Responses from MA Representatives and Senators

I got the same as well. It appears that the Democrats have settled on hyperbole, straw men, and emotion, then acknowledge that none of these laws will reduce violence, but they want to pass them anyway.

I sure hope that when and if the Republicans have all three houses, they run the table with all sorts of repeals of this idiocy, though I hold out no hope for either.
 
This is my report from the Winchester/Stoneham roundtable discussion that happened tonight with Rep. Lewis, originally posted in that thread. This is a very brief summary of a 1.5 hour meeting so if anyone has specific questions I can answer them:

For anyone interested, this roundtable happened tonight. About 15 people showed up. I'd say 2 were anti, 2 or 3 were on the fence and the rest were on our side. So a good show by us, and we did most of the talking/informing.

The discussion largely centered around the practical effects of the Patrick/Linsky proposals on law-abiding gun owners. (Only at times did we drift off into theory, academia and Constitutional analysis.) It was very civil and unemotional for the most part.

Lewis, to his credit, really seemed interested in learning and seemed to get the big picture issues. Obviously there's no way to know how that would translate in a voting situation.

If I were to read the tea leaves, I would say the biggest vulnerability is on private transfers/FTF as well as OGAM. Fewer people than I had hoped were against a private transfer prohibition (in other words, that all transfers go through dealers, which would be a de facto ban on transfer of many post-94 guns), and I don't think our OGAM message was clearly received. (On OGAM, Patrick's stated rationale is a vague concern about "stockpiling" weapons.)

An encouraging night in a lot of respects but we must keep up the pressure and get out the facts!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you need to educate him that in MA all sales have an automatic background check since all purchasers and sellers must have an LTC, so a background check has been done already. The FA-10 records the transaction and allows the FRB or whoever to verify it.
 
That response isn't moving things in our favor. In MA, it's not even a real problem. Since the buyer and the seller both need licenses, they already got a background check.

- - - Updated - - -

That response isn't moving things in our favor. In MA, it's not even a real problem. Since the buyer and the seller both need licenses, they already got a background check.
 
turbo89 said:
Judging by you reaction, it appears that you think this is a favorable response... It is not. Criminal background checks for all firearm purchases is just another way of tracking and recording what us mere peons do.

Background checks for all transactions will do nothing to make anyone safer. Criminals will still steal, straw purchase, etc... to get guns. Us peons will be forced to FFL transfer every fire arm we own. Friend, Family, etc... it doesn't matter.

You (all of us) should hammer our reps for responses like that. There is no common sense being used here. Cusack's response is merely a knee jerk reaction to sheeple out cry and another step towards complete government control arms.
Click to expand...

No I don't think that it's a positive response. It's almost no response at all. I find it encouraging that he didn't say "I think that you should be only allowed on purchase a month and then store that at a gun range" or "I support strengthening the assault weapon ban". I also wrote him back right away to explain our system and encouraged him to contact Jim Wallace at Goal (not that I think he will).

What I meant by my last statement was lesser known reps might be able to be swayed. if they know that votes are in it then they will go where the votes are. In 2010 there were 35,744 residents in the town. election results:
Mark Cusack (D) 9,544
Dan Clifford (I) 6,719

In 2012 he ran unopposed. 3000 votes changes the election.

edit: I did explain that when we are going through the lic process we all get background checks, the "ok" by our CLEO, and need to check the lic of the person that we are selling to.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your update. What does OGAM mean? Also, I bought my pre-94 gun from a dealer so I am not sure what you mean by a de facto ban on transfer of pre-94 guns. Can you please explain what you mean?
 
Here is my response from and back to Lizzy Warren

I am a veteran and if I was still on active duty I was rebel at being given what you call a military-grade assault weapon, the civilian GUNS that can be commercially bought are NOT military-grade, no more than a sports car is a NASCAR vehicle for civilian use, they are two different machines.

Yes they LOOK like a military gun but they are not military-grade, they are no more military grade than the airsoft pellet guns which look scary and military. These guns are less powerful than all hunting rifles, in fact the AK and AR guns are illegal to use for hunting because they are not powerful enough.



We have a major problem with cocaine and heroin in this country, I suggest you go to the Senate and recommend that we ban the sale possession and use of cocaine and heroin then we won't have a problem with these drugs!



