Coda
NES Member
My bad, didn't type it properly.In my defense…
Past tense would be “would have voted for.”
But the tone of my post I thought indicated what I now think of the guy.
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.
My bad, didn't type it properly.In my defense…
Past tense would be “would have voted for.”
My bad, didn't type it properly.
But the tone of my post I thought indicated what I now think of the guy.
No democrats, but I am sure there are some MA republicans that are concerned.
John Velis is the only democrat I would vote for. He told me that he was opposed to the bill and that he thought it had no chance of passing. Then he caved and voted for it.
Too bad, because he seemed like a good guy. He always shows up to the veteran remembrances around here and is very approachable.
Yup, pretty much echoing my experience with John.John Velis has historically voted "NO" on most (if not all) anti-2A bills in the past. I've spoken with him and he's always been a very pro 2A kind of guy.
Veteran or not, f*** him for voting for this crap.... I really hope he loses his next election.
LOL. Come on, recognize them on one hand, take their rights with the other. Sounds like a great deal (sarc).Maybe, and I lost a lot of respect for the guy. But he is a vet and is a strong supporter of recognition for those who served.
Both my late Father and late uncle served during WWII. They cared......But maybe I just landed in the one family that doesn't care.
Who knows her thought process on this? If she wanted an emergency preamble, she could have put it on when she signed it. But she didn't and I think there were some practical reasons for avoiding that. So why make a flip-flop fool of herself by putting one on now? Just because of the potential delay from the petitions effort?I feel like she would have signed it already at this point.
What ever happened with the AG asking if the referendum was even "ok according to the MA constitution or not.". Guessing they got smoked on that answer. They know they're in a corner they don't want to be. I think they'd rather the law just get suspended for two years and win it at the poles in 26 vs opening a can of worms they don't want to deal with if they implement a late emergency order.
If anything an EP on the date the bill goes into effect would keep the status quo of the bill and that can defended as “thats what your representative voted to do on your behalf”Who knows her thought process on this? If she wanted an emergency preamble, she could have put it on when she signed it. But she didn't and I think there were some practical reasons for avoiding that. So why make a flip-flop fool of herself by putting one on now? Just because of the potential delay from the petitions effort?
Hell, she can squash that delay anytime she feels like it. No need to rush.
It wouldn't surprise me.If anything an EP on the date the bill goes into effect would keep the status quo of the bill and that can defended as “that's what your representative voted to do on your behalf”