Recall H4885 referendum

[Rob Boudrie]

I respectfully disagree with GOAL and think that the effort to start a referendum to recall the recent atrocity of a law is not strategically wise.

The proper reason to file referendum petitioins, or file court cases, is with a strategy to win - not to use these vehicles as platforms to express righteous indignation. There is no reasonable path to a win with a "let people buy child killing weapons of war" vote ... which is how it will be spun. Ditto for arguing people should be able to carry concealed handguns without ever having fired a gun.

People, or orgs, filing cases can become consumed in their personal conviction that they are on the side of what is right, that they lose perspective on strategy and tilt at windmills or try to teach pigs to sing. The long battle is chess, not checkers.

Senator Cheryl Jacques declared "I do not want or seek votes from GOAL members" when running for election - and knew that stating this would help her win. She was undefeatable in elections until she chose not to re-run.

MA is not WY. Such a referendum will almost certainly fail. GOAL can publish any "investigation" or "analysis" it wishes, but that will pale in comparison to the mainstream media against us. The genpop will be constantly hit with "assault weapon", "weapon of war", and the classic "does not violate the second amendment" . The referendum will go down in defeat, and will have demonstrated that the new law represents the will of the people. Even someone who has been our friend Senator Moore voted in favor of the bill.

The 1976 handgun ban referendum was different - people could relate to handguns as a self defense tool, and GOAL was formed as a defensive move - and did an astoundingly good job and resisting and defeating it. The system was against us then as well- the MA SJC took a case right before the referendum (Davis, I think) so it could hand down a ruling that there was no individual right to own a handgun in MA.

Similarly, any suit to throw out the entire law is unlikely to succeed as the strategy will let the court hang an adverse decision on a few points, ignore the other points, and set a precedent against us. Better to attack specific points in separate actions (eating the elephant one bite at a time).

Update: At the time I wrote the above, I was not aware it would put the law on hold for a year or two, so I retract my opinion that this is a bad idea.

 

[btnh6668]

I respectfully disagree with GOAL and think that the effort to start a referendum to recall the recent atrocity of a law is not strategically wise.

The proper reason to file referendum petitioins, or file court cases, is with a strategy to win - not to use these vehicles as platforms to express righteous indignation. There is no reasonable path to a win with a "let people buy child killing weapons of war" vote ... which is how it will be spun. Ditto for arguing people should be able to carry concealed handguns without ever having fired a gun.

People, or orgs, filing cases can become consumed in their personal conviction that they are on the side of what is right, that they lose perspective on strategy and tilt and windmills or try to teach pigs to sing. The long battle is chess, not checkers.

Senator Cheryl Jacques declared "I do not want or seek votes from GOAL members" when running for election - and knew that stating this would help her win. She was undefeatable in elections until she chose not to re-run.

MA is not WY. Such a referendum will almost certainly fail. GOAL can publish any "investigation" or "analysis" it wishes, but that will pale in comparison to the mainstream media against us. The genpop will be constantly hit with "assault weapon", "weapon of war", and the classic "does not violate the second amendment" . The referendum will go down in defeat, and will have demonstrated that the new law represents the will of the people. Even someone who has been our friend Senator Moore voted in favor of the bill.

The 1976 handgun ban referendum was different - people could relate to handguns as a self defense tool, and GOAL was formed as a defensive move - and did an astoundingly good job and resisting and defeating it. The system was against us then as wel- the MA SJC took a case right before the referendum (Davis, I think) so it could hand down a ruling that there was o individual right to own a handgun in MA.

Similarly, any suit to throw out the entire law is unlikely to succeed as the strategy will let the court hang an adverse decision on a few points, ignore the other points, and set a precedent against up. Better to attach individual points with specific points (eating the elephant one bite at a time).

According to goal they are working with the lawyer who worked on the Bruen case if I am not mistaken.

 

[maltc]

Edit: Bill will not be put on pause. Disregard quoted post.

