Upcoming Mass Gun Control hearings...

[Matt E]

I don't care all that much about pepper spray, either. It's just good to see common sense win out for once.

I agree I just feel it is the sacrificial lamb and a distraction.

Against 7 rd limits. Don't think that it would have an effect on anything. Doesn't think that one gun a month would do anything.

The bottom line of his testimony was that the laws weren't being enforced and that lawful gun owners aren't the problem. He even went as far to say that he was testifying to fight for the rights of the law-abiding citizen since he will likely be exempt from the new laws b/c he is LE.

Im glad to see one of them spoke up. Did you catch a name by chance?

How special for you. I have a teenage daughter that takes the MBTA home from school. She isn't 15 yet so xshe can't get an FID at all.

I'm the last person who is going to say she doesn't have the right to self defense. But in all reality if safety is that big of a concern give it to her anyways and tell her to keep quiet about it. It is an extreme example of how ****ed up and wrong this state is but they are not doing this out of public safety. Rest assured it is smoke and mirrors and their will be shit slipped in to regulate more. Plus I'm sure they will have some dumb as 18+ or so BS in there as though she is not old enough to he worthy of self defense. Don't fall for the hanging fruit is all I'm saying.

 

[Coyote33]

...
11:06 - Springfield Community Organizer
Status: Concerned
Level: Somewhat reasonable
Notes: Wanted "common sense" legislation we ALL could live with.
...
11:11 - James - Smith & Wesson Exec
Status: Pro 2A
Level: Reasonable
Notes: Gave great examples of the good friend of the community S&W is - # of employees, contributions to the area.
Asked for 4 things:
- Improve Mental Health in Ma
- Improve School Safety
- Standardize LTC's in Ma
- Fix N.I.C.S in Ma
...
3. Rabbi
Status: Anti
Level: Rabid
Notes: Wants Mass to be toughest in country on prohibitions of all guns.
...
12:05 - Ray
Status: Pro2A
Level: Right on
Notes: One of his first comments, "guess that last panel did not know we have an "assault weapons" ban in Mass". Pointed out currently strict licensing, 10 round limit. Pointed out - cannot legislate problems away, LTC folks are not the issue. Asked for NO NEW LAWS.
...
Female Rep question to Speaker 3 - Should FID be required for pepper spray?
Speaker 3 - No
Rep Naughton - You know that was just addressed at the end of last legislative session right?
Female Rep - OH okay, I had some folks call me after the murder in Boston and they were concerned about that.
...
2:08 - Chamber of Commerce guy
Status: Neutral
Level:
Notes: Smith & Wesson = good community member
...
2:25 - NAACP - Pipeline to leadership
Status: Anti
Level: ....
Notes - Several of these kids are the same crew that was bused to Worcester. They had a similar statement as last time. Want a ban on "assault weapons". Read their little statement and then left.
...
2:45 - Panel - Mom's Demand Action
Speaker 1
Status: Anti
Level: Anti
Notes: Started with "don't want to take away anyone's Rights", want "common sense" solutions. Newtown, for the children, Mass gun laws are great but need to be stronger, 1 gun a month... Save just one child.
...
2:57 - Kathy
Status: Pro2A
Level: Reasonable
Notes: Recreational shooter for years. Spoke up because could not longer stay silent on the vilification of gun owners. Asked Panel to please ask for help from gun owners to understand how firearms operate and to answer questions, before legislating on things they don't understand.
...

Great notes. My comments on some:

Smith & Wesson Exec: Did he or anyone mention the possibility of S&W leaving?
Rabbi: What about "Never Again!"?
Ray: We need more people to put the lies to rest publicly!
Pepper Spray: Has not yet been addressed. WTF???
Chamber of Commerce guy: Did he or anyone mention the possibility of S&W leaving?
NAACP - Pipeline to leadership kids: I thought the panel WOULD NOT ALLOW DUPLICATE TESTIMONY!!!!
Mom's Demand Action: Started with a lie, and continued the falsehoods.
Kathy: Right on! The panel needs some corrective action applied to THEM.

 

[Matt E]

Great notes. My comments on some:

Smith & Wesson Exec: Did he or anyone mention the possibility of S&W leaving?
Rabbi: What about "Never Again!"?
Ray: We need more people to put the lies to rest publicly!
Pepper Spray: Has not yet been addressed. WTF???
Chamber of Commerce guy: Did he or anyone mention the possibility of S&W leaving?
NAACP - Pipeline to leadership kids: I thought the panel WOULD NOT ALLOW DUPLICATE TESTIMONY!!!!
Mom's Demand Action: Started with a lie, and continued the falsehoods.
Kathy: Right on! The panel needs some corrective action applied to THEM.

