Proposal to come before Lexington Town Meeting

[LoginName]

I would also expect that this would be a toothless bylaw that wouldn't be enforced, just like the Boston AWB/mag ban isn't (and never has been) enforced.

[NOTE: I am NOT recommending that folks don't fight to kill this, just reflecting on likely reality.]

It's less about enforcement and "public safety" (or the perception of it), and more about taking the forefront in a highly publicized gun control issue,
and hoping it will spread to other communities... "Hey, look at us! We're doing something about it"!

That Rotberg dickhead even says it himself...

I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the
Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.

And watch... once the protests from outside of Lexington start rolling in, they'll bitch that it doesn't concern non-residents, and we have no right
to tell another community how to conduct its affairs.

Well... we ****ing do when their intent is to start the ball rolling to "inspire" other communities into passing a similar ban.

 

[calsdad]

Shotgun Scully has hit the nail on the head. I'm a former town meeting member and fairly familiar with the way things work politically in Lexington. Left unopposed, this will pass easily. But if the selectmen are convinced that this will bring a shit storm on the town, they will quietly take the proponent aside and convince him to "indefinitely postpone" his or her warrant article. BTW, if you're on Google you can follow the discussion here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lextmma/T1CdSjCCq1E

I'm going to comment on this - with the same line of logic that I used against the proposed Westford ban.

The person proposing these rules in Lexington has quite obviously not thought this out.

But first let's start with the intent of the law - which he clearly states:

She also wrote: “One piece of legislation is not going to prevent every gun violence tragedy, but with courageous leadership, we can take steps to protect American lives.” I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.

My summarized take on their intent - is that they think that by simply passing a law, it's going to get rid of the "assault weapons" - which they blame for all of the killings. Leaving aside all the arguments about "assault weapons" - and whether or not they are ACTUALLY responsible for the killings - I'm going to list some points I made a number of times during that whole Westford debacle, because IMHO they go directly to the INTENT of passing the law in the first place.

* First off - they're proposing to ban a certain class of firearm , that is currently legal to own under MA law (with some restrictions) , how are they going to address this discrepancy? Because simply "banning" them - does not ELIMINATE them. If the law is to do ANYTHING under it's original intent - then they must be ELIMINATED. That means that not only must any "assault weapons" be confiscated or forced to be sold outside of the town limits of Lexington - but future purchases and/or manufacture of these types of weapons must also be eliminated.

That's where it gets sticky. Because that would mean that the Lexington PD would have to completely eliminate any approvals for Class A licences. Otherwise Lexington residents could still legally purchase these firearms.

* Eliminating Class A licenses for Lexington residents eliminates any concealed carry or ownership of certain types of pistols. This means that anybody who lives in Lexington and owns a business and needs a firearm to defend themselves - from this point on will not be able to. This also means that people who may own pistols for their own protection , such as rape victims, women threatened by abusive men , etc - will not no longer be able to defend themselves.

If the new rules are to have any teeth at all - the Class A license must NOT be issued to any Lexington residents. Failing to do so makes the rules into a joke - are we just passing joke legislation now?

* Manufacture. Even without a license a person living within the town limits of Lexington - could just manufacture themselves an "assault weapon". There's an NES member who has demonstrated how to do this with a shovel. AR lowers are available in "80%" form - and can easily be finished off to produce a fully functional "assault weapon" - with nothing more complicated than a drill press. My grandfather was a member in good standing of the Lexington Arts & Crafts Society - so I know that drill presses exist within the confines of Lexington.
If these proposed rules are to have any teeth whatsoever - then Lexington must also take action to prevent people from manufacturing these weapons. Regulating the use of drill presses, shovels, metalworking - etc , may all be needed to fully enforce the INTENT of the rules. If people are to be safe - then these things MUST be done - otherwise , as I said above - the rules are a JOKE.

* Confiscation and house to house searches : Some people - the EXACT kinds of people you do not want to have these weapons - will NOT turn them in if they have them. As has been said ad nauseaum - laws only work on law abiding people. If the intent of the law is to ELIMINATE these weapons from within Lexington , then they must be ELIMINATED. That means houses need to be searched to enforce the confiscation order. In addition to the fact that some residents may willfully refuse to obey - there is also the high likelihood that "assault weapons" exist within the confines of Lexington hidden away in attics and basements by people many decades ago.

