My Meeting with State Senator Spilka - And Your Mission

[Rider]

Your Mission: Get face time with your legislators and EDUCATE THEM!!! Be polite, have your information ready, make your points, and be prepared to respond to their questions and concerns.

Summary: I get the impression that magazine size limits and enhanced background checks, and ensuring proper storage are the areas she wants to focus on, that mental health issues will be a challenge, but that there is a desire to 'do something', and it's good we're having this conversation. I have no idea how she will vote, if it comes to that, but she recognizes that this legislation focuses only on law-abiding citizens.

Long Version:

I went to Senator Karen Spilka's 'office hours' at the Sunnyside Cafe in Ashland this morning. I was expecting a crowd or something: in my mind 50 stay-at-home mom's would be there wanting to keep their babies safe, along with a whole bunch of old folks wanting to complain about the price of heating oil, or how expensive Fancy Feast is getting...

...but it was just me...so I got almost half an hour of her time.

I must admit, I didn't have the conversation I imagined, but overall I thought it was a cordial, productive discussion. It quickly became clear that she wasn't - including by her own admission - very knowledgeable of firearms, and that she wanted to become more knowledgeable so she could make informed decisions. I made myself available to provide information and opinions should she want it.

My opening statement was that as an informed, concerned, law-abiding citizen, I am very concerned that the legislation being proposed by Rep. Linsky, Sen. Creem, and Governor Patrick is entirely focused on restricting law-abiding gun owners, and that when introducing said legislation each acknowledged that the legislation will not reduce gun crime or eliminate the likelihood of another Sandy Hook from happening. I went on to say that when I told her I am a law-abiding gun owner, that means that I have never been arrested, have never had trouble with the law, have never been found mentally ill or deficient, and that the local COP could find no other reason to deny me a license. I said that I resented the fact that Sandy Hook is being blamed on me and others like me. (I made it clear over the course of the conversation that I am interested in firearms for personal protection, and neither hunting nor sporting were discussed - at all.)

Her first question to me was (anyone?) Do you own any AK-47's or other guns that take big clips, and what do you use them for? I responded that firearms like that, and the AR-15, specifically, are acknowledged to be the preferred firearms for personal defense. I told her that while we carry handguns because they are easily concealed, a rifle is preferred for self-defense.

Why do you need more than 10 rounds? 7, 10, 15, or 20 rounds are arbitrary. We're blessed to live in a relatively safe area, but you have no idea when you may need to defend yourself or how many people you may have to defend yourself against, so magazine size limits can put you in danger. (edit: I also pointed out that life isn't a movie, and that in real life one bullet does not kill one person.)

So where is there room to compromise? Massachusetts already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. (Licensing protocol, approved lists, AWB, etc), so there really isn't much room for compromise. It's normal that reasonable people try to come together to find a compromise solution, but in this case, the current laws are already so strict that there isn't anything left for me to concede. (It's sad, but in this context, the current laws offer a bit of a backstop, in that you can point to them as extensive and sufficient, rather than in need of strengthening.)

She thinks that something needs to be done, and is mainly focused on improving the background check process in the area of mental health, but doesn't know how to deal with identifying people with undiagnosed mental illness. She acknowledged, when I brought it up, that the mental health groups are likely to push back with full force on any efforts to publicize information about the mentally ill. She did touch on the idea of ensuring people are storing their firearms safely and legally, but disagrees with Senator Chang-Diaz's proposal that the State Police execute unannounced searches of gun owners' home. She said that she is a lawyer by training, and she understands and respects the Constitution, but thinks that the government can place 'reasonable' restrictions on gun ownership.

I'm trying to present this fairly, turning off my inherent cynicism, and so I conclude that she is looking for solutions that increase safety but don't further infringe on law-abiding gun owners. However, I also get the impression that she doesn't know how to accomplish that. This is a short(!) synopsis of the conversation, which covered a lot of ground.

