-
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.
STOP ERPO TODAY!!! - Light Up The State House Phones!
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
Whutmeworry
NES Member
"Section 131T. (a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to section 131R, the court may issue an emergency extreme risk protection order without notice to the respondent and prior to the hearing required pursuant to subsection (a) of section 131S if the court finds reasonable cause to conclude that the respondent poses a significant risk of causing bodily injury to self or others by being in possession of a license to carry firearms or a firearm identification card or having in his control, ownership or possession a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, weapon or ammunition."
Total, utter, naked tyranny. A VERY in-your-face violation of 2A, 4A and 5A at the very least. If this bill passes as is and is allowed to stand after being appealed to SCOTUS, I really hope all will join me in availing myself of the "cartridge box" option because it will truly be time for that.
Total, utter, naked tyranny. A VERY in-your-face violation of 2A, 4A and 5A at the very least. If this bill passes as is and is allowed to stand after being appealed to SCOTUS, I really hope all will join me in availing myself of the "cartridge box" option because it will truly be time for that.
StevieP
NES Member
I already called dibbs on Rosenthal
Whutmeworry
NES Member
He probably won't even bother to open this email but FWIW....
Attn: The Honorable Jeffery N. Roy
State House Room 134
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative Roy:
Please vote AGAINST H. 4517 when it comes up for a full vote in the house.
I understand the need to protect people from those who're at "extreme risk" of committing violence but as written, the language of H. 4517 allows for the confiscation of firearms from gun owners with ABSOLUTELY ZERO DUE PROCESS!!!!
In case you may not be aware of this language I've quoted it below:
"Section 131T. (a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to section 131R, the court may issue an emergency extreme risk protection order without notice to the respondent and prior to the hearing required pursuant to subsection (a) of section 131S if the court finds reasonable cause to conclude that the respondent poses a significant risk of causing bodily injury to self or others by being in possession of a license to carry firearms or a firearm identification card or having in his control, ownership or possession a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, weapon or ammunition."
This must, must, MUST NOT be allowed to pass as is.
It is A VERY DIRECT VIOLATION OF NOT JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT, BUT ALSO THE 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS. Allowing ANY government entity to violate the rights of any free person with out ANY due process in ANY form is unbelievably disturbing to me, and should be unbelievably disturbing to you too!
Should this come up for a vote "as is" I will be watch which way you vote on this measure. I'm well aware that you have a Republican challenger in the upcoming election cycle and will, along with several of my gun-owning friends be forced to support him and to vote against you if you fail to vote as I wish on H. 4517 as it ENTIRELY disregards liberty. All it takes is a mere accusation to completely violate the rights of gun owners in the commonwealth the way this bill is written.
This is probably the most egregious, anti-constitutional piece of legislation I've ever witnessed in my life.
Thank you.
Yes, of course I will be calling his office in the morning as well. Not that it will prevent him from voting in lock-step with DeLeo, but I really don't know what else to do.
Attn: The Honorable Jeffery N. Roy
State House Room 134
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative Roy:
Please vote AGAINST H. 4517 when it comes up for a full vote in the house.
I understand the need to protect people from those who're at "extreme risk" of committing violence but as written, the language of H. 4517 allows for the confiscation of firearms from gun owners with ABSOLUTELY ZERO DUE PROCESS!!!!
In case you may not be aware of this language I've quoted it below:
"Section 131T. (a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to section 131R, the court may issue an emergency extreme risk protection order without notice to the respondent and prior to the hearing required pursuant to subsection (a) of section 131S if the court finds reasonable cause to conclude that the respondent poses a significant risk of causing bodily injury to self or others by being in possession of a license to carry firearms or a firearm identification card or having in his control, ownership or possession a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, weapon or ammunition."
This must, must, MUST NOT be allowed to pass as is.
It is A VERY DIRECT VIOLATION OF NOT JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT, BUT ALSO THE 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS. Allowing ANY government entity to violate the rights of any free person with out ANY due process in ANY form is unbelievably disturbing to me, and should be unbelievably disturbing to you too!