I came in part way of the CEO speech but I never heard him say that. Hell even boldyga set him up for a home run with that asking what could they do to assist S&W become more successful and a better corp citizen. That was his perfect chance to address current/pending legislation and say if it went through that they would be impacted and forced to consider leaving. Instead he cops out and says tax breaks. At the same time maybe it was the elephant in the room with all the money he dropped on buses, employees, and shirts. It could have been a not so suttle were not game for anymore and we're willing to put our money where our mouth is.

 

[Coyote33]

This was just in the Globe. If you don't know where Naughton stands:

State Representative Harold Naughton, a Clinton Democrat, is cochairman of the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, which is charged with reviewing 65 gun-related bills filed this session. He said what happened in Newtown is driving the committee and “should drive the national debate.”

Who is the "independent task force", mentioned in the article? How do we reach out to them?

 

[soam]

How special for you. I have a teenage daughter that takes the MBTA home from school. She isn't 15 yet so xshe can't get an FID at all.

I'm the last person who is going to say she doesn't have the right to self defense. But in all reality if safety is that big of a concern give it to her anyways and tell her to keep quiet about it. It is an extreme example of how ****ed up and wrong this state is but they are not doing this out of public safety. Rest assured it is smoke and mirrors and their will be shit slipped in to regulate more. Plus I'm sure they will have some dumb as 18+ or so BS in there as though she is not old enough to he worthy of self defense. Don't fall for the hanging fruit is all I'm saying.

Notwithstanding and special law or regulation to the contrary it shall be lawful for residents or non-residents aged 18 years of age or older to purchase, possess, carry, transport Defensive Sprays.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H2145

 

[Dadstoys]

This was just in the Globe. If you don't know where Naughton stands:



Who is the "independent task force", mentioned in the article? How do we reach out to them?

The task force is a joke. Deleo appointed them and the majority have already make their anti 2A positions known long before this.
Someone posted the names a few months ago.
Sorry I can't find it.

 

[Coyote33]

I just saw Squatch in the crowd on wwlp's coverage of the hearing. Good on you all and the S&W employees.

Is that a TV station? Anyone have a link to the coverage?

The task force is a joke. Deleo appointed them and the majority have already make their anti 2A positions known long before this.
Someone posted the names a few months ago.
Sorry I can't find it.

Well, it looks like THEY are the ones all of this new legislation might hinge on, so how come they are not hearing this testimony? Maybe someone needs to bring that to the next panel discussion in Boston as well.

BS!

 

[oldsoldier29]

As a side note for the next hearing; NAACP founded 1909, NRA founded 1781. NRA is listed as a civil rights group. Someone needs to point that out even before the NAACP shows up

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Matt E]

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H2145

Thank you. Part of my point. This won't help his young daughter but the distraction certainly IS working

Is that a TV station? Anyone have a link to the coverage?

I'm on my phone but go to wwlp.com

 

[Coyote33]

This is all I found:
Springfield Mayor testifies on illegal guns

I don't think this would be the same hearings, because in MA, guns don't break laws; laws are for people.

 

[JFR2]

My favorite today was Linsky's claim that the local Police Chiefs have very little discretion when it comes to licensing.

Can anyone interrupt him on this with a "point of order" when he flat out lies, or is that only for procedural errors?

 

[Matt E]

This is all I found:
Springfield Mayor testifies on illegal guns

I don't think this would be the same hearings, because in MA, guns don't break laws; laws are for people.

I had to go in under videos as I couldn't find it any other way. Shockingly 22 actually got a shot of our banner outside while reporting. The scabs at 40 and 3 purposely missed by a hair. The video is there and for other reporting you can check out wggb.com and cbs3springfield.com

 

[Matt E]

.

 

[Horrible]

Can anyone interrupt him on this with a "point of order" when he flat out lies, or is that only for procedural errors?

The Committee (Naughton in particular) was very strict allowing ONLY the CURRENT SPEAKER to speak. This rule was enforced for both sides.

Procedurely, if you want to de-bunk something someone says, you will have to wait your turn to speak and then the floor will be yours and you will get your chance. That is the impression I got.

 

[Coyote33]

The Committee (Naughton in particular) was very strict allowing ONLY the CURRENT SPEAKER to speak. This rule was enforced for both sides.

Procedurely, if you want to de-bunk something someone says, you will have to wait your turn to speak and then the floor will be yours and you will get your chance. That is the impression I got.