 

[kalash]

The proper reason to file referendum petitioins, or file court cases, is with a strategy to win - not to use these vehicles as platforms to express righteous indignation. There is no reasonable path to a win with a "let people buy child killing weapons of war" vote ... which is how it will be spun.

I completely agree with you. The governor and the media have already gaslit the populace by proclaiming that this bill is all about ghost guns and red flags, both of which the majority of MA voters (ignorantly) support. Does GOAL have a strategy for educating the public about the less-popular parts of this law??

 

[alx]

I agree with Rob's assessment. A referendum when it fails (and it will in MA) will only further legitimize the new law as the "will of the people" and will make any future legal endeavors harder to succeed. Optics.
Instead we should pick couple of the more egregious statements in the bill and start moving them through the court system.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

4885 is already signed in as law. There is absolutely nothing to lose. Who cares if it fails the ballot? It buys FFL’s and 2a lawyers time to file the appropriate language to revert this. Also collection of signatures can carry into next election year, essentially putting this entire disaster on pause.

The referendum petition, if certified, does not put the current law on hold to "buy time" before it goes into effect.
[maltc indicates he understands the inaccuracy of this statement and has issued a correction]

 

[CrackPot]

I respectfully disagree with GOAL and think that the effort to start a referendum to recall the recent atrocity of a law is not strategically wise.

The proper reason to file referendum petitioins, or file court cases, is with a strategy to win - not to use these vehicles as platforms to express righteous indignation. There is no reasonable path to a win with a "let people buy child killing weapons of war" vote ... which is how it will be spun. Ditto for arguing people should be able to carry concealed handguns without ever having fired a gun.

People, or orgs, filing cases can become consumed in their personal conviction that they are on the side of what is right, that they lose perspective on strategy and tilt and windmills or try to teach pigs to sing. The long battle is chess, not checkers.

Senator Cheryl Jacques declared "I do not want or seek votes from GOAL members" when running for election - and knew that stating this would help her win. She was undefeatable in elections until she chose not to re-run.

MA is not WY. Such a referendum will almost certainly fail. GOAL can publish any "investigation" or "analysis" it wishes, but that will pale in comparison to the mainstream media against us. The genpop will be constantly hit with "assault weapon", "weapon of war", and the classic "does not violate the second amendment" . The referendum will go down in defeat, and will have demonstrated that the new law represents the will of the people. Even someone who has been our friend Senator Moore voted in favor of the bill.

The 1976 handgun ban referendum was different - people could relate to handguns as a self defense tool, and GOAL was formed as a defensive move - and did an astoundingly good job and resisting and defeating it. The system was against us then as wel- the MA SJC took a case right before the referendum (Davis, I think) so it could hand down a ruling that there was o individual right to own a handgun in MA.

Similarly, any suit to throw out the entire law is unlikely to succeed as the strategy will let the court hang an adverse decision on a few points, ignore the other points, and set a precedent against up. Better to attach individual points with specific points (eating the elephant one bite at a time).

I agree with you Rob. Goal lobbying Beacon Hill in the past has been in some ways as productive as possible given the environment. With this new law there was no such opportunity or it made no sense given the scope and willingness to be irrational by the 5 year olds elected to the General Court.

This is a poor strategy. I continue to be highly disappointed by Goal and their logic and strategic thinking. Their analysis of H4885 is so severely flawed in so many areas I am just baffled.

I do not see how this referendum ends well for us. Pissing in the wind would be as productive.

We need FPC, GOA and other national organizations to step in and fight the good fight with/for us. They have shown the ability to be highly focused and pick the right strategic issue to singularly attack. Attempts like this to take on something in its entirety has no future.

 

[Brian8146]

My thoughts of the referendum is a tactic to delay the implementation of the law. Since the AG is the one that writes the referendum, i doubt it's going to be impartial.

 

[zork51]

I agree with you Rob. Goal lobbying Beacon Hill in the past has been in some ways as productive as possible given the environment. With this new law there was no such opportunity or it made no sense given the scope and willingness to be irrational by the 5 year olds elected to the General Court.