Should this come up for a vote "as is" I will be watch which way you vote on this measure. I'm well aware that you have a Republican challenger in the upcoming election cycle and will, along with several of my gun-owning friends be forced to support him and to vote against you if you fail to vote as I wish on H. 4517 as it ENTIRELY disregards liberty. All it takes is a mere accusation to completely violate the rights of gun owners in the commonwealth the way this bill is written.
This is probably the most egregious, anti-constitutional piece of legislation I've ever witnessed in my life.
Thank you.
Yes, of course I will be calling his office in the morning as well. Not that it will prevent him from voting in lock-step with DeLeo, but I really don't know what else to do.
Palladin
NES Member
House bill would license stun guns like firearms
Committee officials confirmed to the News Service that the stun gun language added to the so-called "red flag" bill would ensure that anyone wishing to carry a stun gun would first have to obtain a license to carry a firearm.
Committee officials confirmed to the News Service that the stun gun language added to the so-called "red flag" bill would ensure that anyone wishing to carry a stun gun would first have to obtain a license to carry a firearm.
Mike S
NES Member
It's actually worse than that as the bill classifies them as handguns, which creates a huge mess for a plethora of reasons.
-Stun guns can't pass AG consumer regs
-Stun guns aren't serialized
-How would they be disposed of?
And on and on.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 436
- Likes
- 180
Don't even waste your time calling the politicians unless you're going to muster up a militia and have them tarred and feathered.Just move out of the shity state or if you have a bunch of money get a lawyer and sue them.
Whutmeworry
NES Member
The only problem with “moving out of the shitty state” - and trust me, I’m making my own escape plans - is that this shit will most certainly spread to other states if it is allowed to simply pass. We can’t pretend that a bill that provides ABSOLUTELY ZERO DUE PROCESS, not even a requirement to notify, isn’t a new level of tyranny. Even here in the PRM.
Last edited:
The other side isn’t compromising. Why are you?
You’re just on a slower path to losing.
^ That is why I am not bothering. They are the majority in this shitty state, they could not care less what you think or what you ask/tell them and if you think otherwise (that they do care and that the time you spend on the phone or keyboard makes a difference) you're a fool IMH.
Um, they're not compromising because they have a supermajority.
Should we prefer a fast path to losing?
Better than death by a thousand cuts, no?
amm5061
NES Member
Take notice of every single a**h*** who votes in favor of this and add them to the list.
I prefer to think if you fight back smart enough and hard enough, you can fend off death entirely. Might not be true, but you have to try
I wondering if the asinine stun gun move might backfire on them in court. Washington D.C. tried to play these games with firearms licensing and it was the equivalent of slamming a car door shut on their dicks in the end.
Received from my Rep. today:
Your Constitutional rights are being taken away tomorrow and you can't stop it.
As a legislator, and a member of the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security I’ve seen firsthand the attack on the 2nd Amendment in Massachusetts.
Starting with Attorney General Maura Healy’s unprecedented assault on semiautomatic firearms, to the fight to make Massachusetts a sanctuary state, and the confiscation of lawfully purchased products without just compensation; the efforts to disarm the law-abiding citizens of Massachusetts continues full speed.
As a legislator on Beacon Hill you have two choices: you can “go-along-to-get-along” and be someone who doesn't make waves, or you can roll up your sleeves and do what’s right. I’ve chosen the latter.
I was one of only 3 legislators to stand up and vote against a bill that would ban “any device that increases the rate of fire of a weapon”. This incredibly dangerous language would have made any firearm, modified for any purpose illegal overnight! Thankfully, because we stood up and we would not quietly agree, the Beacon Hill power brokers took notice and the language was dropped.
I was the only legislator to grill the sponsors of the Sanctuary State bill when it came before the Public Safety Committee. I demanded accountability and truth from the bill’s sponsors and again we succeeded!
And tomorrow, I'll be working hard to put an end to the so called "Red Flag" bill. The most blatant attempt in recent memory to revoke your constitutional rights.
Unfortunately, we don't have the votes to stop this bill. Which is why I need your help.
