STOP ERPO TODAY!!! - Light Up The State House Phones!

[W.E.C]

If ERPOs replaced suitability I'd be all for it. Once we get ERPO laws on the books, certainly the legislature will make LTCs shall-issue with no restrictions, right? What's he have to say about that?

That trade off to avoid redundancy is in the senate version.

 

[Coyote33]

Who is Keiko Orrall and Len Mirra?

...
You have every right to be a single issue voter, but please bear in mind that I have a far left opponent who would not only vote for the original version of this bill but will also support another bill coming up that would ban all semi-automatic weapons. ...."

OK, please fill us in on this.

 

[Mike S]

Here's the response I got from Len Mirra (we had several phone conversations and email exchanges) - basically throws GOAL under the bus, says it was going to pass anyway so why not vote for it and his opponent is even worse then he is....

I dunno - were the amendments that actually got approved any improvement at all ? For instance I thought the penasties for a false report were actually lowered ?

P

"I'm a member of GOAL and I received the same email that I'm guessing you received; it's full of lies and distortions. They continue to send these emails because it results in increased donations and memberships. Their recent emails are nothing more than fund drives, playing upon the current emotional climate.

The original bill was very flawed and that's why the language was changed in two separate committees, and then changed again on the day it was passed, so it's totally untrue to say our amendments were not accepted. It's even more of a lie to say it doesn't recognize due process. One of the main changes was to actually improve due process over current laws. Right now a police chief can confiscate your license and your guns on mere supposition; he can deem you "unsuitable" based on his own opinions. This ERPO law requires a person to appear before a judge, and produce credible evidence, before an ERPO can be used. Additionally, it provides additional avenues for appeals, and time limits on having a hearing. We also changed the wording so that a court can have discretion to order an ERPO for "up to" a year instead of a blanket one year order. We also expressed concerns over a person using false allegations to have an ERPO served, so we put in penalties for anyone who does that.
As I explained to you before, this bill had broad support and was going to pass regardless of what a small number of us said or did. So we had two choices: we could make a symbolic vote against the original bill and end up with a deeply flawed law, or we could work with the majority and get the bill improved so that due process and gun rights are better protected. I chose the latter and I think it's a bold faced lie to say this is a gun confiscation bill. Also keep in mind that even the NRA supports ERPO laws when the changes we made are included. NRA's Gun Violence Restraining Order Support: A Good Move | National Review
You have every right to be a single issue voter, but please bear in mind that I have a far left opponent who would not only vote for the original version of this bill but will also support another bill coming up that would ban all semi-automatic weapons. Please keep that in mind as she also supports sanctuary cities and a sanctuary state. I'm sure you know where I stand on those issues."

Respond to Mirra, ask him when finding someone guilty and making them prove their innocence in court became within the bounds of "due process".

Also, another one with the "vote for me or get something worse" bullshit.

Once again I ask, how is it going to be any worse?

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Here's the response I got from Len Mirra (we had several phone conversations and email exchanges) - basically throws GOAL under the bus, says it was going to pass anyway so why not vote for it and his opponent is even worse then he is....

"I'm a member of GOAL and I received the same email that I'm guessing you received; it's full of lies and distortions. They continue to send these emails because it results in increased donations and memberships. Their recent emails are nothing more than fund drives, playing upon the current emotional climate.

Tell that ass wipe I will personally pay him his membership fee back if he never mentions GOAL again or tries to gather votes by claiming his 2A bonafides like a frigging carnival barker shining on the rubes.

 

[Coyote33]

I'm confused about your categories. Moore and Fattman are for the bill and Eldridge and Chandler are against? I think you have this backwards

There are actually 2 prongs to this.

1) We need to work on the Senate version of this bill. We need to figure out who can be reached with common sense, and how.

2) We need to unseat those who are doing us all harm.

 

[71montess]

Oh, Keiko, this state doesn't lock up armed heroin dealers who are multi time offenders, do you really expect us to take comfort in "severe penalties" for a false report?

