MachineHead
NES Member
They make it look so free and exciting by showing scenes of MA and the flag while pissing on its residents. Ironic.
-
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
In similar news, while we wait, amendments are being withdrawn:
2. Mandatory school lockdown drills.
10, 11 Technical corrections (these appear to be duplicates of amendments 7 and 8)
40. Operational licenses evaluation.
2. Mandatory school lockdown drills.
10, 11 Technical corrections (these appear to be duplicates of amendments 7 and 8)
40. Operational licenses evaluation.
Jason Flare
NES Member
So this is what a one party state looks like.
these f***ing communists I can see it now
someone is going to spout off something about a liberal cause or politician and before you know it , they'll be in front of a judge for spouting "dangerous rhetoric"
disarm the heathen.
And they're proud of this shit?
someone is going to spout off something about a liberal cause or politician and before you know it , they'll be in front of a judge for spouting "dangerous rhetoric"
disarm the heathen.
And they're proud of this shit?
MetalgodZ
NES Member
Horse trading for the ones establishing higher standards for things?
No, at the time of writing this, none of those amendments have been withdrawn. Only the ones I posted. I will keep an eye on what happens with the amendments and continue to update as long as I am able to watch the process (I may need to quit after 5, hopefully someone else can "live blog" in this thread if I have to leave).
Horrible
NES Member
This is nothing more than legalized Swatting. This is what the libs want. For law-abiding citizens to be disarmed by the Police that they hate so much while that sit their lazy assess at home on the couch. This is some sick f***ed up shit!
In terms of the two withdrawn amendments that aren't merely duplicates (school drills and professional licenses), I'd tentatively say no. We're probably certain to see some of the duplicate amendments of the higher standards withdrawn until there are no more duplicates. Then we just have to see if they manage to pass any of them.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 938
- Likes
- 381
True.
Also noting that amendment 20, one of the "raise the threshold to 'clear and convincing'" amendments, has been withdrawn. Not a big deal yet since there are others that do the same. Also it's not surprising that they dispensed with amendment 42, but it was a pretty brutal shutdown IMO. At least let the damn thing be read. And there was essentially 1/4 second for any protest.
In case I gotta run, Steve Brown has been posting updates via Twitter from the statehouse:
View: https://twitter.com/WBURSteve/status/999343122361430016
(found looking at GOAL's retweets)
Interesting to note that the room is apparently packed with Demanding Moms who Need Action. Also kind of interesting to hear him say that he remembers the big pro gun protest a few years back and that he wouldn't be surprised to see us protesting this law over the summer. I think we should take him up on that.
View: https://twitter.com/WBURSteve/status/999343122361430016
(found looking at GOAL's retweets)
Interesting to note that the room is apparently packed with Demanding Moms who Need Action. Also kind of interesting to hear him say that he remembers the big pro gun protest a few years back and that he wouldn't be surprised to see us protesting this law over the summer. I think we should take him up on that.
amm5061
NES Member
That right there should tell you everything you need to know about this bullshit. The fix was in from the get go.
HARRYM
NES Member
Its what a Socialist State looks like.
GM-GUY
NES Member
Let’s say the anti’s get everything they want; future school and other mass shootings will get as much coverage as defensive uses today - which is none.
Do Not Comply, Have off the books stuff hidden and stocked, hope for a SCOTUS that takes up this patchwork and does away with all of it / if you want to infringe, change 2A, until then you are done
Do Not Comply, Have off the books stuff hidden and stocked, hope for a SCOTUS that takes up this patchwork and does away with all of it / if you want to infringe, change 2A, until then you are done
We're back. Amendment 6. Started to be read with an immediate interruption to dispense with the reading. Then another interruption for a role call vote, so it'll be another few minutes. Amendment 6 basically requires a mental health evaluation by the state.
What we should be doing is requiring mental health counseling evaluations for the politicians of Massachusetts!
What we should be doing is requiring mental health counseling evaluations for the politicians of Massachusetts!
amm5061
NES Member
I predict the run on 80% lowers continues. Which reminds me, I need to invest in a new drill. Mine just doesn't do the job well enough.
Boldyga now testifying on behalf of his amendment (6). Basically saying that mental health needs to be part of the bill. Noted that currently the bill only requires LEOs to provide a trifold pamphlet about mental health to anyone whose firearms are confiscated. To be taken with a yea or nay vote.