It was common practice by servicemen to bring home war trophies all the way up thru the Vietnam War. I know for A FACT - that many fully automatic firearms have been found in the attics of houses formerly occupied by ex-servicemen. Often this was not intentional, the man may die - and his wife who remains in the house may not even know there is an old German rifle from WW2 stashed up in the attic. These things may even go undetected until found by a following owner. Nevertheless - if the INTENT of the law is to ELIMINATE these weapons - then houses MUST be searched , because - as stated before: without elimination the law is just a joke.

IMHO these things should be stated and stated CLEARLY to the idiots who are proposing this crap. They simply don't know what they are getting themselves into. They are proposing a law that means NOTHING - and as stated earlier in the thread: will DO NOTHING.

They need to be called to the mat on their bullshit.

 

[calsdad]

What's happened so far is that a Town Meeting Member has announced his intention to place a citizen's article on the warrant for the upcoming spring town meeting. There's been no publicity so far, other than this thread, because it is indeed premature. I happen to monitor the Town Meeting Members chat board, which is how I found out, and alerted this group (as well as GOAL).

In late winter, the warrant will be published for the upcoming town meeting. No doubt this article will get some more publicity then. At that point interested parties should notify the moderator of town meeting of their intention to speak to this article from the gallery when it comes up for consideration. This step is important, as the moderator will know to alert you which night this article will come up, and have you on the schedule to speak. You'll be limited to 2 minutes, so have your remarks prepared. I'll also post a notice on this list. The more members we have supporting the cause in the gallery, the better. Despite this, I expect it will pass if it comes to a vote.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the best way to defeat this is to credibly threaten a lawsuit. The town will not want to spend real dollars defending a meaningless, symbolic, feel-good ordinance, and will pressure the proponent to drop it. The selectmen may even recommend a no vote if the proponent presses forward after they've asked him to relent. While the membership occasionally defy the selectmen, it is unusual.

Is there a public forum where this is being debated? Because if so - I will go post my previous points. I did this a number of times during the Westford debacle and completely pissed off some of the uber-libtards who were constantly advocating for the dumbass Westford rules.

 

[Billsail]

Is there a public forum where this is being debated? Because if so - I will go post my previous points. I did this a number of times during the Westford debacle and completely pissed off some of the uber-libtards who were constantly advocating for the dumbass Westford rules.

This Google group was mentioned earlier, but it's not very active. Maybe you could make it so!

https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!topic/lextmma/Qx8hqGhEW9A

Read the post by "eashton"!

 

[edseas2]

Lexington can eliminate all elderly driver automobile highway deaths by revoking the driver's license of anyone 80 years old and above. If that's too extreme, then a battery of psychological tests, doctor's letter, and annual driving test
could be instituted to be certain that those of 80 years of age and above are suitable drivers.

I'm curious to know the number of traffic fatalities caused by those 80 years and above versus the number of firearm related deaths in Lexington.

I notice that the proposer of the firearm by-law is 80 years old.

 

[mibro]

This Google group was mentioned earlier, but it's not very active. Maybe you could make it so!

Unfortunately that forum is not open to the public.

Just a suggestion, the Lexington anti-Constitutionalists will undoubtedly find this thread, so let's keep it polite. I have already edited one of my comments in the interests of decorum.

 

[mibro]

I notice that the proposer of the firearm by-law is 80 years old.

For elderly people, it's all about their "legacy." Basically a kind of conceit arising from their imminent mortality. My father-in-law, a lifelong conservative, has started talking about his "legacy" and is now actively supporting Bloomberg's efforts in New York state.

 

[Mike S]

Is there a public forum where this is being debated? Because if so - I will go post my previous points. I did this a number of times during the Westford debacle and completely pissed off some of the uber-libtards who were constantly advocating for the dumbass Westford rules.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lextmma

 

[mibro]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lextmma

Again, "The public is welcome to read all postings via the group website, but group membership is limited to members of Town Meeting, official town committees and certain town staff."

 

[calsdad]

Robert Irwin Rotberg (born April 11, 1935) is an American who served as President emeritus of the World Peace Foundation (1993–2010). An American professor in governance and foreign affairs, he was director of the Program on Intrastate Conflict, Conflict Prevention, and Conflict Resolution at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government(1999–2010), and has served in administrative positions at Tufts Universityand Lafayette College.In 2003-2004, he served as a member of the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Africa, and was a Presidential appointee to the Council of theNational Endowment for the Humanities. In 2007 at the Kennedy School, he directed the establishment of the Index for African Governance, to help evaluate leaders for the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership, awarded annually by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. A trustee ofOberlin College, Rotberg is a visiting professor at the College of Europe inBruges, Belgium. In 2013 Rotberg became the Fulbright Research Chair in Political Development at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Canada.[SUP][1]

[/SUP]

Let me condense this biography for you: Robert Rotberg has never done an honest days work in his life.