On background checks, can you guarantee to me that all the criminals will participate in the background check program? It is not a universal background check if they do not. Due to HIPAA people with mental problems don't have them reported to the NICS check and so can buy guns when they shouldn't, but it is easier and safer to go after the law-abiding, isn't it?



On standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds, can you guarantee me that the criminals will not be using them once they are banned? I thought not.

Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are like cars that can go over 65 mph, Why do we have cars that can drive over 65 mph? It is illegal to drive faster than that in all but a couple states, which are 70 mph, however ALL cars will go over 65, WHY, don't you know that high speed is the second biggest reason for auto deaths, after drunk driving which is also illegal except for illegals and legislators in Mass, but it kills more people than guns every year.



Why don't we enforce the laws we have and stop the criminal misuse of guns? Is it because you and the rest of the people like you would rather pass another law than deal with the laws that are being broken daily? After all the criminals will obey the newest one right?



Chicago is the perfect example of a total gun ban for years and now after the McDonald decision it is still virtually impossible to have a gun in your house and against the law to carry one outside the house. BUT in 2012 there were 506 gun murders in Chicago, that is hardly mentioned, is that what you want for the rest of the country? If only criminals have guns that is what we will have.



Jeff



From: Elizabeth Warren [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:01 PM
To: jeff@
Subject: Thanks for contacting me





Dear Jeffrey,

Thank you for contacting me about gun control legislation.

Like millions of people across the country, I was heartbroken by the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School last December. I do not know how to explain the deaths of twenty innocent children or why six heroic teachers had to make the ultimate sacrifice for their students.

I also grew up in family that used guns. My older brothers hunted, and I learned to shoot when I was in grade school. I have great respect for the role that hunting and guns play in many communities across the country and believe there is a place for responsible gun ownership in our society. But I also don't think anyone needs military-grade assault weapons to hunt or Rambo-style high capacity magazines to protect their family from intruders.

That's why I support a comprehensive set of reforms to reduce gun violence. I strongly support reauthorizing the expired ban on federal assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I also support closing the loopholes in federal background checks for gun shows and private sales. The President has put forward a slate of proposals to help address gun violence and gun safety, and I support those efforts as well.

There is no one way to stop gun violence, and there is certainly room for disagreement on the steps that we should take. But I hope that we can agree that we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our children to take the steps we can to stop the violence. I believe that a reauthorized assault weapons ban and the President's proposals represent a responsible path forward. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to look for other steps we can take to protect our children and families from these terrible tragedies. I believe that is my responsibility as a United States Senator -- and as a mother and grandmother.

Sincerely,



Elizabeth Warren
United States Senator
 
Response from Fernandes, John - Rep. (HOU)

Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful email. My goal is to look for a solution to the increasing use of more powerful weapons in mass killings that are doing such terrible damage. As a parent, I cannot fathom the horror of dropping my child at school and finding that the type of event as happened in Newtown could ever occur. I am looking at legislation from a "cause/ effect" impact viewpoint, not a knee jerk response. I will support such ideas if I believe they work regardless of whether that solution involves gun control, mental health assistance, video game access or any other idea that actually has a possibility of working. I think that we owe that to the kids. I suspect most ideas out there won't meet the standard but I will give every idea a fair hearing. I hope you will too.

Also, see my comments to your comments below:

1. Law-abiding firearms owners are not to blame for ‘gun violence’
Ans - Actually, maybe not true in Newtown. The weapons used belonged to, by all accounts, a law-abiding gun owner.

2. Prohibition of firearms based on cosmetic characteristics will do nothing to stop ‘gun violence’

Ans - I'm not aware of anyone proposing prohibitions on "cosmetic characteristics". I'm not sure what that means. I think the focus seems to be on the clip capacity more than the gun.

3. Proposing gun control laws that will be obeyed by only by people who don’t commit crimes is a waste of time
Ans - We've never passed a law that 100% succeeds in stopping the proscribed action, but we must acknowledge that laws do have a preventative impact and a deterrent impact that may not even be measurable but we know is there. These mass killings are more about people with mental health issues accessing legally owned weapons rather than the criminal element that uses a gun to assist in a crime.

4. We don’t need new gun laws; we need to enforce the existing laws
Ans - I must be honest that this argument concerns me. What laws are the police not enforcing that would stop killings? That is a serious accusation against the police in carrying out their jobs and I would agree that if there is evidence of laws not being enforced, then we should be having a conversation with the police.