Also, she is basically saying, if you don't vote for me, the alternative is a lot worse.

I have to ask how that is?

Given the alternative !

 

[Boston4567]

There are actually 2 prongs to this.

1) We need to work on the Senate version of this bill. We need to figure out who can be reached with common sense, and how.

2) We need to unseat those who are doing us all harm.

I would modify #2. If they're in a close district and there's a good candidate and we have the opportunity to flip it, then great. But out of 200 districts we're probably going to be able to count those opportunities on one hand.

More importantly, we need to determine who can be persuaded and try to persuade them. I'd rather have a D that is sympathetic to us in the room where decisions are made than an R sitting out in the cold being ignored.

 

[Coyote33]

I can agree with that. Let's begin somewhere. I started a list above. The level of interest is telling me why we are losing in this state. Total apathy! Naysayers not wanted. Gotta keep things moving in a forward direction.

 

[PeterC]

Who is Keiko Orrall and Len Mirra?

Mirra is my Rep from the 2nd Essex district. I presume Orrall is someone else's

 

[commandcaddy]

Orrall I believe is First Bristol Plymouth and is running for State Treasurer. Her husband is running for her soon to be vacated seat. I know she represents Lakeville and Middleboro and I think Berkeley.

 

[Dadstoys]

Damn it. Len Mirra has been pretty good up till now.
Gun owner and belongs to my club.
Apparently neither he or Keiko actually read the damn thing or has experience with how things work in the real world .
The thing was designed to f*ck over law abiding people.
Not one thing more.
Guess I can tell him to count me out next time around.

 

[TayNinh_66]

GOAL could have focused on fixing the lack of due process and pushed for changes that would bring it in line with Florida's bill, which would make it basically neutral relative to current law. Instead they opposed it root and branch, accomplished nothing in terms of improving the bill, came off as extremists, and alienated allies.

The "make this a mental health bill" stuff, to anyone in this state's political establishment, came off as a sideshow and a distraction. It was never going to work. I know lots and lots of people in the "squishy middle" in this state ideologically who saw that argument as absolute gobbeldygook. These are persuadable people; once I explained the due process arguments they understood. But you're not going to sell them on "a law getting guns out of the hands of dangerous people is a bad thing unless paired with a mental health bill."

Agree. GOAL was claiming this bill was "cruel" to mentally ill people right to the very end. Really strange message for a bill that was guaranteed to pass is some form. In the face of well financed and organized support for ERPO a coherent message was needed and the Cruel and Dangerous GOAL message simply didn't resonate and they lost a lot of credibility. There may have been a chance to change the evidentiary standard or limit the petitioners to immediate family or LEO as other states have done but we are now stuck with the most onerous ERPO bill of all the ones passed so far. Good news for firearms attorneys who will now have a new income source.

 

[Coyote33]

Tell your whole club to not vote for him. Then tell him you told them. People need to feel the repercussions.

Agree. GOAL was claiming this bill was "cruel" to mentally ill people right to the very end. Really strange message for a bill that was guaranteed to pass is some form. In the face of well financed and organized support for ERPO a coherent message was needed and the Cruel and Dangerous GOAL message simply didn't resonate and they lost a lot of credibility. There may have been a chance to change the evidentiary standard or limit the petitioners to immediate family or LEO as other states have done but we are now stuck with the most onerous ERPO bill of all the ones passed so far. Good news for firearms attorneys who will now have a new income source.

Wait, so there actually ARE other ERPO laws in the US? (see: Something coming in MA Legislature )

Yeah, the whole "cruel and dangerous" thing was off; just like the "Healey hurts families". Unexplainable.

 

[wahsben]

So we have a majority of politicians that took an oath of office to uphold the COTUS, some even claiming to support the 2A that are okay with violating a persons 2nd and 4th amendment rights based just on hearsay. Truly disgusting.

 

[GM-GUY]

Pass a ban, with forfeiture of currently owned and no compensation - PLEASE.