Exactly.

And from that resume I'd say he's barely an American.

 

[mibro]

Exactly.

And from that resume I'd say he's barely an American.

Careful. You have one foot very close to that third rail.

 

[calsdad]

Yeah, Ill never forget the shithead - he saw that I was from Hyde Park and kept referring to me as a punk from Boston - this as I was bleeding profusely from the face and again, the accident was clearly NOT MY FAULT - but because I said "oh ****, my head" a few times, he saw fit to tell me "we don't talk that way in Lexington"

*******.

Lexington has been like that for a LONG time.

My grandparents lived in Lexington for most of their lives. My mother was born and raised in Lexington. I lived in Lexington myself for a number of years in the mid to late 90's. I worked at a car dealer that was located in Lexington and later moved to Burlington. Being a motorcycle rider - I grew close with a bunch of the other bikers there - and they would get harassed constantly by Lexington cops.

Knowing all of this is exactly why I made no effort to live in Lexington when it was time to buy a house - despite the wife's constant insistence that we should look there.

- - - Updated - - -

Has the COP weighed in on this? There are two major highways going through Lexington, will anyone passing through be an automatic felon? God forbid you break down on Rt 2 or Rt 95 on your way to the range with a scary black rifle in the car. I would hope if the COP had any sense he would be opposed to this on enforcement ground alone.

These are exactly the same types of topics that came up with the attempted Westford ban. The way it was worded - somebody driving down Rte 495 would be in violation of the Westford laws, which would of course include any semi or delivery truck that happened to have a rifle in the back in a box.

 

[calsdad]

Careful. You have one foot very close to that third rail.

I like the third rail - it keeps me awake.

 

[mibro]

I like the third rail - it keeps me awake.

Easy to joke about it....until you step on it. Cue Mr. Gold.

 

[jhblaze1]

Cite, please?

AFAIK, people have been jammed up for knife blade-length issues that were not residents of the town that had the ordinance.

can't...I just always understood that to be the case.....I'm probably wrong.

Regardless, lexington can suck my balloon knot. I will ignore whatever rule they make if and when I ever find myself there.

 

[Infinite Jester]

Robert Irwin Rotberg (born April 11, 1935) is an American who served as President emeritus of the World Peace Foundation (1993–2010). An American professor in governance and foreign affairs, he was director of the Program on Intrastate Conflict, Conflict Prevention, and Conflict Resolution at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government(1999–2010), and has served in administrative positions at Tufts Universityand Lafayette College.In 2003-2004, he served as a member of the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Africa, and was a Presidential appointee to the Council of theNational Endowment for the Humanities. In 2007 at the Kennedy School, he directed the establishment of the Index for African Governance, to help evaluate leaders for the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership, awarded annually by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. A trustee ofOberlin College, Rotberg is a visiting professor at the College of Europe inBruges, Belgium. In 2013 Rotberg became the Fulbright Research Chair in Political Development at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Canada.[SUP][1]

[/SUP]

Let me condense this biography for you: Robert Rotberg has never done an honest days work in his life.

I tuned out around Intrastate conflict.

 

[cmcgraw2]

Is there a public forum where this is being debated? Because if so - I will go post my previous points. I did this a number of times during the Westford debacle and completely pissed off some of the uber-libtards who were constantly advocating for the dumbass Westford rules.

Here's one that's fairly active, for purposes which include discussing town politics, but I haven't seen anything posted yet - membership "requires approval" but messages are not moderated..

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lexington/info

 

[Oldarmy]

Careful. You have one foot very close to that third rail.

Are you for real? Oh, lets not offend some shitbird making a mockery of the brave men of Lexington from our not so distant past who laid down their lives to defend against slime just like this guy.

 

[mibro]

Are you for real? Oh, lets not offend some shitbird making a mockery of the brave men of Lexington from our not so distant past who laid down their lives to defend against slime just like this guy.

Go ahead, you say it then.

 

[Oldarmy]

Think I just did.

 

[mibro]

Think I just did.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

 

[jefftk]

Is there a public forum where this is being debated? Because if so - I will go post my previous points. I did this a number of times during the Westford debacle and completely pissed off some of the uber-libtards who were constantly advocating for the dumbass Westford rules.

This Google group was mentioned earlier, but it's not very active. Maybe you could make it so!

https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!topic/lextmma/Qx8hqGhEW9A

Read the post by "eashton"!

Unfortunately that forum is not open to the public.