In Worcester, I actually started out by saying something like "We've all heard a lot of things today which are not true." or something like that. I should have been MUCH stronger.

 

[Horrible]

To prepare for the next hearing, there were many antis claim to support the 2nd Amendment, but wanted to shift focus from "Shall not be infringed" to a "well-regulated militia".

One anti articulated it as you need to accept the whole working of 2A, not just the piece you like. I wish they would do the same.

But, this is easily disarmed:

1) Antis think that the militia was intended to be the state-run military. It is not.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Cox - Delegate to the Constitutional Convention from PA.

2) "well-regulated", an anti determines as "well controlled" because Congress has co-opted the word regulate to equal control. In the 18th century "well-regulated" meant well behaved and well disciplined, NOT well controlled. This needs to be pointed out.

 

[Coyote33]

To prepare for the next hearing, there were many antis claim to support the 2nd Amendment, but wanted to shift focus from "Shall not be infringed" to a "well-regulated militia".

One anti articulated it as you need to accept the whole working of 2A, not just the piece you like. I wish they would do the same.

But, this is easily disarmed:

1) Antis think that the militia was intended to be the state-run military. It is not.



2) "well-regulated", an anti determines as "well controlled" because Congress has co-opted the word regulate to equal control. In the 18th century "well-regulated" meant well behaved and well disciplined, NOT well controlled. This needs to be pointed out.

This would be a good speaking point for someone. Maybe you should put that into a speech for the Boston hearing. In one swoop, it will debunk all those who base their entire premise on this. Also, wasn't one of the recent cases decisive on this?

 

[Horrible]

In Worcester, I actually started out by saying something like "We've all heard a lot of things today which are not true." or something like that. I should have been MUCH stronger.

I don't know. Maybe. Arguing with the info that previous speakers present can discredit you as well in the eyes of the Committee.

But turning their arguments against them may work well. It was my first time speaking and I thought of a million things that I wanted to say afterword. One of which was turning the arguments of the Moms against Gun Violence against them. They would say "I want my grandson to see his 11th b-day" or whatever implying that we need to pass more laws. My argument should have been, that I have two little girls, and I want them to see their next b-days as well. Taking away my means of self-protection via licensing schemes that have dramatically reduced the number of lawful gun owners from 1.5M to 225K is doing just that.

I also hope my point about the Petit case got across that his whole family was murdered, but not with guns. But had Dr. Petit had a gun, things may have been different. I wish that I could have been more articulate when I got up there.

My only excuse is that I hadn't eaten anything all day and I got up there a bit before 5pm. Lesson to those that will be attending the next hearing bring food and drink if you want to stay the whole time to keep your blood sugar up.

 

[Coyote33]

Actually, I DID mention my two kids as the reason for being there.

 

[Horrible]

Actually, I DID mention my two kids as the reason for being there.

Well done. I brought up the Petit thing as a set up for bringing up the kids (my family) that I am trying to protect and then forgot to mention the latter (like a dumbass). Should have rehearsed a bit more.

 

[Horrible]

The other thing that antis kept brining up was the failure of the "Background Checks" bill in Congress and the non-existent "gun show loophole". To debunk this, it might be good to remind that committee that one needs to go through background checks simply to obtain a license and then the federal background checks to purchase a firearm LEGALLY.

We should also talk about our experience buying a gun at a gun show. Another thing I wanted to talk about but forgot to mention. I have purchased one firearm at a gun show and I had to show my LTC (which I needed a FULL background check to obtain) and THEN had to undergo the Federal background to purchase the firearm.

It was clear to me that most people speaking on the anti side have no clue what the existing laws are.

I think that point was clearly made several times to the committee that legal gun owners are not the problem, most notably by the State Trooper that spoke commenting that ALL the guns that he has obtained from criminals in the several years as an LEO were obtained illegally by offenders that didn't have an FID/LTC.

 

[Coyote33]

... It was clear to me that most people speaking on the anti side have no clue what the existing laws are.

They don't, the legislators don't, the judges don't, and most of us don't.

This will help:
Book: Massachusetts Gun Laws

 

[ggboy]

My 3% figure was based on the number of time more than ten shots were fired in altercations involving a gun.
It did not specifically include/exclude rifles. Also these incidents accounted for a 5% casulaty rate.
I should have mentioned that standard capacity magazine use, ( so far as more than ten shots being fired ) could
actually be lower if there were any reloads.
Interested in anyone has found any statistics on the use of "preban" magazines being used in crimes?
I haven't found any.
Thanks to all whom attended at Springfield.
ggboy

 

[coxfam413]

Why?

