Recall H4885 referendum

It seems like a waste of time, manpower, and precious money that will be needed for the next decade of legal battles. It’s not going to sway public opinion and could possibly have the opposite effect. The Democratic marketing machine is very powerful.

If we had a stronger voice and it was a closer race for many of the Dem incumbents, then we might have some leverage in bringing it. Then again if that were true we wouldn’t be in this predicament in the first place.
 
hennypenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. It has no strategic value at all.
 
I don't really think this is going to land in SCOTUS by November Fifth. Not buying that the petition will move slower than the slow grind through the lower courts you happened to mention earlier, We're not going to change each other's minds on this. If you think this is a bad call, don't sign the petition.
 
IPSC_DRL said:
Rob is absolutely correct. The proposed referendum is a losing strategy for us.

I worked for GOAL for a short time and have a tremendous amount of respect for Jim and the other folks there, and the work that they do.

I also worked at the same company as Rob for many years and got to know him quite well. He is right in his astute observation of the situation we are in, and I trust his judgment 100% on this.

The courts are where we need to focus our resources.
Click to expand...
100% agreement here. I acknowledge there may be some strategic thing that's been missed, but I'm not seeing it.
bigred460 said:
I'll consider signing the petition but I'm not writing any checks towards it, it's DOA.
Click to expand...
I'm not signing, but I don't see any up side to not voting on the question if it does make it to the ballot.
 
mpmarino said:
The referendum is a bad idea. We will lose.

One would hope that the courts wouldn't be influenced by the loss and 'will of the people'. Obviously they shouldn't be.

....But we all know that they will be,
Click to expand...
The short term loss <might> actually be a win long term, all depends on how the lawfare plays out. It is a risk, but there could be a sound tactical reason for it.

Sometimes, the secret to winning a fight is taking a few shots to the chin and body before exploiting your opponent getting cocky and sloppy.
 
Last edited:
mpd61 said:
Massachusetts is NOT Oregon. That referendum was sooooo close it was practically invalid. Guaranteed that it would fail miserably here because 6.9 million population and 650K licensed gunowners. Do the math....It would hurt more than help
Click to expand...
That's what I've been saying... This is a bad move by GOAL.
 
spt_1955 said:
The sad truth is that well over 50% of the gun owners in this state didn't even know that a law had been passed until NBC ran a story that Maura had signed it.
Click to expand...
And what was reported to the masses was that it will stop ghost guns. Nothing about what it really does. So what do you think the unwashed masses will do at the polls? They will vote down the referendum and the antis get to use that against us in court and everywhere else.
 
mpd61 said:
Massachusetts is NOT Oregon. That referendum was sooooo close it was practically invalid. Guaranteed that it would fail miserably here because 6.9 million population and 650K licensed gunowners. Do the math....It would hurt more than help
Click to expand...
So, I might be fairly unique in this situation. I was born in Oregon and lived there until I started 5th grade in Massachusetts. I have family in both states.

Oregon is huge. Something like 80% of the land area is populated by 20% of the people. 4(ish) cities control the political landscape of the state.

Everyone else can hop, skip, and go f*** themselves as far as the main population is concerned.

This is the manifest danger of popular representation.
 
kalash said:
kalash said:
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. DoesGOAL have a strategy for educating the public about the less-popular parts of this law??
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

"Does GOAL have a strategy for educating the public about the less popular parts of this law??"

You could stop at "Does GOAL have a strategy?"

BTW. Anybody know where I can sign the petition?
 
spt_1955 said:
"Does GOAL have a strategy for educating the public about the less popular parts of this law??"

You could stop at "Does GOAL have a strategy?"

BTW. Anybody know where I can sign the petition?
Click to expand...
The state has to process the application and provide the signature sheets - in the state's hands right now.
 
When does the clock start concerning getting the rest of the signatures? Does it start when the initial 10 signatures are submitted to the state or does it start once the state validates the petition and gets the signature sheets to the submitter?
 
El_Guapo77 said:
www.boston.com

Opponents of new gun law look to overturn it through 2026 ballot question

Gun rights advocates would need to collect thousands of signatures to secure a ballot question about repealing the law.
www.boston.com
Click to expand...

1. I love this, looking forward to see it, LOL
Campbell is also required to prepare a summary of the law that would be repealed.
Click to expand...

2. Early October seems too soon, specially since they are delaying things. Os this bad reporting is there a set amount of time to gather signatures after it is approved or is there a set date?
Provided that Campbell’s office finds that the law can be subject to a referendum, GOAL and its allies would have until early October to collect tens of thousands of signatures if they hope to see the referendum put before voters.
Click to expand...
 
Did any of the brain trust that came up with this strategy actually read the MA constitution?

Massachusetts Constitution

malegislature.gov malegislature.gov

Specifically read Article XLVIII, VI.

Relevant pieces

No law passed by the general court shall take effect earlier than ninety days after it has become a law, excepting laws declared to be emergency laws and laws which may not be made the subject of a referendum petition, as herein provided.
Click to expand...