I suggested that she attend the GOAL Legislator's Day this year, and told her that I would be happy to be involved in further discussions on this topic, or to answer questions that she might have on this topic.

Conclusion: It's our job to get out there and educate these people. You may not like the political climate in MA, and that is fine. But for those who will stand and fight, the second step, after emailing, writing, and calling, is to meet with your legislators and educate them about firearms, the current laws, the proposals out there, and to disabuse them of their misconceptions.

Don't be mad on the Internet because this isn't their main focus; it wasn't ours either until Obama made it ours two months ago. Each of us must be an advocate for our position. Get out there and preach.

 

[Dirtypacman]

I appreciate you getting your voice heard and doing so in a manner that is good for law abiding gun owners.
+1

 

[JJ4]

+1 Amazing work! Thank you!

 

[rwl1955]

Good job. We need to keep the pressure on our legislators. We need to let them know we're pissed and fed up.

 

[DrNVP]

It's also to note that Linsky and Creems bill's only serve to disenfranchise lower income citizens from exercising their 2nd amendment right by mandating insurance purchase and 20+% tax on ammo. This, by definition, is not an attempt to stop crime but instead make it all but impossible for everybody except the wealthy to own guns. Doesn't matter if your intent is for self defense, hunting, sport, competition, etc. Ask them if they think 2nd amendment rights are only for the wealthy.

These mother f-ers preach "equality" all the time and it's time to turn the tables on that.

 

[Squire]

Good work. Thanks!

 

[Rider]

It's also to note that Linsky and Creems bill's only serve to disenfranchise lower income citizens from exercising their 2nd amendment right by mandating insurance purchase and 20+% tax on ammo. This, by definition, is not an attempt to stop crime but instead make it all but impossible for everybody except the wealthy to own guns. Doesn't matter if your intent is for self defense, hunting, sport, competition, etc. Ask them if they think 2nd amendment rights are only for the wealthy.

These mother f-ers preach "equality" all the time and it's time to turn the tables on that.

Good point; I did bring that up; I pointed out that while some of these issues will affect me less because I am blessed with continued employment even though the economy is horrible, for many people these laws are simply another financial barrier preventing poor people from exercising their equal right to protect themselves, and that is something she should consider.

 

[LittleCalm]

I did the exact same thing with my rep -- it was clear to me that my rep had no clue about firearms and she asked many of the same questions. She was more focused on mental health issues and how to ensure that COPs have access to mental health info before issuing a permit. She acknowledged that MA already has some of the toughest gun laws and started by saying she was not convinced we needed more. That being said, I don't have much faith. When the really liberal people like Linsky get up and point to NY and CA, I think it will be tough for liberal politicians in MA to avoid the knee jerk reaction to follow suit. Plus, it is enivitable that these politicians always view every issue as requiring a compromise, rather than making decisions based on facts. Notwithstanding the uninformed nature of many of their constituents who are calling for additional restrictions even though those restrictions will accomplish nothing, liberal MA politicians have a difficult time not doing anything to appease these constituents. So while educating them is good, I remain cynical as to the ultimate outcome. So make sure you support GOAL and Comm2A for the ensuing legal battles.

 

[Hoover]

My rep is Linsky. How do you think that conversation would go?

One thing to bring up to Spilka and others is the non existent relationship of gun deaths and gun control. MA had 65 murders in 1998 when gun fascism passed and we are at 122 now. Nationwide the number of guns has grown by huge numbers yet the number of deaths is at the lowest in something like 50 years. There is no relationship that exists.

 

[LittleCalm]

One thing to bring up to Spilka and others is the non existent relationship of gun deaths and gun control. MA had 65 murders in 1998 when gun fascism passed and we are at 122 now. Nationwide the number of guns has grown by huge numbers yet the number of deaths is at the lowest in something like 50 years. There is no relationship that exists.

