Natick mulls banning guns on town property

[Quiet]

Did you also know that Natick is a "dry" town. No bars allowed.

Someone ought to at least tell Morse Tavern and all the restaurants at the mall to hide their liquor licenses....

 

[Quiet]

You will not get them against one another. They are all complicit. You need to replace Selectmen first, then management.

You don't necessarily need to oust the Selectmen to get them to do something, just the threat of losing a serious number of votes and/or riling up the populace will get them to do things they don't agree with, hoping to placate the restless.

Just get a 100 people from to call a single selectman on an issue and unless he's a pure ideologue...

 

[Coyote33]

First rule of winning: knowing the rules.

Then the second rule of winning must be to know when they can be broken and get away with it.

Third is to know your moderator.

 

[JJ4]

Did you also know that Natick is a "dry" town. No bars allowed.

Not totally dry - I believe the Hampton Inn has a restaurant/bar.

MA Alcohol Beverage Control Commission (ABCC) defines 6 types of on-premises alcohol licenses: Restaurant, Hotel, Club, War-Veterans Club, General-On-Premises, and Tavern. http://www.mass.gov/abcc/retailsection12.htm Natick does not have "Taverns" and I'm not sure about the General one. So generally anything that's bar-like in Natick is a restaurant, hotel, or club - and they have some upper limit guidelines that alcohol can only be somewhere around 35% max of sales.

Anyone here know enough about parlimentary procedure to be able to tell if this is 'dead' once town meeting gets past item #1 on the warrant. It would be unfortunate if out side showed up "just in case" someone pulled a fast one, left, and then it was resurrected.

The parliamentary procedure for Natick's town meeting is governed by "Town Meeting Time". http://www.massmoderators.org/tmt.html It should also be in the library. Once an article has been voted on, a member can technically make a motion for reconsideration to the moderator. The moderator will take the motion under consideration and the recent practice has been to make a ruling on a subsequent night. The motion for reconsideration is only in order if the moderator rules that there is new information relevant to an article that was not available at the time that town meeting voted on the article. If the motion is ruled in order, then town meeting votes on whether or not to reconsider. If reconsideration passes, then the article is re-opened with a clean slate and previous actions on an article are wiped way. Given this, it's extremely unlikely that somebody could pull a fast one with a surprise reconsideration request.

If an article is not ready for discussion or voting, usually town meeting will postpone consideration of that article to another night. Similarly, if there is some surprising or confusing information that comes to light, someone will frequently offer a postponement motion in order for more information to be made available before town meeting takes it up again. This way reconsideration motions are generally avoided in all but clear cases of new information that was previously unavailable.

 

[Hoover]

There was a discussion of the proposal at the selectman meeting tonight. I did not see it, I was told about it. I will see if I can get video of it and post it.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

...



The parliamentary procedure for Natick's town meeting is governed by "Town Meeting Time". http://www.massmoderators.org/tmt.html It should also be in the library. Once an article has been voted on, a member can technically make a motion for reconsideration to the moderator. The moderator will take the motion under consideration and the recent practice has been to make a ruling on a subsequent night. The motion for reconsideration is only in order if the moderator rules that there is new information relevant to an article that was not available at the time that town meeting voted on the article. If the motion is ruled in order, then town meeting votes on whether or not to reconsider. If reconsideration passes, then the article is re-opened with a clean slate and previous actions on an article are wiped way. Given this, it's extremely unlikely that somebody could pull a fast one with a surprise reconsideration request.

If an article is not ready for discussion or voting, usually town meeting will postpone consideration of that article to another night. Similarly, if there is some surprising or confusing information that comes to light, someone will frequently offer a postponement motion in order for more information to be made available before town meeting takes it up again. This way reconsideration motions are generally avoided in all but clear cases of new information that was previously unavailable.

You are assuming an honest moderator... big mistake. This attempt is as dirty as politics gets. They can redefine "new" as quickly as Clinton questioned the meaning of the word "is" (about 75 seconds in the video).