5. The People reserved for themselves the Right to Keep and Bear Arms not for hunting or sporting purposes, but to protect ourselves from tyranny.
Ans - And the Supreme Court has acknowledged that right at the same time granting the right to the Government to reasonably regulate the possession, and I for one, am keenly aware of the boundaries the Courts have set. I will always respect that right.

6. Massachusetts residents who lawfully own firearms have endured abusive restrictions, discrimination and regulation which do nothing to lower crime
Ans - Such as...? The statistics cannot be ignored at least on this one. States with the most restrictive guns laws have the lowest rate of gun ownership and the fewest killings by guns, and the reverse holds true of states with the least restrictive laws having the greatest deaths by guns, by a pretty significant amount. Now that doesn't mean all the Massachusetts laws are right but the statement that restrictive laws don't have results isn't a fair one.

7. For real solutions, the discussion needs to be about school security, keeping violent criminals incarcerated and addressing the needs of the mentally ill, not more bans and restriction that will only further abuse the civil rights of the law abiding.
Ans - I absolutely agree that all those issues are a part of the discussion, but so must be the access to weapons.

I'm not optomistic there is a new piece of legisation that is both legal, and practical that will address how you stop:
a mentally ill person who watches hours of violent video games then gets a legally owned weapon killing the owner who then goes to an elementary school we think is safely locked down and in seven minutes puts no fewer than three and as many as eleven bullets into twenty 5 and 6 year olds and six adults.

Not convinced the law is out there for that, but I think that I have an obligation to look...
 
BARF [bs2]


darrowj said:
Response from Fernandes, John - Rep. (HOU)

Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful email. My goal is to look for a solution to the increasing use of more powerful weapons in mass killings that are doing such terrible damage. As a parent, I cannot fathom the horror of dropping my child at school and finding that the type of event as happened in Newtown could ever occur. I am looking at legislation from a "cause/ effect" impact viewpoint, not a knee jerk response. I will support such ideas if I believe they work regardless of whether that solution involves gun control, mental health assistance, video game access or any other idea that actually has a possibility of working. I think that we owe that to the kids. I suspect most ideas out there won't meet the standard but I will give every idea a fair hearing. I hope you will too.

Also, see my comments to your comments below:

1. Law-abiding firearms owners are not to blame for ‘gun violence’
Ans - Actually, maybe not true in Newtown. The weapons used belonged to, by all accounts, a law-abiding gun owner.

2. Prohibition of firearms based on cosmetic characteristics will do nothing to stop ‘gun violence’

Ans - I'm not aware of anyone proposing prohibitions on "cosmetic characteristics". I'm not sure what that means. I think the focus seems to be on the clip capacity more than the gun.

3. Proposing gun control laws that will be obeyed by only by people who don’t commit crimes is a waste of time
Ans - We've never passed a law that 100% succeeds in stopping the proscribed action, but we must acknowledge that laws do have a preventative impact and a deterrent impact that may not even be measurable but we know is there. These mass killings are more about people with mental health issues accessing legally owned weapons rather than the criminal element that uses a gun to assist in a crime.

4. We don’t need new gun laws; we need to enforce the existing laws
Ans - I must be honest that this argument concerns me. What laws are the police not enforcing that would stop killings? That is a serious accusation against the police in carrying out their jobs and I would agree that if there is evidence of laws not being enforced, then we should be having a conversation with the police.

5. The People reserved for themselves the Right to Keep and Bear Arms not for hunting or sporting purposes, but to protect ourselves from tyranny.
Ans - And the Supreme Court has acknowledged that right at the same time granting the right to the Government to reasonably regulate the possession, and I for one, am keenly aware of the boundaries the Courts have set. I will always respect that right.

6. Massachusetts residents who lawfully own firearms have endured abusive restrictions, discrimination and regulation which do nothing to lower crime
Ans - Such as...? The statistics cannot be ignored at least on this one. States with the most restrictive guns laws have the lowest rate of gun ownership and the fewest killings by guns, and the reverse holds true of states with the least restrictive laws having the greatest deaths by guns, by a pretty significant amount. Now that doesn't mean all the Massachusetts laws are right but the statement that restrictive laws don't have results isn't a fair one.

