human', would Spilka support that 'interpretation as well?
I see what you are trying to do, but I read Spilka's response as nothing more than dissembling. She is trying to have it both ways by deferring to the AG. you will also note that she completely dismisses perfectly valid concerns held by thousands of her constituents that we just shouldn't worry about the felonies in our safes because Healey said she wouldn't prosecute us.
It just isn't defensible.
I've got a lot of information already but if people want to help with the prep research, this is what I'm looking for. This is links, documents with verifiable sources, NOT opinions or second hand information.
Primary:Links to clear descriptions as to what the AG is responsible for (i.e. it's more consumer protection than law enforcement). Documentation or even rulings that back up that her actions were outside her authority.
Secondary: Any Fed reports on the Fed AWB that address what is and isn't covered under the Fed AWB (FBI, ATF, Fed AG).
Any information that was provided to the MA legislature when they were original considering the AWB
Primary:Links to clear descriptions as to what the AG is responsible for (i.e. it's more consumer protection than law enforcement). Documentation or even rulings that back up that her actions were outside her authority.
Secondary: Any Fed reports on the Fed AWB that address what is and isn't covered under the Fed AWB (FBI, ATF, Fed AG).
Any information that was provided to the MA legislature when they were original considering the AWB
No longer matters. The new meeting will be one on one.
I would be glad to hand deliver letters from other constituents provided; they have to have your full name and address (so she knows you're in her district), they need to contribute to the argument of AG overreach, putting law abiding people in fear of prosecution, lack of transparency in the AG's actions, they can touch on how the AG is ignoring years of a clear and well established meaning of the law. But it should not be about guns, and as much as I might like to, I want to stay away from any major emphasis on the 2a. This is about AG overreach and what it is doing to individuals and families.
One question might be is how far is she willing to play along with Healy?
If she goes off the rails and does start prosecuting people with no other criminal record or activities other than her new law, will she still back it?
How does she feel about having some person who's led a good life, raised a family, and always been a good citizen, having their life ripped away so Healy can get a job upgrade?
Is that something you want to be a part of?
If Healy's new law ends up shutting down 300 businesses in this state and puts their employees out of work is she willing to still publicly support that?
None of the shops I've talked to can get any straight answers on what's legit to sell or not.
The point of which of course is to try and put them under.
If Spilka is supporting Healy then she is supporting shutting down 300 job suppliers in this state.
Are these the sort of things she wants her name attached to?
If she goes off the rails and does start prosecuting people with no other criminal record or activities other than her new law, will she still back it?
How does she feel about having some person who's led a good life, raised a family, and always been a good citizen, having their life ripped away so Healy can get a job upgrade?
Is that something you want to be a part of?
If Healy's new law ends up shutting down 300 businesses in this state and puts their employees out of work is she willing to still publicly support that?
None of the shops I've talked to can get any straight answers on what's legit to sell or not.
The point of which of course is to try and put them under.
If Spilka is supporting Healy then she is supporting shutting down 300 job suppliers in this state.
Are these the sort of things she wants her name attached to?
Last edited:
Similar threads