That is 100% game on and I’ll sleep like a baby.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

So we have a majority of politicians that took an oath of office to uphold the COTUS, some even claiming to support the 2A that are okay with violating a persons 2nd and 4th amendment rights based just on hearsay. Truly disgusting.

Not to mention the Massachusetts Constitution:

Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

I guess it's kinda like eating potato chips. Can't break just one.

Bob

 

[MachineHead]

Another angle would be for new candidates to insert themselves as D’s while actually being Libertarians. We know that having an R next to your name in this state is an uphill battle, but going in sheep (D) but voting wolf (L) might be good for at least an election cycle to propose a flurry of bills that whittle away some of the shit.

 

[MachineHead]

Who is Keiko Orrall and Len Mirra?

OK, please fill us in on this.

Also very curious about this.

 

[71montess]

Tell your whole club to not vote for him. Then tell him you told them. People need to feel the repercussions.




Wait, so there actually ARE other ERPO laws in the US? (see: Something coming in MA Legislature )

Yeah, the whole "cruel and dangerous" thing was off; just like the "Healey hurts families". Explainable.

Cruel and dangerous should have been thought out a little more !

 

[amm5061]

Pass a ban, with forfeiture of currently owned and no compensation - PLEASE.

That is 100% game on and I’ll sleep like a baby.

Yup, that's go time for sure. Hope everyone is stocking up.

 

[Boston4567]

Another angle would be for new candidates to insert themselves as D’s while actually being Libertarians. We know that having an R next to your name in this state is an uphill battle, but going in sheep (D) but voting wolf (L) might be good for at least an election cycle to propose a flurry of bills that whittle away some of the shit.

I think it's not uncommon in MA for relatively conservative people running for the state legislature to just run as a D if their district is moderate. It just makes it easier for them to win and more influential within the once they do, because they're in the club that matters.

Compared to a place like CA, the MA legislature is (small-c) conservative. They aren't looking to socially re-engineer the state every legislative session.

 

[Horrible]

So we have a majority of politicians that took an oath of office to uphold the COTUS, some even claiming to support the 2A that are okay with violating a persons 2nd and 4th amendment rights based just on hearsay. Truly disgusting.

Don’t forget about the 5A violations as well

 

[Freddy B]

we are now stuck with the most onerous ERPO bill of all the ones passed so far.

Still has to go to the Senate. They will likely tweak it, not necessarily for the better. Now it's time to call your state senator.

 

[Boston4567]

Cruel and dangerous should have been thought out a little more !

They just should rethink their communications strategy. They need to appeal to moderates and center-left people, and persuade them. And insulting and pissing off legislators unnecessarily is not a winning strategy.

• "Cruel and dangerous" and "Healey Hurts Families" is gobbledygook that appeals to no one.
• Offering a "compassionate" alternative and complaining that the current bill doesn't address mental health seems like a disingenuous sideshow because GOAL is not a mental health advocacy organization.
• Calling the ERPO bill a "gun grab" sounds paranoid and only appeals to strongly pro-2A people that already are against gun grabs. The bill is supposed to be a gun grab, from "extremely risky" people.
• By contrast, "due process" is something even liberals can get behind, and we're letting the antis' assertions about the bill having plenty of due process protections go uncontested in the media.
• Pushing to fix the Linsky language in the bump stock bill, and then in the 11th hour once they agree to do it, asking them to vote against it, is a good way to seem unreasonable.

 

[Freddy B]

Yeah, the whole "cruel and dangerous" thing was off; just like the "Healey hurts families". Unexplainable.

GOAL is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went for a compromise where they just tried to shave off some of the sharper edges, they would have been attacked by others for being too soft.

 

[Boston4567]

GOAL is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went for a compromise where they just tried to shave off some of the sharper edges, they would have been attacked by others for being too soft.

This sort of thing is a cop-out to avoid taking responsibility for bad outcomes. "You fought the good fight, people would have complained no matter what, etc".

No. Their job is to be an effective advocacy organization, not to avoid criticism.

