wanted to bump this question. I don't understand even if this proposal passes how this would hold up. If I understand the proposal, it would ban residents owning semi automatic rifles? In view of Heller, how could this be upheld if it were brought to court. And if I understand that the town wouldn't win a lawsuit, I would think the town attorney would advise not to go forward with this as it would just cost the town $$$. Or am I missing something?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Proposal to come before Lexington Town Meeting
- Thread starter Freddy B
- Start date
wanted to bump this question. I don't understand even if this proposal passes how this would hold up. If I understand the proposal, it would ban residents owning semi automatic rifles? In view of Heller, how could this be upheld if it were brought to court. And if I understand that the town wouldn't win a lawsuit, I would think the town attorney would advise not to go forward with this as it would just cost the town $$$. Or am I missing something?
It already has been brought to court in the Highland Park, IL case, which
the SCOTUS declined to hear (and which in part, gave the Lexington
****tards the inspiration/green light to proceed
with their ordinance).
Unless there's some other angle or approach that can be applied here
(as in a 4th amendment defense),
Heller/McDonald as it stands now isn't a legal argument.
With the Highland Park case (and I'm going to assume Lexington), there is no grandfathering/exemption of currently owned banned firearms.
MA does not have a preemption law... meaning local governments and
communities can enact firearms related public safety laws/ordinances
that are stricter than state law... the AG's office would give the
thumbs up to this without any hesitation.
That's what makes this a major concern.
The people behind this move know damn well that it won't make
Lexington any safer.
It's all about keeping the gun control issue in the news
(especially during an election year),
and a desire to be in the forefront and hope the idea catches on to other communities
(and it will).
Last edited:
Don't think for a NY second that the AG won't approve of such a bylaw. Boston has one and has since 1989, approved by the state legislature in their case.
Billsail
NES Member
If you can't sue, you can work to get the BOS voted out. It may slow the spread to other towns, at least. That's all I have.
One funny detail:
The guy behind the anti-gun push is also campaigning to bring Syrian refugees to Lexington.
http://lexington.wickedlocal.com/article/20151102/NEWS/151109644
Talk about building a liberal paradise...
The guy behind the anti-gun push is also campaigning to bring Syrian refugees to Lexington.
http://lexington.wickedlocal.com/article/20151102/NEWS/151109644
Talk about building a liberal paradise...
Amputee Marksman
NES Member
Got to get rid of the assault weapons from the Trump supporters before the refugees arrive. Wouldn't want some Redneck conservative shooting a refugee when said refugee was in the middle of breaking into their house and raping their daughter.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
I can understand Lexington doing this, after all the 3 mass shootings in Lexington every year are horrible, right?
If there is no grandfathering then I would assume the COP will go to the FRB and get a list of what semi's are in town.
ALSO did anyone mention that if the law passes the Chief could pull all LTC-A's as if you are not legally able to own a semi you don't need a class A for large capacity, right?
If there is no grandfathering then I would assume the COP will go to the FRB and get a list of what semi's are in town.
ALSO did anyone mention that if the law passes the Chief could pull all LTC-A's as if you are not legally able to own a semi you don't need a class A for large capacity, right?
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
How long will it take other towns to bring this to Town Meeting if Lexington passes it? I think my town would be the next town meeting, after all we had to vote down a petition to ban all war in the world that was brought before the town
Last edited:
Freddy B
NES Member
As soon as Rottenberg posted to the Lexington town meeting group, I reached out to GOAL and this forum. The response has been fantastic! I agree with those of you who have suggested it would be most effective to have both a general, nation-wide opposition to this, and a Lexington-specific effort. For that reason I set up a group for Lexington residents to collaborate: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/lex-2a
Lexington residents: please sign up. I'm not wedded to Google groups, it's just what I could create on the fly with a minute's effort. Perhaps we'll develop a more secure and robust platform.
Lexington residents: please sign up. I'm not wedded to Google groups, it's just what I could create on the fly with a minute's effort. Perhaps we'll develop a more secure and robust platform.
What am I missing here? I had thought Heller/McDonald allowed an individual to own and keep firearms for protection of their domicile. I know it's not the right to carry, but Lexington is trying to ban owning. Why wouldn't Lexington's proposal go against this? I am not trying to be argumentative, but understand this.
From wikipedia on mcdonald
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[SUP][1][/SUP] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
boatman
I think they are saying that you can still have self defense with muskets and revolvers but you cannot even own a semi-auto
pretty soon instead of the Bay State we will be the Fudd State, bolts and revolvers only please.
I think they are saying that you can still have self defense with muskets and revolvers but you cannot even own a semi-auto
pretty soon instead of the Bay State we will be the Fudd State, bolts and revolvers only please.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
Correct me if I am wrong but the last mass shooting in Lexington was in 1775, correct? A bunch of people dressed in red walking to Concord, right?
Freddy B
NES Member
Here's another one I've seen: the sub 60 second minute. I've seen people told their 2 minutes are up after they've spoken maybe 75 seconds. I used to joke we need a scoreboard with a big timer like at sporting events.
Thanks, good find. He even refers to it as "the shot heard round the world."
This guy is a real tool for sure.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
I know it is don't ask don't tell but are there any storage unit places that have climate controlled that don't ban guns? Just thinking ahead because if this passes it won't be long before it is before my town.