Just a suggestion, the Lexington anti-Constitutionalists will undoubtedly find this thread, so let's keep it polite. I have already edited one of my comments in the interests of decorum.

I like the third rail - it keeps me awake.

Are you for real? Oh, lets not offend some shitbird making a mockery of the brave men of Lexington from our not so distant past who laid down their lives to defend against slime just like this guy.

C'mon guys, how do you think this is going to play out? If you go and get on the forum (or they read ours) and start antagonizing them and slinging insults you won't accomplish anything and will just give them fodder for playing the victim card.

 

[mibro]

C'mon guys, how do you think this is going to play out? If you go and get on the forum (or they read ours) and start antagonizing them and slinging insults you won't accomplish anything and will just give them fodder for playing the victim card.

You are completely right. I've never been too good at taking my own advice.

 

[Squire]

C'mon guys, how do you think this is going to play out? If you go and get on the forum (or they read ours) and start antagonizing them and slinging insults you won't accomplish anything and will just give them fodder for playing the victim card.

GOAL is going to organize a planning meeting for the meeting and continues to do research (like getting the actual copy of the warrant that will appear on the agenda).

I second jefftk advice to not give them any ideas on a public forum about the arguments that will be made to oppose the proposal, and certainly don't act like boneheads and make threats and disparaging personal attacks.

 

[free]

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

 

[Royal]

I'm going to comment on this - with the same line of logic that I used against the proposed Westford ban.

The person proposing these rules in Lexington has quite obviously not thought this out.

But first let's start with the intent of the law - which he clearly states:



My summarized take on their intent - is that they think that by simply passing a law, it's going to get rid of the "assault weapons" - which they blame for all of the killings. Leaving aside all the arguments about "assault weapons" - and whether or not they are ACTUALLY responsible for the killings - I'm going to list some points I made a number of times during that whole Westford debacle, because IMHO they go directly to the INTENT of passing the law in the first place.

* First off - they're proposing to ban a certain class of firearm , that is currently legal to own under MA law (with some restrictions) , how are they going to address this discrepancy? Because simply "banning" them - does not ELIMINATE them. If the law is to do ANYTHING under it's original intent - then they must be ELIMINATED. That means that not only must any "assault weapons" be confiscated or forced to be sold outside of the town limits of Lexington - but future purchases and/or manufacture of these types of weapons must also be eliminated.

That's where it gets sticky. Because that would mean that the Lexington PD would have to completely eliminate any approvals for Class A licences. Otherwise Lexington residents could still legally purchase these firearms.

* Eliminating Class A licenses for Lexington residents eliminates any concealed carry or ownership of certain types of pistols. This means that anybody who lives in Lexington and owns a business and needs a firearm to defend themselves - from this point on will not be able to. This also means that people who may own pistols for their own protection , such as rape victims, women threatened by abusive men , etc - will not no longer be able to defend themselves.

If the new rules are to have any teeth at all - the Class A license must NOT be issued to any Lexington residents. Failing to do so makes the rules into a joke - are we just passing joke legislation now?

* Manufacture. Even without a license a person living within the town limits of Lexington - could just manufacture themselves an "assault weapon". There's an NES member who has demonstrated how to do this with a shovel. AR lowers are available in "80%" form - and can easily be finished off to produce a fully functional "assault weapon" - with nothing more complicated than a drill press. My grandfather was a member in good standing of the Lexington Arts & Crafts Society - so I know that drill presses exist within the confines of Lexington.
If these proposed rules are to have any teeth whatsoever - then Lexington must also take action to prevent people from manufacturing these weapons. Regulating the use of drill presses, shovels, metalworking - etc , may all be needed to fully enforce the INTENT of the rules. If people are to be safe - then these things MUST be done - otherwise , as I said above - the rules are a JOKE.

* Confiscation and house to house searches : Some people - the EXACT kinds of people you do not want to have these weapons - will NOT turn them in if they have them. As has been said ad nauseaum - laws only work on law abiding people. If the intent of the law is to ELIMINATE these weapons from within Lexington , then the must be ELIMINATED. That means houses need to be searched to enforce the confiscation order. In addition to the fact that some residents may willfully refuse to obey - there is also the high likelihood that "assault weapons" exist within the confines of Lexington hidden away in attics and basements by people many decades ago.