7. For real solutions, the discussion needs to be about school security, keeping violent criminals incarcerated and addressing the needs of the mentally ill, not more bans and restriction that will only further abuse the civil rights of the law abiding.
Ans - I absolutely agree that all those issues are a part of the discussion, but so must be the access to weapons.

I'm not optomistic there is a new piece of legisation that is both legal, and practical that will address how you stop:
a mentally ill person who watches hours of violent video games then gets a legally owned weapon killing the owner who then goes to an elementary school we think is safely locked down and in seven minutes puts no fewer than three and as many as eleven bullets into twenty 5 and 6 year olds and six adults.

Not convinced the law is out there for that, but I think that I have an obligation to look...
Click to expand...
 
darrowj said:
1. Law-abiding firearms owners are not to blame for ‘gun violence’
Ans - Actually, maybe not true in Newtown. The weapons used belonged to, by all accounts, a law-abiding gun owner.
Click to expand...
Who was the victim of murder and robbery in the process. If she is to blame, it is for parenting skills, not owning guns.

darrowj said:
2. Prohibition of firearms based on cosmetic characteristics will do nothing to stop ‘gun violence’

Ans - I'm not aware of anyone proposing prohibitions on "cosmetic characteristics". I'm not sure what that means. I think the focus seems to be on the clip capacity more than the gun.
Click to expand...
Some are, some aren't. We do need to be careful on this as Linksy's response is try to ban them all.

They key issue is that ALL rifles ("assault" or not) are a tiny fraction of gun crimes which is why the FBI and CDC could not find any impact of the prior AWB, because they were regulating items that were not a significant factor in crime as well as attempting to regulate people who already break, so they are unmoved by such regulation.

darrowj said:
3. Proposing gun control laws that will be obeyed by only by people who don’t commit crimes is a waste of time
Click to expand...
Proposing laws that restrict the civil rights of law abiding people without due process is unconstitutional. Not just a waste of time, it is an affront to liberty, a violation of your oath of office and unacceptable.
 
darrowj said:
Response from Fernandes, John - Rep. (HOU)
6. Massachusetts residents who lawfully own firearms have endured abusive restrictions, discrimination and regulation which do nothing to lower crime
Ans - Such as...? The statistics cannot be ignored at least on this one. States with the most restrictive guns laws have the lowest rate of gun ownership and the fewest killings by guns, and the reverse holds true of states with the least restrictive laws having the greatest deaths by guns, by a pretty significant amount. Now that doesn't mean all the Massachusetts laws are right but the statement that restrictive laws don't have results isn't a fair one.
Click to expand...
My responses:
- Illinois has the most stringent gun laws, and yet Chicago is the murder capital of the US.
- Correlation does not imply causation. Massachusetts also has one of the best education systems in the country, a high standard of living, and strong social services. Keeping people out of poverty, desperation, and gangs likely has as much to do with reducing violence of all kinds than anything.
 
JJ4 said:
My responses:
- Illinois has the most stringent gun laws, and yet Chicago is the murder capital of the US.
- Correlation does not imply causation. Massachusetts also has one of the best education systems in the country, a high standard of living, and strong social services. Keeping people out of poverty, desperation, and gangs likely has as much to do with reducing violence of all kinds than anything.
Click to expand...
While I think your second response is particularly relevant, I would attack the statistics around his reply as cherry-picked and try to find good arguments and statistics to debunk them. Although I strongly disagree with his current tack on this issue, John is very intelligent and will respond best to facts that legitimately counter the ones he's being fed by the antis.

ETA

These mass killings are more about people with mental health issues accessing legally owned weapons rather than the criminal element that uses a gun to assist in a crime.
Click to expand...
This is a great place to pick up the gauntlet, as the NRA (love em or hate em) has proposed improving reporting of adjudicated mentally ill to NICS (i.e. improving existing system) and we already have significant storage laws in MA that, if followed, accomplish this.

We'll also need to find a good response to his concern about normal capacity mags. I think we can make a strong point that they are just as available as ever in MA via pre-bans and a) our police are NOT being out-gunned and b) our murder rates continue to fall!

Again, you and I know it's cr** to have to justify these details in light of a constitutional right, but we are way beyond that in MA and need to hold our ground at the very least. George D and I were talking about getting some face time with John to discuss this stuff since we booth know him. Need to get our notes together and make this happen...
 