ALSO if I have a friend who lives in a free town, can I store some of my guns there (he has an LTC) legally? So if they are banned in my town I don't have to get rid of them just store them elsewhere?
ALSO if I have a friend who lives in a free town, can I store some of my guns there (he has an LTC) legally? So if they are banned in my town I don't have to get rid of them just store them elsewhere?
Last edited:
Mike S
NES Member
A couple of things here.
A. MA does not recognize the Second Amendment.
B. Town can pass law that is more restrictive.
As Len said, if they pass it, it will whistle right through the AG's office.
Mike S
NES Member
Great question and a good reminder for everyone.
Please check YOUR town meeting warrant for this sort of nonsense. More than a few of these local attacks have been stopped by GOAL members who did just that and got word to GOAL so they could get alerts out.
The warrant has to be published before town meeting.
MachineHead
NES Member
This is serious business. I wouldn't be surprised if this became a Stickie here.
It affects one town right now, but make no mistake, this will spread all over MA if the scumbags get their way.
This is the systematic castration of Liberty.
It affects one town right now, but make no mistake, this will spread all over MA if the scumbags get their way.
This is the systematic castration of Liberty.
^^^ This!
I'm on the email list in my town for the agenda for out Selectmen's meetings, so it gives me a heads up. Then I hit up the secretary for the selectmen for an advance copy of the warrant (draft) before it is published and distributed.
The problem with the law is that it requires that the warrant be published one or two weeks prior to town meeting and that isn't enough lead time to comfortably organize to kill an article. One must be super-pro-active to kill this stuff.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
This whole thing makes me want to become a FUDD ![[angry2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/019.gif "Angry2 [angry2]")
![[mg]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/036.gif "Machine Gun [mg]")
Can it work the other way around? In other words, can we do an article making towns recognize the 2A, and follow the Constitution?
Sure can. But you need someone to do the proposal, write the article and gather sigs. Everything under the law can be put there.
MachineHead
NES Member
What a great idea! Some towns would reach "super green" status. But sadly, some towns would achieve "super red" status also--unless if the MA LTC is valid wherever you travel within the state.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
One of the questions one of the Lexington town meeting members asked of the others was whether they could ban all concealed carry in Lexington. They thought that was a great idea but weren't sure if the state would allow it but they wanted to do it.
TayNinh_66
NES Member
1) As a town meeting member (not in Lexington) I didn't really give a damn if I was reelected or not
2) The reason the town adopted representative town meeting was people had zero interest and they could never get a quorum
3) I am not aware of any mechanism where citizens could determine how I voted on any particular article even if they were interested
4) Moderator is Moderator for life
5) Selectmen can move to table an article "for further study", Moderator can call a voice vote, "All in favor of tabling say aye; Opposed no; Ayes have it, so moved. Article 26 next" It can be over in 10 seconds, and moderator has a lot of autonomy in decided ayes outweigh nays.
In other words, identify the 3 selectmen who might actually be reasonable and then flood them with letters from residents. They have enough headaches to deal with and will table anything controversial. Especially something that may add significantly to the legal budget.
If it doesn't get tabled, someone has to be prepared to offer an amendment to add language that would compensate anyone whose firearm would be confiscated under the proposed article. There would need to be a few members to speak in favor of the amendment. The amended article might then get sent off to a study committee picked by the moderator.
Last edited:
Wow. Brilliant idea! Many reps to you!
If we worked together so we all went to each of towns with the same warrant for each town meeting, not only would it generate great press, it would show selectmen where constituents felt on this, plus if it wins you start the ball rolling in actually making a change.
This is a great idea, there has to be way to this kind of grass root movement off the ground. Anyone here know the steps to start?
Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
I also am a RTM in a local town (not Lexington) and we just rewrote our TM rules and made it a bit tougher for RTMs to cut off discussion by yelling out "move the question" they now have to wait in line at the mic to move it, no yelling out, except for points of order. Also we solidified how to call for a standing vote and roll call vote, so on something like this if the moderator tried to push it through and we felt it was a close vote an RTM can call for a standing vote or even a roll call vote.
For any article you can put in a substitute motion with a second, in writing, and I like the idea of compensation - for fair market value - to anyone who has to give up their guns. Just that alone could cause the motion to fail.
I brought this forward at my gun club meeting last night after it was mentioned in Scriver's GOAL report and we told people that they have to watch what is going on in town. Scriv told what the latest thing is from the antis, going town by town to destroy the 2nd.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
Don't stop with local Town Meeting reps, contact State Reps
Don't just stop with the people in your town, contact your State Reps.
If this goes through in Lexington it will be illegal to drive up Rt 95 with an AR15 as "possesion" is banned. You will have to get off 95 find away around Lexington and then get back on. You might say that you are legal where you came from and legal where you are going but what if your car breaks down or you have an accident and you found to be in possession of a banned gun?
That is my normal states have preemption laws, imagine a patchwork of towns each with slightly differing laws regarding evil guns?
Don't just stop with the people in your town, contact your State Reps.
If this goes through in Lexington it will be illegal to drive up Rt 95 with an AR15 as "possesion" is banned. You will have to get off 95 find away around Lexington and then get back on. You might say that you are legal where you came from and legal where you are going but what if your car breaks down or you have an accident and you found to be in possession of a banned gun?
That is my normal states have preemption laws, imagine a patchwork of towns each with slightly differing laws regarding evil guns?
Similar threads