Norton of Clinton now testifying that this "imposition" would "enhance the stigmatization of mental health issues" and that receiving an ERPO alone would make a crazy person say "hm, I better get some mental health." Says the priority is public safety, not mental health.
Norton of Clinton now testifying that this "imposition" would "enhance the stigmatization of mental health issues" and that receiving an ERPO alone would make a crazy person say "hm, I better get some mental health." Says the priority is public safety, not mental health.
Garlic of Needham (note: chair of committee on mental health and substance abuse) against the amendment. "We are discussing violence, not mental health." Noted that mental health is something that will be addressed in the future.
Rep Frost in support of the amendment, to address and acknowledge the underlying problem- motivations of individuals wanting to commit violence. "This legislation has no teeth unless you want to tackle the real problem. We are going to be quick to go against someone's constitutional rights, but not so quick to act..." about mental health. "They can still go out and hurt people with whatever tool they choose...if they are truly a danger to themselves or others, we have to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT."
Rep Frost in support of the amendment, to address and acknowledge the underlying problem- motivations of individuals wanting to commit violence. "This legislation has no teeth unless you want to tackle the real problem. We are going to be quick to go against someone's constitutional rights, but not so quick to act..." about mental health. "They can still go out and hurt people with whatever tool they choose...if they are truly a danger to themselves or others, we have to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT."
McKenna up in strong support of the amendment. Pretty much same as Frost.
Then Hill of Ipswich. He is disappointed about legislature "kicking the [mental health] issue down the road." Reminds the legislature that they said they would address mental health "down the road" in 2014- here's their opportunity. Uses specific, recent examples of people using knives and other implements (not guns) who had previously been identified as people who needed mental health help.
Hill makes a pretty great argument about how ineffective the bill is as written, and that originally this was supposed to be a suicide prevention and mental health bill, not one about simply taking property.
Then Hill of Ipswich. He is disappointed about legislature "kicking the [mental health] issue down the road." Reminds the legislature that they said they would address mental health "down the road" in 2014- here's their opportunity. Uses specific, recent examples of people using knives and other implements (not guns) who had previously been identified as people who needed mental health help.
Hill makes a pretty great argument about how ineffective the bill is as written, and that originally this was supposed to be a suicide prevention and mental health bill, not one about simply taking property.
He's my rep too, his office has gone from "he's very pro 2A" to just what you said, "we'll put you down in the pro/against side" with no real interest in the arguments. As far as I can tell, he has been pretty much a no-show since he tried to run for Speaker against DeLeo a couple years ago and lost. He doesn't have office hours, I have been to the statehouse and the same mail is sticking out under his office door after two weeks. He's cashing a check and being a (D) from Norwood, maybe he'll come out of hibernation when his next election comes up.
Whutmeworry
NES Member
Thank you so much for giving these updates.
Yup, just like the bump stocks... and things continue to get worse. I can't remember last time I read good news here.
Khan from Newton supporting the bill but not the amendment. More like Dicker (whoops, Decker). Basically said we already allocated boatloads of money to mental health.
Wow, GOAL is really right on when they say that the politicians have zero interest in mental health. The theory of ERPOs is that they are not just supposed to be a mechanism for confiscating firearms, but rather a temporary provision to do so when significant mental health issues arise. Therefore ERPO should be connected in some way to mental health. Otherwise the two are totally separate from each other.
Dooley of Norfolk up. Calling everybody out like a boss. He says that this is basically begging the question, "What next?" after confiscation. Why be worried about stigmatizing someone who theoretically has been before a judge and is CLEARLY mentally ill? If they are indeed a risk, they should not be turned loose without even a basic evaluation or sectioning (evaluation prior to commission).
"This will be our legacy if all we do is take away their gun and turn a horrible, horrible person loose."
Wow, GOAL is really right on when they say that the politicians have zero interest in mental health. The theory of ERPOs is that they are not just supposed to be a mechanism for confiscating firearms, but rather a temporary provision to do so when significant mental health issues arise. Therefore ERPO should be connected in some way to mental health. Otherwise the two are totally separate from each other.
Dooley of Norfolk up. Calling everybody out like a boss. He says that this is basically begging the question, "What next?" after confiscation. Why be worried about stigmatizing someone who theoretically has been before a judge and is CLEARLY mentally ill? If they are indeed a risk, they should not be turned loose without even a basic evaluation or sectioning (evaluation prior to commission).
"This will be our legacy if all we do is take away their gun and turn a horrible, horrible person loose."
Similar threads