Her thinking will be like Menino's -- it's b/c all the gun crimes in MA are the result of law-abiding citizens going to NH and ME to purchase guns they cannot purchase in MA and then coming back to MA to commit gun crimes... So it's b/c of weak gun laws in surrounding states. You cannot escape the lunacy.

 

[Rider]

My rep is Linsky. How do you think that conversation would go?

One thing to bring up to Spilka and others is the non existent relationship of gun deaths and gun control. MA had 65 murders in 1998 when gun fascism passed and we are at 122 now. Nationwide the number of guns has grown by huge numbers yet the number of deaths is at the lowest in something like 50 years. There is no relationship that exists.

And I don't envy you that.

I had planned to dump all the statistics on her, but honestly, we didn't even get that far. It was an interactive discussion(thankfully, and not just me ranting) and we were so focused on the basics that we didn't even get to my litany of statistics. But anyway, It's New Hampshire's fault.

 

[NewGuyRay]

My rep is Linsky. How do you think that conversation would go?

One thing to bring up to Spilka and others is the non existent relationship of gun deaths and gun control. MA had 65 murders in 1998 when gun fascism passed and we are at 122 now. Nationwide the number of guns has grown by huge numbers yet the number of deaths is at the lowest in something like 50 years. There is no relationship that exists.

Ask him how he reconciles his "liberal" philosophy with being a raging racist. Ask him why he promotes the idea of urban minorities being gunned down in the streets with no viable means of defense.

Maybe the extra revenue from the ammo tax could be used to install more police call boxes in the hood. Ask him if he is aware that the origins of gun control is rooted in racism and why he is hell-bent on perpetuating the effort to deny blacks' their second amendment rights.

Turn the tables on him and see how he reacts...

 

[vipprimo]

First off, I applaud your efforts.

This is how I would've responded.

Her first question to me was (anyone?) Do you own any AK-47's or other guns that take big clips, and what do you use them for?

I currently own a Windham Weapons, the company that originally was known as Bushmaster. In Mass. I use them primarily for range duty, recreational shooting. In my home state of Virginia they were most effective as what is called "varmint" rifles, where animals invade farms and potentially endanger livestock with rabies or consumer their resources and need to be removed without endangering the surrounding livestock with a more powerful ammunition. It would also be effective in protection of home and property in the case of a riot or other civil unrest due to its large capacity. I also have a flare gun attached to it should I need assistance.

Why do you need more than 10 rounds?

This question always perplexes me. Why do I fill my gas tank up with 25 gallons when really I could just stop every morning and get the appropriate ration of gasoline and continue on. The answer is simple, because we don't know what situation we will be involved in. I could have several gang members break into my house, as home invasion has been on the rise in this state. 10 rounds may not be enough as I'm not going to hit every shot I release. Lastly, we're talking about an attachment. The reason I carry 2 magazines with me everywhere I go is because 20 in one magazine is illegal. To be perfectly honest I would probably be comfortable with a 15 round magazine similar to what our officers would currently use. Again, this is a situation outside the home when leaving the site of a disturbance is optimal, but may not be accessible.

So where is there room to compromise?

In Mass I would say there is none. You already have a 10 round limit on all magazines, assault weapons bans in place. Anyone who purchases a weapon in the state has to go through a background check. I think the compromise here has already been in place against gun owners who routinely wait months on a 90 day program to see their license to carry and even then it's restricted to them only hunting/range duty. In fact, concessions have been so oppressive that legal gun owners have had to sue the state on occasion to perform their regular duties.

She thinks that something needs to be done, and is mainly focused on improving the background check process in the area of mental health, but doesn't know how to deal with identifying people with undiagnosed mental illness. She acknowledged, when I brought it up, that the mental health groups are likely to push back with full force on any efforts to publicize information about the mentally ill. She did touch on the idea of ensuring people are storing their firearms safely and legally, but disagrees with Senator Chang-Diaz's proposal that the State Police execute unannounced searches of gun owners' home. She said that she is a lawyer by training, and she understands and respects the Constitution, but thinks that the government can place 'reasonable' restrictions on gun ownership.