This is a poor strategy. I continue to be highly disappointed by Goal and their logic and strategic thinking. Their analysis of H4885 is so severely flawed in so many areas I am just baffled.

I do not see how this referendum ends well for us. Pissing in the wind would be as productive.

We need FPC, GOA and other national organizations to step in and fight the good fight with/for us. They have shown the ability to be highly focused and pick the right strategic issue to singularly attack. Attempts like this to take on something in its entirety has no future.

What he said.

 

[maltc]

The referendum petition, if certified, does not put the current law on hold to "buy time" before it goes into effect.

My mistake. Edited my post. If that’s not the case you’re absolutely right.

AG gets to write the ballot question too. This measure may only solidify the “voice of the people.”

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My mistake. Edited my post. If that’s not the case you’re absolutely right.

AG gets to write the ballot question too. This measure may only solidify the “voice of the people.”

I do not believe the AG gets to "Write the question", but must certify the question as being consistent with state law. The instructions will have both a statement by proponents and opponents of the proposition.

 

[sieveboy]

Passage/validation at the ballot box will only empower them further

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is a poor strategy. I continue to be highly disappointed by Goal and their logic and strategic thinking. Their analysis of H4885 is so severely flawed in so many areas I am just baffled

When you are in a battle, one must guard against allowing anger rather than strategy to guide your moves.

 

[HARRYM]

I respectfully disagree with GOAL and think that the effort to start a referendum to recall the recent atrocity of a law is not strategically wise.

The proper reason to file referendum petitioins, or file court cases, is with a strategy to win - not to use these vehicles as platforms to express righteous indignation. There is no reasonable path to a win with a "let people buy child killing weapons of war" vote ... which is how it will be spun. Ditto for arguing people should be able to carry concealed handguns without ever having fired a gun.

People, or orgs, filing cases can become consumed in their personal conviction that they are on the side of what is right, that they lose perspective on strategy and tilt and windmills or try to teach pigs to sing. The long battle is chess, not checkers.

Senator Cheryl Jacques declared "I do not want or seek votes from GOAL members" when running for election - and knew that stating this would help her win. She was undefeatable in elections until she chose not to re-run.

MA is not WY. Such a referendum will almost certainly fail. GOAL can publish any "investigation" or "analysis" it wishes, but that will pale in comparison to the mainstream media against us. The genpop will be constantly hit with "assault weapon", "weapon of war", and the classic "does not violate the second amendment" . The referendum will go down in defeat, and will have demonstrated that the new law represents the will of the people. Even someone who has been our friend Senator Moore voted in favor of the bill.

The 1976 handgun ban referendum was different - people could relate to handguns as a self defense tool, and GOAL was formed as a defensive move - and did an astoundingly good job and resisting and defeating it. The system was against us then as wel- the MA SJC took a case right before the referendum (Davis, I think) so it could hand down a ruling that there was o individual right to own a handgun in MA.

Similarly, any suit to throw out the entire law is unlikely to succeed as the strategy will let the court hang an adverse decision on a few points, ignore the other points, and set a precedent against up. Better to attach individual points with specific points (eating the elephant one bite at a time).

The constitution guarantees rights and isn't based on a majority vote or someone's opinion. You are correct in that it gives many the belief the the 2A can be voted on and that is beyond dangerous. The entire Bill of Rights could be voted on. This was poorly thought out.

 

[maltc]

The referendum petition, if certified, does not put the current law on hold to "buy time" before it goes into effect.
[maltc indicates he understands the inaccuracy of this statement and has issued a correction]

@Cape Gun Works

 

[MAJoe]

Just as this bill was a “temper tantrum in response to Bruen”, a doomed to fail referendum is a “temper tantrum in response to the bill”.

There needs to be a measured and calculated response that mitigates the risk of harmful precedent.

 

[Andykap]

“Nothing beats a failure, but a try” We should exhaust every option we have, instead of just talking…

 

[pastera]

“Nothing beats a failure, but a try” We should exhaust every option we have, instead of just talking…

No, we should carefully construct a sound and executable legal plan based on a proven framework.