You see, being outspoken and standing up for your rights upsets the power structure on Beacon Hill and paints a huge bull’s eye on my back. I need your help to continue my fight to protect your 2nd Amendment rights.
Can you chip in just $15 right now to help me continue the fight to protect your 2nd Amendment rights?
That's it, just $15 - less than the cost for a box of 9mm rounds - helps me continue the fight on Beacon Hill
With you donation, I'll continue my fight to:
With politicians now openly campaigning by saying "F*ck the NRA", the time is now to stand with those of us in the fight every day. Sadly, we're going to lose the battle tomorrow, but we don't have to lose the war!
To Victory!
Peter
PS: Please donate today and help me do what I was sent here to do: Defend the Constitution
Donate
Your Constitutional rights are being taken away tomorrow and you can't stop it.
As a legislator, and a member of the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security I’ve seen firsthand the attack on the 2nd Amendment in Massachusetts.
Starting with Attorney General Maura Healy’s unprecedented assault on semiautomatic firearms, to the fight to make Massachusetts a sanctuary state, and the confiscation of lawfully purchased products without just compensation; the efforts to disarm the law-abiding citizens of Massachusetts continues full speed.
As a legislator on Beacon Hill you have two choices: you can “go-along-to-get-along” and be someone who doesn't make waves, or you can roll up your sleeves and do what’s right. I’ve chosen the latter.
I was one of only 3 legislators to stand up and vote against a bill that would ban “any device that increases the rate of fire of a weapon”. This incredibly dangerous language would have made any firearm, modified for any purpose illegal overnight! Thankfully, because we stood up and we would not quietly agree, the Beacon Hill power brokers took notice and the language was dropped.
I was the only legislator to grill the sponsors of the Sanctuary State bill when it came before the Public Safety Committee. I demanded accountability and truth from the bill’s sponsors and again we succeeded!
And tomorrow, I'll be working hard to put an end to the so called "Red Flag" bill. The most blatant attempt in recent memory to revoke your constitutional rights.
Unfortunately, we don't have the votes to stop this bill. Which is why I need your help.
You see, being outspoken and standing up for your rights upsets the power structure on Beacon Hill and paints a huge bull’s eye on my back. I need your help to continue my fight to protect your 2nd Amendment rights.
Can you chip in just $15 right now to help me continue the fight to protect your 2nd Amendment rights?
That's it, just $15 - less than the cost for a box of 9mm rounds - helps me continue the fight on Beacon Hill
With you donation, I'll continue my fight to:
- To be outspoken in the protection of your rights.
- Educate other legislators on the dangers of disregarding the 2nd Amendment.
- Helping new candidates challenge far left incumbents to help us even the numbers, and make your voice heard.
With politicians now openly campaigning by saying "F*ck the NRA", the time is now to stand with those of us in the fight every day. Sadly, we're going to lose the battle tomorrow, but we don't have to lose the war!
To Victory!
Peter
PS: Please donate today and help me do what I was sent here to do: Defend the Constitution
Donate
PeterC
NES Member
Yeah, I'm wondering too. Heck, I've donated to that guy Freitas in Virginia (several times) so I'd be up for supporting a guy closer to home.
Phone calls and letters to an opposition party with a super majority may be fighting hard but it is not fighting smart.
Best of luck with your efforts and compromises.
I found some good ammunition to use against this bill.
This bill would make Massachusetts nearly the ONLY** state that has passed ERPOs to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
Nearly every other state that's passed one of these laws - California, Connecticut, Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, Vermont, and Florida - appears to use the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.
**Edit: Washington State actually uses the "preponderance" standard, so I'd just leave them out of the argument
This bill would make Massachusetts nearly the ONLY** state that has passed ERPOs to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
Nearly every other state that's passed one of these laws - California, Connecticut, Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, Vermont, and Florida - appears to use the "clear and convincing evidence" standard.
**Edit: Washington State actually uses the "preponderance" standard, so I'd just leave them out of the argument
Last edited:
amm5061
NES Member
I thought they made it even worse than that. My understanding is that there doesn't even need to be a preponderance of evidence, simply a complaint?
Similar threads