Last edited:
Received this unfortunate response from Stephen Lynch. Can't see where anybody else has posted it yet, sorry if it's redundant.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the recent push for common sense measures to prevent gun violence. Please know that I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this important issue.
As you may know, our country recently faced an unimaginable tragedy in Newtown, CT, when 20 children and 6 adults were senselessly killed. This heartbreaking event came after additional tragic mass shootings such as those in Aurora (CO), Oak Creek (WI), and Tucson (AZ). Subsequently, On Wednesday, January, 16th, 2013, President Obama formally announced his proposals to curb gun violence based on suggestions offered by V ice P resident Biden's task force. The President's plan to prevent gun violence includes such measures as : requiring criminal background checks for all gun purchases; banning "military style" assault weapons; restricting high-capacity ammunition magazines; strengthening penalties for gun trafficking; and h elp ing to ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.

While I support the 2 nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, our country has witnessed far too many mass shootings in recent y ears for Congress not to act. I agree that mental health care and background checks must be improved, but I also think more must be done. I believe that President Obama's plan is a comprehensive, common sense approach to help protect the lives of Americans and keep our communities safer. While we may never be able to completely prevent another of these tragedies, we can certainly take steps to make them less likely. Even though we may ultimately disagree on the path forward, I truly appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this essential issue with me and p lease know that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind .

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you need additional assistance with this or any other issue.


Sincerely,

Stephen F. Lynch
Member of Congress
 
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding the recent legislative proposals related to gun ownership.

I share your commitment to upholding the rights ensured by the Second Amendment and historically I have enjoyed a stellar rating from the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL). With that in mind, I will continue to review all proposed legislation regarding firearms and I appreciate your input.

If I can be of any further assistance on this or any other issue, please feel free to contact me directly at any time.

With every good wish,

Senator Jim Timilty
 
Rep. John Tyranny's response to me.

A first class turd.





Dear Mr. Evans:

Your recent comments about gun safety have been brought to my attention. I appreciate you taking the time to share your personal perspective on this important matter, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The recent shooting in Connecticut as well as those in Arizona, Wisconsin and Aurora are terrible tragedies and my deepest sympathies continue to be with all victims and their families. The loss of innocent children of such tender years coupled with the loss of adults charged with their safety who so bravely sought to protect the children has struck a particular chord — or perhaps too, it is the accumulation of inconceivable grief - that now motivates so many to insist on action.

Consistently since before my initial election in 1996, I have maintained the position that common sense regulation of firearms, ammunition and the potential users of them should be adopted in this country as it has in so many others. With all due respect to those who communicated in opposition to any action, I do not believe that such reasonable measures need be inconsistent with any person’s constitutional rights.

Further, I believe we must support policies that seek to promote safety and reduce gun violence. One need not advocate confiscating all guns, but steps can and should be taken toward implementing sensible, fair, and balanced gun laws that will do more to protect everyone and particularly our nation’s children. I believe we should agree on commonsense measures that promote safety efforts designed to keep guns out of the hands of unsupervised children, dangerous criminals, and those who are mentally unstable and distinguish between weapons clearly intended for rapid-fire mass destruction and those used by responsible hunters or sports shooters.

In that vein, I am currently a co-sponsor of several measures before the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress that are aimed at addressing gun violence in a comprehensive manner. Some such legislation would strengthen background checks, institute a ban on high capacity ammunition, increase access and ability to conduct research on gun violence, and ban assault weapons.

No one believes that all incidents can be stopped through such legislation, but many rightfully believe many potential incidents can be avoided, and the severity of any that may be attempted can be curtailed. I applaud President Obama’s efforts and urge my colleagues to support common sense proposals such as banning assault weapons, expanding background checks and cracking down on gun trafficking. Along with the mothers and fathers in my community and nationwide, I continue to stand firm in my commitment to make our neighborhoods and our schools safer from violence.

I look forward to seeing you in the district soon. Be well.

Sincerely,
sig_12.gif

John F. Tierney
Member of Congress
 
+rep for spelling his name correctly in the subject line of the first post. I've always called that POS a tyrant.

-Mike
 

Similar threads

Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
12
Views
360
Laura
Laura
Personal transfer of pre-Healy MA compliant AR and/or lowers
Replies
4
Views
273
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
210
milktree
milktree
New to MA
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
Is the HK USP .45 legal in MA?
Replies
16
Views
446
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom