Mike S
NES Member
I'm hearing from a lot of people that the MA .gov www is not tablet/mobile device friendly, if you're browsing it from one of those that might be the issue. Try going to the computer if you can.
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 June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
GOAL's amendments analysis is up: http://goal.org/Documents/S2265Amendents[3].pdf
7/16/14 Alert:
GOAL S.2265 Alert Update.
GOAL has received the full list of amendments made to S.2265, please see below:
Please support - Call your State Senator TODAY and ask them to sign onto and support amendment #'s 6 & 56.
#6 - Removes the FID Suitability clause - Ask Your Senator to sign on and support.
#56 – Fixes the language in sections 39-43 regarding seized firearms – Ask your Senator to sign on and support.
Opposed amendments to note:
There are many amendments that we strongly oppose, some of the most egregious include #11 & #20 which would criminalize the private sale of firearms, #57 which is, among other things a one gun a month bill and #60 which would ban many common use firearms and magazines. (Renewed AWB).
Other opposed amendments:
There are many other amendments that we oppose, please call your State Senator today and ask that they oppose amendment #s: 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 40, 46, 48, 57, 59, and 60.
Dear Senator XXX:
Regarding S. 2265 An Act Relative to the reduction of gun violence
Please support the following amendments that are crucial to protecting civil rights in the commonwealth:
#6 Removes the FID Suitability clause.
#19 crossbow/bow clarification
#30 protections for licensed collectors to buy relics
#58 makes pepper spray more accessible
#56 Fixes the language in sections 39-43 regarding seized firearms.
Please oppose the following amendments:
Some of the most egregious include #11 & #20 which would criminalize the private sale of firearms, #57 which is, among other things a one gun a month bill and #60 which would ban many common use firearms and magazines.
Other opposed amendments:
There are many other amendments that I oppose #s: 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 40, 46, 48, 57, 59, and 60.
Best regards,
YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS
YOUR PHONE
YOUR EMAIL
DRAFT LETTER - PLEASE STEAL/COPY/MODIFY - USE AS A CUE SHEET FOR YOUR CALL
GET YOUR S/O TO CALL
Hat tip to mattyw and GOAL.
[/FONT]
This is great, but will for the most part be ignored. CALL CALL CALL CALL and CALL again.
Looks like GOAL got a serious chew out from the NRA for the neutral stance thus the change in tune.
How about a printed letter delivered to their office? I could do that again like I did for H4121.
link?
From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"
It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"
It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"
It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
From the bottom of the GOAL website:
"GOAL is the Official State Association of the National Rifle Association"
It doesn't take much thought to figure out what happened to cause them to change their position. That and the use of the word "egregious" which is an NRA signature pretty much tells you who's running the show. I was mistaken about the NRA regarding local issues. They are clearly the wizard behind the curtain.
Is there any document which gives the actual text of these proposed amendments? I saw the high level summary from goal, but would like to see the actual language.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Is there any document which gives the actual text of these proposed amendments? I saw the high level summary from goal, but would like to see the actual language.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Click on each amendment's number, and a pop up window will show the text
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2265
not even close, dude.
Senate ways and means, and then again after 63 proposed amendments...I won't turn this thread into a debate about who's running the show but if someone want's to PM me on how things went from neutral to egregious without NRA having said a few choice words I'm all ears.
Click on each amendment's number, and a pop up window will show the text
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/Senate/S2265
Thanks guys.
What's the deal with #60 (called a renewed AWB by GOAL)? Sounds like you would be stuck with any preban assault weapons and high cap mags and be unable to sell them unless you had possession pre 1994. Am I interpreting that correctly? Post ban compliant models seem unaffected.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Just called Creem's office, unfortunately I am a constituent. The staffer that answered the phone wrote down all of my information in full detail, then asked what I was calling about. She didn't know what I meant when I said Senate bill 2265, so I told her the bill regarding gun violence and she seemed unenthused when I told her I don't support any of the senator's amendments.