Here's the point. We don't go around looking for "potential" criminals. Why are we looking for "undiagnosed" insane people? Your law enforcement officials are trained to spot this and if you notice that the problem is weapons getting into hands of criminals illegally, which means that no matter how hard you look through regular channels, you're always looking in the wrong spot.

This just endorses the guilty until innocent and looking in the wrong spot that we're seeing over and over again.

 

[center442]

You had some good responses!

This question always perplexes me. Why do I fill my gas tank up with 25 gallons when really I could just stop every morning and get the appropriate ration of gasoline and continue on. The answer is simple, because we don't know what situation we will be involved in. I could have several gang members break into my house, as home invasion has been on the rise in this state. 10 rounds may not be enough as I'm not going to hit every shot I release. Lastly, we're talking about an attachment. The reason I carry 2 magazines with me everywhere I go is because 20 in one magazine is illegal. To be perfectly honest I would probably be comfortable with a 15 round magazine similar to what our officers would currently use. Again, this is a situation outside the home when leaving the site of a disturbance is optimal, but may not be accessible.

I've been using a variant of your answer when I get that question. "Imagine that your buying a new car. You have a choice between two identical models, except one has a 7 gallon gas tank and one has a 30 gallon gas tank. Which one would you choose?"

If you don't mind, I think I'll borrow some of your talking points. The more ammo the better!

 

[BostonBullit]

When faced with the question of why I "need" more than X bullets in a "clip" I usually say "for personal defense". The response 99% of the time is "I don't think you need more than X bullets to defend yourself!" to which I will reply "how many bullets will I need?". when you get deeper in you find that most people are trying to apply what THEY would do when confronted with a gun - "if someone pointed a gun at me I'd run away...if someone fired a double barrel shotgun into the air outside the house I'd run away...etc". Combine that with the Hollywood version of people getting blown back 10' when shot by a .25auto and you have an uninformed public that thinks that one bullet is plenty enough. They like to think that if someone breaks into their home they will be able to scare them off by yelling at them or saying they called 911; they can't cope with the realization that without a means of real defense they might be attacked/killed/raped/beaten. Cases like the GA mother with the revolver are the perfect talking point for these folks. She did what a lot of people would, tried to hide herself and her children but the intruder didn't leave. When forced to she tried to defend herself and her children with 6 bullets and got 5 hits, but the intruder was still alive and able to advance if he'd wanted to. How many bullets was enough in her case?

And then of course there are those that simply want to ban all guns and are smart enough to try and do it a little at a time...them you just can't reach.

Thanks (and reps) to the OP for handling this well. I wish I had known she had "office hours" today, I would have made arrangements to be late to work and stopped by to speak with her. where did you find it listed?

 

[vipprimo]

You had some good responses!

I've been using a variant of your answer when I get that question. "Imagine that your buying a new car. You have a choice between two identical models, except one has a 7 gallon gas tank and one has a 30 gallon gas tank. Which one would you choose?"

If you don't mind, I think I'll borrow some of your talking points. The more ammo the better!

Thanks.

I really do think that people go into this with a sort of an aback feeling. It's a feeling of defense as if attacked and I did feel it at first and then I realized that I'm not the criminal here. My weapons do have uses and they have uses outside of hunting. Why not just say it like it is! Sure, it's a grenade launcher, but it's advertised as a flair launcher... All I am is prepared. People buy generators because the power "might" go out. No legitimate citizen goes though all this junk with the intention of committing a crime!!! If they plan to commit a crime they go out and get the closest thing and do it.

Think of it like this. All of us here on the football team know as P2A. We were challenged by a team named A2A. We get on the field and realize that all their players are referees. None of them are football players. All they can do is point out where we go out of bounds or stand off sides, but they have 0 muscle and no ability to play the game at all. But for some weird reason, we're losing! It's simple. Because we're not fighting! We hike the ball and they throw a flag and say off-sides and we accept it.

The reality is that the rules of the game are simple. The 2A game, we win. That's all. There is no fight. When they throw a flag we say, "go back and look at the replay." We have an Amendment on our side!

Right now they are blindly shouting to the world that they are right when we know they are not. Things like Westford have only endorsed that when a weapons ban fails and the town stands up and cheers! Where's your 90% now!!!

 

[Rider]

Good answers, vip, thanks for the feedback; I'll incorporate those. It's a bit harder in MA, where you can't use the things for their intended purpose, and in any case, I'm all about the AR for personal defense. That's why I have them, that is what they are for, I probably won't use them for anything except defensive shooting practice(I hope.)

With respect to the mag limit, if I am feeling blunt, I ask, "How many bullets should a woman be allowed to fire before she submits to being raped and murdered? If we are talking about my wife, I want her to have as many as she needs." But so far, I have only used that with people I know pretty well.

 

[jsh]

Good job, Spilka was the only one of my elected officials that didn't respond to an email.

 

[Rider]

Right now they are blindly shouting to the world that they are right when we know they are not. Things like Westford have only endorsed that when a weapons ban fails and the town stands up and cheers! Where's your 90% now!!!

Indeed, but we still need more people coming out of the gun safe. I know too damned many people who think that if they don't do anything, they won't end up on a list. They actually think the government doesn't know all about them.

For every liberal mom who trots her babies out and says, "See? I have babies!", we need to have 2 gun owners walking in saying, "See? I have babies and guns, and nobody's dead." And I did mention, when talking about financial barriers, the fact that there is a disconnect between the people whose guns would be taken away, and the people who(99% of the time) are getting killed with guns. It's not PC, so we don't talk about the fact that gun owners are mostly suburban and/or rural, and victims of gun crime are mostly urban. The law-abiding urban poor are more disproportionately at risk due to barriers to legal gun ownership than anyone else. In that respect, and many others, gun control laws are blatantly racially biased - but that does not mean that in order to level the playing field we should take everyone else's guns away.

"You can choose to own firearms for sport or protection, or not; that is your choice. But to do so is your right."

 

[vipprimo]

Good answers, vip, thanks for the feedback; I'll incorporate those. It's a bit harder in MA, where you can't use the things for their intended purpose, and in any case, I'm all about the AR for personal defense. That's why I have them, that is what they are for, I probably won't use them for anything except defensive shooting practice(I hope.)

With respect to the mag limit, if I am feeling blunt, I ask, "How many bullets should a woman be allowed to fire before she submits to being raped and murdered? If we are talking about my wife, I want her to have as many as she needs." But so far, I have only used that with people I know pretty well.

Thanks.

I think the problem with the magazine limit and saying how many does your loved one need to be safe opens up the answer to be 1. You only need 1 good bullet to take down your attacker and the point is that we need to show that it's worthless and unenforceable. If you make the mag limit 10 then we'll carry 2 and now we have 20 in stead of 15. If you reduce it to 7 then we'll carry 3. So now we're carrying 21. When does the lowest common denominator get ruled out and most importantly, do you think the criminal is using the 7 rounder or the 15 rounder? Now you've depleted the innocent person and empowered his enemy, yet your officer still has 15... only he's 15 minutes away and you're already dead.

 

[Rider]

Good job, Spilka was the only one of my elected officials that didn't respond to an email.

Yeah, she didn't respond to my emails, letters, or mail, which is why I am beating down the doors now. I still haven't heard back from Rep. Sannicandro. I am starting to think that as disengaged as we think they are, they really must think that the public is even more so. I mean, I got there 15 minutes early thinking it would be packed, and no one was there. She only does this once a month or so.

Yet another reason why people need to get out there and talk to them. If they see us, hear us, know us, and we present ourselves as regular people who are paying attention, it's harder for them to ignore us.

Step 3 is to actually start going to things (all part of the GOAL playbook) so they know that if they do the right thing, I'll help them with their pet projects.