It was common practice by servicement to bring home war trophies all the way up thru the Vietnam War. I know for A FACT - that many fully automatic firearms have been found in the attics of house formerly occupied by ex-servicemen. Often this was not intentional, the man may die - and his wife who remains in the house may not even know there is an old German rifle from WW2 stashed up in the attic. These things may even go undetected until found by a following owner. Nevertheless - if the INTENT of the law is to ELIMINATE these weapons - then houses MUST be searched , because - as stated before: without elimination the law is just a joke.

IMHO these things should be stated and stated CLEARLY to the idiots who are proposing this crap. They simply don't know what they are getting themselves into. They are proposing a law that means NOTHING - and as stated earlier in the thread: will DO NOTHING.

They need to be called to the mat on their bullshit.

Excellent points. Best contribution to this thread thus far.

 

[calsdad]

C'mon guys, how do you think this is going to play out? If you go and get on the forum (or they read ours) and start antagonizing them and slinging insults you won't accomplish anything and will just give them fodder for playing the victim card.

Go read what I wrote in my previous post - the long one. That's not an insult, that's reality.

 

[calsdad]

Excellent points. Best contribution to this thread thus far.

Thanks.
I think in situations like this it's important to not let it devolve into a insult / pissing contest.

It's much more effective to pull the reality card and lay EVERYTHING out on the table.

So here's another aspect of this issue that should get brought up.

Lexington holds a special place in American history - and holds a special place vis a vi the 2nd amendment and all for all those who fight for the right to retain firearms for self defense (of all types). Because of that - if they pass these bylaws or ordinances or whatever it is, I think it's important to let those in that town know what might happen to the town because of that law.

I think it's important to let them know that they may get Zumboed.

How do you think it's going to go over across the US, or across the world for that matter - when the town where the first shots were fired in the American Revolution, where the right to retain arms was FOUGHT FOR - and the end result was a new country - decides to ban exactly those type of firearms that would have been carried by a militia if that event had happened today?

I would be willing to bet that a sizable amount of money comes into town from tourism. How is the town going to be affected if people decide to no longer go there because of the actions taken by the current day residents of that town?

I'd suggest getting the word out on places like ar15.com, The High Road , The Truth about guns - etc.

I don't know how many people here remember Zumbo - but country wide pressure is extremely effective at getting results.

If the Lexington Chamber of Commerce starts getting inundated with calls from people across the country and across the world threatening to never set foot in that town again because of their actions - I'd be willing to bet that behind closed doors some people might just get told to shut up and sit down.

Let them feel the might of this fully functional battle star.

 

[Permanent Waves]

Bump

 

[Mr.E]

Thanks.
I think in situations like this it's important to not let it devolve into a insult / pissing contest.

It's much more effective to pull the reality card and lay EVERYTHING out on the table.

So here's another aspect of this issue that should get brought up.

Lexington holds a special place in American history - and holds a special place vis a vi the 2nd amendment and all for all those who fight for the right to retain firearms for self defense (of all types). Because of that - if they pass these bylaws or ordinances or whatever it is, I think it's important to let those in that town know what might happen to the town because of that law.

I think it's important to let them know that they may get Zumboed.

How do you think it's going to go over across the US, or across the world for that matter - when the town where the first shots were fired in the American Revolution, where the right to retain arms was FOUGHT FOR - and the end result was a new country - decides to ban exactly those type of firearms that would have been carried by a militia if that event had happened today?

I would be willing to bet that a sizable amount of money comes into town from tourism. How is the town going to be affected if people decide to no longer go there because of the actions taken by the current day residents of that town?

I'd suggest getting the word out on places like ar15.com, The High Road , The Truth about guns - etc.

I don't know how many people here remember Zumbo - but country wide pressure is extremely effective at getting results.

If the Lexington Chamber of Commerce starts getting inundated with calls from people across the country and across the world threatening to never set foot in that town again because of their actions - I'd be willing to bet that behind closed doors some people might just get told to shut up and sit down.

Let them feel the might of this fully functional battle star.

While a good idea, we have seen that many towns and municipalities don't seem to care about the loss of $$ when it comes to these restrictions.
Plenty of these boneheads such as Colorado are willing to throw away jobs AND private business tax revenue. Magpul is estimated to have contributed about 200 jobs and 10's of millions of dollars to the tax base. These idiots are only now feeling the burn.

Lexingtons tourism is a good chunk of change at about $75M annually (data from local paper 14'). Impossible to determine what % they would lose if this passes though. I think the message shouldn't just be about the loss of money, but EXACTLY how it will effect the town. Using examples such as the closure of restaurants, the tourism office, loss of specific jobs, etc. would be a good tactic. Whether certain moonbats have a change in heart is difficult to tell. These are the type of people who think magic money fairies exist you know.