[video=youtube_share;xHlt1W83JFU]http://youtu.be/xHlt1W83JFU?t=1m15s[/video]

 

[StevensMarksman]

**** natick. Bastards run the parking meters on weekends, which I figured out after being awarded a ticket for a 20 minute stop at B&K.

They have to run the meters on weekends to pay for the parking-ticket cop that is working on weekends.

StevensMarksman

 

[JJ4]

Metrowest Daily News article (open in incognito mode): http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20140909/NEWS/140906760

NATICK – Town Administrator Martha White has reversed course on a proposal to ban guns on town property and is now recommending Town Meeting take no action on the measure.​

White said she and Police Chief James Hicks changed their minds after hearing strong opposition.​

"It is with great regret," White said of recommending no action. "We believe this was an extremely commonsense proposal."​

She said she was stunned at the public outcry.​

"The level of opposition (to a ban) has been significant and extends well beyond the community," White said.​

The proposal stemmed from an incident in which a person involved in what was described as a somewhat heated discussion at a public meeting appeared to have a gun. While officials were not sure the person actually had a gun, it sparked the idea for a ban.​

White said it is "incomprehensible" that guns are banned in schools (as they are under state law), but not in libraries where children often go after school.​

She said a better approach may be pursuing the subject at the state level or with a coalition of communities.​

Gun Owners' Action League, which is based in Northborough, sent an alert to members urging them to contact Natick Town Meeting members and attend and speak out against the article at Town Meeting.​

Bob Canning, a Natick resident and firearms instructor, said he is glad to see the change in opinion on the Town Meeting article. He said he will not be completely at ease until Town Meeting follows officials’ recommendation.​

"This is all based on a phobia," Canning said.​

He questioned the validity of proposing a gun ban based on an incident where people are not sure a gun was even involved.​

"We’re being overrun by unfounded fears," he said.​

Canning said responsible gun owners could have opportunities to use their weapons to protect people from an attack.​

Selectmen Monday supported White’s recommendation.​

"If someone wants to come into Town Hall with weapon, a bylaw’s not going to stop (them)," Selectman John Connolly said.​

Board Chairman Josh Ostroff said selectmen initially agreed to sponsor the article to support White and Hicks. He said town officials should do more research and see if something can be developed that gun owners would accept.
​

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Not totally dry - I believe the Hampton Inn has a restaurant/bar.

Yes, a fine venue that Comm2A uses from time to time to plot with our fabulous legal team. (although not in the bar)

"But the level of opposition has been significant and extends well beyond our community." Is that code for "we learned that Comm2A will sue us"?

It's fine for them to think that, but we've learned not to get spun up about this crap until something actually happens. That said, Natick imprudently ran up an unnecessary legal bill fighting Wesson.

 

[Hoover]

Metrowest Daily News article (open in incognito mode): http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20140909/NEWS/140906760

White said it is "incomprehensible" that guns are banned in schools (as they are under state law), but not in libraries where children often go after school.

Kid's go to the mall, let's ban them there, kid's walk down public streets, let ban them there.... She needs some education indeed.

Board Chairman Josh Ostroff said selectmen initially agreed to sponsor the article to support White and Hicks. He said town officials should do more research and see if something can be developed that gun owners would accept.

Should we email him NO! now and save him the time?

 

[Squire]

Kid's go to the mall, let's ban them there, kid's walk down public streets, let ban them there.... She needs some education indeed.

Kid's live in home, all their actions are milestones to banning them there.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That said, Natick imprudently ran up an unnecessary legal bill fighting Wesson.

I doubt this was even a decision.

My guess:

Town gets sued; gives the papers to town counsel and says "handle it". Rather than have a simple discussion with the Natick chief and powers about "is it worth spending money to fight this?", attorney shifts to autopilot mode of "defend and bill".

 

[Mike S]

Reminder from GOAL about tonight's meeting

Natick residents - reminder - tonight is the night, use your right to assemble to protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms - attend tonight's Annual Town Meeting and let them know that you will. #protectfreedom!

 

[FrugalFannie]

bump

 

[Blooglo]

Back to the top

 

[FrugalFannie]

haven't heard much about this recently. I was hoping it was pulled from the warrant. I hope you guys have your ducks all lined up.