 

[Coyote33]

They just should rethink their communications strategy. They need to appeal to moderates and center-left people, and persuade them. And insulting and pissing off legislators unnecessarily is not a winning strategy.

• "Cruel and dangerous" and "Healey Hurts Families" is gobbledygook that appeals to no one.
• Offering a "compassionate" alternative and complaining that the current bill doesn't address mental health seems like a disingenuous sideshow because GOAL is not a mental health advocacy organization.
• Calling the ERPO bill a "gun grab" sounds paranoid and only appeals to strongly pro-2A people that already are against gun grabs. The bill is supposed to be a gun grab, from "extremely risky" people.
• By contrast, "due process" is something even liberals can get behind, and we're letting the antis' assertions about the bill having plenty of due process protections go uncontested in the media.
• Pushing to fix the Linsky language in the bump stock bill, and then in the 11th hour once they agree to do it, asking them to vote against it, is a good way to seem unreasonable.

About the stuff in red:
1) True, never thought about it that way, but good point.
2) Also true. We need to accept this for what it is, then define it according to our terms.
3) Also true. Has GOAL or anyone else reached out to the ACLU?

GOAL is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they went for a compromise where they just tried to shave off some of the sharper edges, they would have been attacked by others for being too soft.

Possibly true. But the cruel and compassionate stuff just doesn't fly. Gotta hit with hard facts, and define what is right and what is wrong. Everybody KNOWS IT, we just need it quantified.

 

[Horrible]

They just should rethink their communications strategy. They need to appeal to moderates and center-left people, and persuade them. And insulting and pissing off legislators unnecessarily is not a winning strategy.

• "Cruel and dangerous" and "Healey Hurts Families" is gobbledygook that appeals to no one.
• Offering a "compassionate" alternative and complaining that the current bill doesn't address mental health seems like a disingenuous sideshow because GOAL is not a mental health advocacy organization.
• Calling the ERPO bill a "gun grab" sounds paranoid and only appeals to strongly pro-2A people that already are against gun grabs. The bill is supposed to be a gun grab, from "extremely risky" people.
• By contrast, "due process" is something even liberals can get behind, and we're letting the antis' assertions about the bill having plenty of due process protections go uncontested in the media.
• Pushing to fix the Linsky language in the bump stock bill, and then in the 11th hour once they agree to do it, asking them to vote against it, is a good way to seem unreasonable.

Liberals don’t believe in due process or anything in the Constitution when it comes to gunz. I have seen this with my own eyes at a hearing back in 2013 when a lib that lobbied the Legislature endlessly against mandatory minimums openly said that despite that he would support mandatory minimums for gun crimes!!

These people have no principles

 

[JJ4]

They just should rethink their communications strategy. They need to appeal to moderates and center-left people, and persuade them. And insulting and pissing off legislators unnecessarily is not a winning strategy.

• "Cruel and dangerous" and "Healey Hurts Families" is gobbledygook that appeals to no one.
• Offering a "compassionate" alternative and complaining that the current bill doesn't address mental health seems like a disingenuous sideshow because GOAL is not a mental health advocacy organization.
• Calling the ERPO bill a "gun grab" sounds paranoid and only appeals to strongly pro-2A people that already are against gun grabs. The bill is supposed to be a gun grab, from "extremely risky" people.
• By contrast, "due process" is something even liberals can get behind, and we're letting the antis' assertions about the bill having plenty of due process protections go uncontested in the media.
• Pushing to fix the Linsky language in the bump stock bill, and then in the 11th hour once they agree to do it, asking them to vote against it, is a good way to seem unreasonable.

This is spot on. It seems like we (GOAL, etc. = we) are running with the "Trump Communication Strategy". That strategy apparently worked on enough voters in other states, but is counter-productive with the MA legislature. We're making it easy for them to write us off and ignore us. We can do better.

 

[Mike S]

MA ACLU could care less about the 2A, I personally contacted my counterpart there numerous times and got crickets.