Section 3. Mode of Petitioning for the Suspension of a Law and a Referendum Thereon. - A petition asking for a referendum on a law, and requesting that the operation of such law be suspended, shall first be signed by ten qualified voters and shall then be filed with the secretary of the commonwealth not later than thirty days after the law that is the subject of the petition has become law. [The secretary of the commonwealth shall provide blanks for the use of subsequent signers, and shall print at the top of each blank a description of the proposed law as such description will appear on the ballot together with the names and residences of the first ten signers. If such petition is completed by filing with the secretary of the commonwealth not later than ninety days after the law which is the subject of the petition has become law the signatures of not less than fifteen thousand qualified voters of the commonwealth, then the operation of such law shall be suspended, and the secretary of the commonwealth shall submit such law to the people at the next state election, if thirty days intervene between the date when such petition is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth and the date for holding such state election; if thirty days do not so intervene, then such law shall be submitted to the people at the next following state election, unless in the meantime it shall have been repealed; and if it shall be approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon, such law shall, subject to the provisions of the constitution, take effect in thirty days after such election, or at such time after such election as may be provided in such law; if not so approved such law shall be null and void; but no such law shall be held to be disapproved if the negative vote is less than thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast at such state election.]
Click to expand...
 
EMTDAD said:
if it actually gets to a vote in Nov 2026, we're already f***ed.
Click to expand...
The switchblade decision gives us a pathway in state court to go after both the current and new bans

A switchblade was determined to be no more or less dangerous than a manually opening folder and therefore part of the same protected class of arms.
Given that semiautomatic rifles chambered in the same cartridge are expressly allowed as those of banned rifles, no argument of disparity of danger can be raised

Edit: hit post early

The referendum, if successful, shouldn't stall a challenge based on the switchblade decision so NOW it is a definite positive in that dealers aren't closed for two years awaiting an outcome.
 
Wolfgar said:
I guess the Sign up sheets are out, gathering locations. Say we get the 50,000 sigs and it goes to a vote...and it loses, then what?
?
Click to expand...
I'm expecting the vote to fail. Doing this is a delaying tactic to hopefully save the local shops. No shops means no sales, means effectively banned.
The court cases will proceed with or with or without it.
 
42! said:
I'm expecting the vote to fail. Doing this is a delaying tactic to hopefully save the local shops. No shops means no sales, means effectively banned.
The court cases will proceed with or with or without it.
Click to expand...
emergency order by governer at anytime for any reason including "convenience" and the petition does not suspend the law. The result is no delay in effectiveness and we just get the bad result of a huge loss at the polls. Brilliant strategic decision.
 
CrackPot said:
emergency order by governer at anytime for any reason including "convenience" and the petition does not suspend the law. The result is no delay in effectiveness and we just get the bad result of a huge loss at the polls. Brilliant strategic decision.
Click to expand...
so if we might lose we should just do nothing?

losing a state vote won't mean anything when it gets to Fed courts, and we aren't going to win in the state courts anyway... oh wait that means we shouldn't try
 
42! said:
so if we might lose we should just do nothing?

losing a state vote won't mean anything when it gets to Fed courts, and we aren't going to win in the state courts anyway... oh wait that means we shouldn't try
Click to expand...
Forcing the governor to put in place an executive order that results in the law taking effect SOONER than 10/23 is bad.

Getting a vote that is 70% in favor of the law solves nothing.

Don't fall into the "do something" trap. Do things that are productive and make sense. We have stupid gun laws in large part because the legislature needed to "do something".

Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. This is doing the wrong thing.
 
CrackPot said:
Forcing the governor to put in place an executive order that results in the law taking effect SOONER than 10/23 is bad.

Getting a vote that is 70% in favor of the law solves nothing.

Don't fall into the "do something" trap. Do things that are productive and make sense. We have stupid gun laws in large part because the legislature needed to "do something".

Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. This is doing the wrong thing.
Click to expand...

This…..Exactly this.
 
Perhaps it's a best strategy to move on with a Constitutional attorney or the gun right org that have already filed suits once the law takes effect??

It is tough to gulp down however, what is happening to us and have it put to us that we can stick a wrench in the gearbox of corruption in Boston by filing a referendum and hope something will change during the "delay" if that makes sense. Especially to all of us here in Mass who have followed every damn inch of the laws here.

But I just heard Crackpot explaining to a handful of kids in the shop "how things work" in Massachusetts Law. It's devastating. In the movies, the good guys turn shit around in about 2 hours or so.
 
CrackPot said:
emergency order by governer at anytime for any reason including "convenience" and the petition does not suspend the law. The result is no delay in effectiveness and we just get the bad result of a huge loss at the polls. Brilliant strategic decision.
Click to expand...
But the polls don't mean anything.
What matters is what a judge eventually says.
 
Will she play her cards or is she bluffing??? Playing her card isn’t 100% for her, she’s not sure what cards we have that might be played… why hasn’t she played her card if she’s 100% it’s 4 aces to 4 duces… At this point with the petition we’ve called ands it’s time to put the cards on the table… time is an issue for both sides petion wise to get 50,000 registered voters to sign on her side time for an EO is running out … will playing her card possibly backfire on her …should she play the odds on us getting it done ?? Stay tuned for the next episode of gambling with gun rights
 
Back
Top Bottom