 

[Len-2A Training]

haven't heard much about this recently. I was hoping it was pulled from the warrant. I hope you guys have your ducks all lined up.

Once the warrant is closed, you can NOT legally pull it. It must go to a vote, and thus someone can resurrect it if our side stays home saying "it's dead, don't worry about it"! As a 40 year veteran of town meetings and dealing with zoning articles (some I had a hand in writing or changing prior to town meeting), I have some knowledge of this area.

 

[Hoover]

The meeting is tonight, Tuesday at 7:30 pm at Natick High School. The moronic idea is Article 1, so there is no waiting around. There should be plenty of parking at the high school lot.


http://www.natickma.gov/sites/natickma/files/file/file/14ftm_posting.pdf

 

[Len-2A Training]

The meeting is tonight, Tuesday at 7:30 pm at Natick High School. The moronic idea is Article 1, so there is no waiting around. There should be plenty of parking at the high school lot.


http://www.natickma.gov/sites/natickma/files/file/file/14ftm_posting.pdf

MAYBE!

An article can be brought up for "re-consideration" after the initial vote. Depending on the rules and policies by which Natick conducts their town meeting, it might be restricted to re-consideration only after the initial vote OR it might be possible to bring it back up at ANY TIME prior to completion of town meeting (perhaps days later).

I know how our town handles this, but would have no idea how Natick handles this . . . and it is critical to understand, as all it takes is two moonbats to bring up something for re-consideration (one to make the motion and another to second it).

 

[Hoover]

MAYBE!

An article can be brought up for "re-consideration" after the initial vote. Depending on the rules and policies by which Natick conducts their town meeting, it might be restricted to re-consideration only after the initial vote OR it might be possible to bring it back up at ANY TIME prior to completion of town meeting (perhaps days later).

I know how our town handles this, but would have no idea how Natick handles this . . . and it is critical to understand, as all it takes is two moonbats to bring up something for re-consideration (one to make the motion and another to second it).

I just emailed the town moderator and asked him that qquestion If an article is voted on and voted down, is it dead for good or can it be brought back up. I'm not sure if I'll hear back this afternoon, but if I do, I'll post the answer.

 

[Mike S]

Len, IIRC once it's voted down it could be brought up for reconsideration immediately, killed again, and be dead for good, no?

 

[terraformer]

Len, IIRC once it's voted down it could be brought up for reconsideration immediately, killed again, and be dead for good, no?

Typically, yes. That's the trick, vote it down, have your own people bring it back up, rinse and repeat.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len, IIRC once it's voted down it could be brought up for reconsideration immediately, killed again, and be dead for good, no?

When I served on our town's Gov't Study Committee this was discussed. There is no hard and fast rule that applies everywhere. Different towns have adopted different rules on this, that's why someone must ask the town manager or moderator in Natick.

 

[JJ4]

The practice in Natick is that a motion for reconsideration must justify that new information is now available that was not available at the time of the original vote. The moderator will rule if the motion is in order at a future meeting. So its not possible to "surprise" reconsider something.



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Hoover]

I heard back from the moderator Frank Foss. This is his reply to asking if something voted down could be brought back up.

Any action of town meeting can be reconsidered, while the session is open. However, reconsideration is only allowed by the moderator after a showing that there is compelling circumstances to reconsider article under which a motion occurred. Thus, no reconsideration is guaranteed, but such is at the sole decision of the moderator.

 

[terraformer]

I heard back from the moderator Frank Foss. This is his reply to asking if something voted down could be brought back up.

Which means it can be raised at any point, and he can sandbag it until he wants to not sandbag it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Which means it can be raised at any point, and he can sandbag it until he wants to not sandbag it.

Yup, so they can wait until all the gun folks leave the hall and then bring it up for re-consideration.

This is something that we changed in our town to prevent that.

 

[FrugalFannie]

what happened with this?

 

[bocan3]

Town Meeting voted 179 to 1 for "No Action", meaning our rights are safe for now.
Carry on Patriots!

 

[Mike S]

Awesome!

Thanks for the update, I meant to get over there last night but life got in the way.