Going after this from every angle allows them to choose their strongest place to defend from.

Small, clear and consistent cases need to be developed if we want any chance of getting to SCOTUS quickly and without massive baggage.

 

[hennypenny]

Am I hearing this right? Don't sign because we could fail and worse things could happen?

 

[MAJoe]

Am I hearing this right? Don't sign because we could fail and worse things could happen?

This is trying to see the bigger picture. This is not a winning strategy and has a strong likelihood of making future opposition more difficult.

Sending a letter to a legislator opposing the bill has no downside but didn’t help at all. Have at it if it makes you feel good. This referendum approach will harm the 2A community more than help.

 

[hennypenny]

Did you guys forget the Oregon Gun Referendum? It passed and got overturned. Tell me again how a referendum harms a court appeal.

 

[Foudre]

Did you guys forget the Oregon Gun Referendum? It passed and got overturned. Tell me again how a referendum harms a court appeal.

Does our state handle referendums the same way Oregon does?

 

[groundscrapers]

Am I hearing this right? Don't sign because we could fail and worse things could happen?

putting it to a vote gives legitimacy to the fact that it exists as a law in the first place not to mention that it will fail. The only place to challenge this is line by line in the courts.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

putting it to a vote gives legitimacy to the fact that it exists as a law in the first place not to mention that it will fail. The only place to challenge this is line by line in the courts.

and waiting 20 plus yrs

 

[MaroonedinMA]

Did you guys forget the Oregon Gun Referendum? It passed and got overturned. Tell me again how a referendum harms a court appeal.

Doesn’t MA strike you as a different sort of electorate?

 

[hennypenny]

Maybe give GOAL a little credit for planning this one out. Maybe a loss of a referendum gives rise to grounds for an appeal. And no, I don't think the electorate that delivered the anti-gun vote in Oregon is any different. A leftist majority remains a leftist majority, here, in Oregon, or anywhere else.

 

[not new guy]

I'd be interested in hearing if this referendum is a knee jerk reaction or something that the lawyers who will ultimately be litigating this support and have advised them on. This is not a decision that should be made by internet forums, lobbyists, or by a consensus of gun owners.

 

[Endangered]

I am no law expert, but I don't see how the referendum would help us. With the media against us, there is absolutely zero chance it would get voted in our favor. There is no way the general public could be educated properly to be able to make an informed decision on it, all they will know is that killy ghost guns bad and this law will save lives. Once it loses, then everyone knows that it was voted on by the people so it is OK for a select few in MA to lose their rights because it was legitimized by the "democratic process" And if it does get overturned in court after that, then everyone is up in arms because the radical MAGA court is destroying democracy after the people have spoken and they will make more egregious laws just to spite the court.

Maybe there is more to the plan for the referendum, but if just a delay tactic, I can't make sense of it. I don't know what the solution is, but it will certainly require a lot of time, money and a very well thought out plan of attack.

 

[KH56010]

My stance in this state has always been to not give a shit about voting and sue. That’s why I supported Comm2a and they in return supported me down the road. Even in everyday life, when you actually hit an impass with a stubborn SOB. A mountain of paperwork from lawyers seems to always get their attention more than protesting out in the front yard.

 

[kevin9]

putting it to a vote gives legitimacy to the fact that it exists as a law in the first place not to mention that it will fail. The only place to challenge this is line by line in the courts.

How does it give any more legitimacy to a law that's already signed and passed, and one that I would suggest may already be supported by a majority of residents?
The arguments against the law are not based on popularity, but based on its legal and constitutional issues, so a referendum loss would give no more legitimacy to an illegitimate law. I agree it's a long shot and the most likely success will come from direct legal challenges, but:

as long as it doesn't take resources from the legal challenge efforts.
IMNSHO (many of) the arguments against the referendum feel like "high road" objections, and I for one am done with taking the high road. Try anything and everything.