Propose Bills HD.135, HD.136

SlashedMeHips86

NES Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
12
Likes
2
Location
western mass
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
Seeing the new bills proposed by https://malegislature.gov/Legislators/Profile/DPL1/192 David Paul Linsky
Here is what is emailed to him. Feel free to copy and paste. It’s up to us to preserve what little freedom we have left. Sorry it’s a tad long winded.


Mr. Linsky,

I just wanted to let you know that I feel strongly discouraged to see the language in bill HD.135. Eliminating private transfers puts unnecessary limitations on lawful transfers, and undermines the ability to procure used firearms at more affordable rates. Increasing expenses and mandating fees only makes lawfully purchasing a firearm that much more difficult. There are already laws prohibiting the unlawful sale of firearms to unlicensed or unauthorized persons with steep penalties. Private sales have been in practice for a very long time, and hardly present any real problem in terms of gun violence and crime.

Proposed bill HD.136, essentially requiring firearms owners to obtain liability insurance, is a direct violation of what is an already protected right, and a gross misrepresentation of how the majority of firearms owners see this proposition. There’s no doubt our second amendment is under attack, and these laws, bills and other directives only make it more difficult for the average law-abiding citizen to exercise their right to self protection. I’d like to know how enacting this bill will actually reduce crime, cull violence and incur accountability to those who violate the hundreds of laws that are already on the books. Are these more “feel good,” knee-jerk reaction measures, or do you have solid compelling evidence that enacting something like this will reduce crime and gun violence? If so, please share.

Please take into consideration the populations that you are representing, and how these proposals will negatively impact the majority.

Sincerely,
Your Name Here
 
Hey BronxMedic,
I browsed some of the other bills he is proposing.
He clearly wants to rid the commonwealth of all citizen firearm ownership and knows his bills will do such through his thousand cuts of death.
You better off deciding if your going to comply or not and support GOAL or COMM2A before you waste a second on this tyrants efforts by any other means.

He is running with the Bloomberg playbook and knows exactly who's side he is fighting for and it isn't the citizen's/peasant's rights!
Legal firearm ownership in MA is not the problem. Our many illegal and unconstitutional firearm laws are not the problem in reducing crime.
The problem is the injustice system not imparting real sentencing as written by law against the ones that are committing the most crimes.
They left is gas lighting the public into thinking that anyone with a firearm is bad and we need to control those that own them.
Which is why they go after the low hanging fruit. The legal, law abiding firearm owners.
Because they know the courts will not follow their own laws on sentencing if found guilty.

All these bills are clearly written to impose more restrictions on the law abiding. The criminals break laws, it's what they do.
Politician's like the likes of this one make it crystal clear of their intent to rid the commonwealth of everyone's right of self defense!
 
Last edited:
Hey BronxMedic,
I browsed some of the other bills he is proposing.
He clearly wants to rid the commonwealth of all citizen firearm ownership and knows his bills will do such through his thousand cuts of death.
You better off deciding if your going to comply or not and support GOAL or COMM2A before you waste a second on this tyrants efforts by any other means.

He is running with the Bloomberg playbook and knows exactly who's side he is fighting for and it isn't the citizen's/peasant's rights!
Legal firearm ownership in MA is not the problem. Our many illegal and unconstitutional firearm laws are not the problem in reducing crime.
The problem is the injustice system not imparting real sentencing as written by law against the ones that are committing the most crimes.
They left is gas lighting the public into thinking that anyone with a firearm is bad and we need to control those that own them.
Which is why they go after the low hanging fruit. The legal, law abiding firearm owners.
Because they know the courts will not follow their own laws on sentencing if found guilty.

All these bills are clearly written to impose more restrictions on the law abiding. The criminals break laws, it's what they do.
Politician's like the likes of this one want to rid the commonwealth of everyone's right to self defense!
I agree with you 100%. Which is what is needed. 100% participation from gun owners in this state, to call these clowns out and let them know that enough is enough. I do support pro 2A organizations and belong to a couple already, however a few voices speaking for all isn’t nearly as loud as all the voices speaking together. If “unity” is what they are after, let’s show them unity...
 
Show up the next time GOAL is asking for us to. That way everyone is seen as a united group of firearm owners.
Also make sure to dress sharply and act in a civil and proper manner. That includes out and about with your firearms.
We are held to standards that even our own state police are incapable of complying with. Remember that when out in the public eye.

Any and all correspondence to the likes of these politicians will be filed in the same place Hillary Clinton put her emails..
 
Last edited:
There are pictures somewhere out there of Linsky and farm animals, he is beyond caring what other people think of him.
For those that aren't aware he was a crusader for the Commonwealth reducing the penalties in the MGLs criminalizing bestiality back in 2004-5. Around the same time his wife left him. The guy is not right in the head and proposes legislation all the time in violation of the state/federal Constitutions. I don't think he has serious challengers to the detriment of Natick.

You'd have a better chance trying persuade Senator Will Brownsberger (still an anti-gun rep) or some of the other Senators/Representatives which correspond with their constituents directly rather than kicking it off to some staffer.
 
Back
Top Bottom