 

[MisterHappy]

Excellent job.

It's important that the legislators know that the Gun Owners are not just GOAL and the NRA and Comm2A, and all of the other alphabet soup advocacy groups.

(NOTE: This is not to disparage any of the above groups, but to point out that this is how Nons and Antis view them.)

They have to know that it's the guy next door, the plumber, the guy in line at the bank, their constituent.

It's Everyperson.

Two questions to the OP:

1) Did you offer to take her to the range, so that she could understand better what she, and we, are talking about?

2) Were you carrying, and if you were, did you tell her?


reps inbound for your efforts.

 

[Rider]

Excellent job.

It's important that the legislators know that the Gun Owners are not just GOAL and the NRA and Comm2A, and all of the other alphabet soup advocacy groups.

(NOTE: This is not to disparage any of the above groups, but to point out that this is how Nons and Antis view them.)

They have to know that it's the guy next door, the plumber, the guy in line at the bank, their constituent.

It's Everyperson.

Two questions to the OP:

1) Did you offer to take her to the range, so that she could understand better what she, and we, are talking about?

2) Were you carrying, and if you were, did you tell her?


reps inbound for your efforts.

Thanks.

1) I didn't offer to take her to the range personally, but I encouraged her to attend the GOAL Legislator's Day, and told her I would be happy to talk to her again to discuss this further. She told me that another person who 'owns the whole array of those things'(referring to assault weapons) invited her to their house and she was going to go there to learn about them. I give her credit for (at the very least) giving the appearance of trying to get informed, and I hope that she learns enough to form an opinion based on knowing responsible gun owners, how their guns are used, and the real differences between the guns we can own and 'Rambo-style' weapons.

2) I'll never tell! I didn't tell her one way or another, and she didn't ask, but I was pretty clear on why I own firearms. I showed up in a nice suit, just like I wear to work every day, with a sky blue shirt and a scarlet tie with silver/white stars on it.

 

[MisterHappy]

The reason that I asked about the Range Day, was that I think that if she's passed on GOAL's efforts ( they do it every year), because it looks like she'd be kowtowing to the Local Branch Office of the NRA, a personal, "I'll take you out to the range" might have a bigger impact.

First, it's more on the "down-low", and second, it's less intimidating - it's a constituent, not an Organization.

Not to slam your decision, but I think the only way we (as a group) can make progress is to be seen as individuals.

Oh....next time, have a hunter orange tie....it will make an impression.

 

[Tyke]

All I am is prepared. People buy generators because the power "might" go out. No legitimate citizen goes though all this junk with the intention of committing a crime!!! If they plan to commit a crime they go out and get the closest thing and do it.

My personal go-to is "Do you have a fire extinguisher at home? What, are you scared? Are you planning to start a fire? How much does it hold? Oh that's too much...no one needs that much extinguisher!"

ETA: Sadly the point registers but then they still go "well I still think no one needs more than x rounds. You just don't."

 

[Rider]

First, it's more on the "down-low", and second, it's less intimidating - it's a constituent, not an Organization.

Not to slam your decision, but I think the only way we (as a group) can make progress is to be seen as individuals.

Oh....next time, have a hunter orange tie....it will make an impression.

No worries, I appreciate it. I just need to get a bit more comfortable with that. It's part of the reason why I took the NRA instructor course.

FWIW, I was going to wear my blood red tie with American flags on it, but everybody knows that only those seditious Constitutionalists and tea-baggers wear flags these days. Friggin' dinosaurs. Also, I couldn't figure out how to wear it upside down.

 

[MisterHappy]

You could have used the same process that works so well, when negotiating with the CoP about your LTC.

Jab them in the chest, while yelling, "I PAY YOUR SALARY!!!!"

Just a thought, for next time.

 

[jsh]

Apparently she co-sponsored this piece of crap bill:
Bill S.1126

 

[NickyBangBang]

Great Job! Education is the key.