Lots of people now days have trouble with the word ambulance.....ambalance......amberlamps....etc.

 

[pastera]

Based on what the Committee said today it sounds like the bill to eliminate the FID requirement for pepper spray is going to pass.

I believe the one they sent along takes the FID language out completely - this is bad as it removes the ability of a 15 YO to possess with an FID. It should be 18 or licensed.

Aaron

- - - Updated - - -

The Committee (Naughton in particular) was very strict allowing ONLY the CURRENT SPEAKER to speak. This rule was enforced for both sides.

Procedurely, if you want to de-bunk something someone says, you will have to wait your turn to speak and then the floor will be yours and you will get your chance. That is the impression I got.

This is why you want to go to the "gun violence meetings" if possible. The one I attended was an open dialog.

 

[Horrible]

Anyone who is wanting to talk about the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution in any upcoming hearings should consider pre-emptively disarming the "Well-regulated militia" first and focus on "Shall not be infringed second".

One anti that spoke made the point by telling a story of how her then 17-year old son wanted to be treated like an adult and how he needed to take the good with the bad (freedom AND responsibility) of adulthood to be treated as such.

She likened this to the 2nd Amendment argument and saying that we can not ignore the "Well-regulated Militia" portion.

Putting aside the fact that they tend to ignore EVERYTHING beyond the "Well-regulated Militia" portion, the more I thought about it over this weekend the more it made my blood boil. I am not 17. I am a RESPONSIBLE adult. I get up everyday at 4:30am to go to work, I am raising two young girls, I pay my taxes and am a productive citizen and don't really need to be likened to a 17 year old boy searching for his freedom and way in life. I am a responsible adult. RESONSIBLE for the life of my wife and two young daughters. And if this woman wants to tell me how to protect them and guarantee her safety via more restrictive laws, well then I will tell her where to she can shove her laws. I took this more and more personally the more that I thought about it over the weekend.

All that aside, we should engage this argument, b/c we all know the founding father's intentions of the 2nd Amendment. We know that it isn't hunting, isn't sporting, somewhat self-protection but more of a defense against tyranny.

My thoughts on how to articulate a response to this argument is in post # 526. I apologize to all on this board for not being able to do that on Friday during my testimony.

 

[GM-GUY]

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



The entire Bill of Rights talks about personal/individual rights and what the government cannot do to it's own citizens, but if the anti's are to be believed the 2nd talks about the gov't keeping it's guns and the entire subject of personal ownership is mute, even though that is what started the Revolutionary War (the Red Coats coming for shot & powder).



I also find it interesting how Rabbi's are always Anti in these hearings. I watched Schindlers List, my Grandfather left Germany in 1927, I have studied the histories of The USSR, PRC, Cambodia and others.

There is no way I will trust someone or some government that says I have to give up mine, but they get to keep theirs for 'safety' - it's the same lie told over and over again.

 

[Coyote33]

The other thing that antis kept brining up was the failure of the "Background Checks" bill in Congress and the non-existent "gun show loophole". To debunk this, it might be good to remind that committee that one needs to go through background checks simply to obtain a license and then the federal background checks to purchase a firearm LEGALLY.

We should also talk about our experience buying a gun at a gun show. Another thing I wanted to talk about but forgot to mention. I have purchased one firearm at a gun show and I had to show my LTC (which I needed a FULL background check to obtain) and THEN had to undergo the Federal background to purchase the firearm.

It was clear to me that most people speaking on the anti side have no clue what the existing laws are.

I think that point was clearly made several times to the committee that legal gun owners are not the problem, most notably by the State Trooper that spoke commenting that ALL the guns that he has obtained from criminals in the several years as an LEO were obtained illegally by offenders that didn't have an FID/LTC.

Flesh this out a bit, and it would make a perfect testimony!

I believe the one they sent along takes the FID language out completely - this is bad as it removes the ability of a 15 YO to possess with an FID. It should be 18 or licensed.

Aaron

- - - Updated - - -

This is why you want to go to the "gun violence meetings" if possible. The one I attended was an open dialog.

Good point! Which "gun violence meetings" are you referring to?

Anyone who is wanting to talk about the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution in any upcoming hearings should consider pre-emptively disarming the "Well-regulated militia" first and focus on "Shall not be infringed second".

One anti that spoke made the point by telling a story of how her then 17-year old son wanted to be treated like an adult and how he needed to take the good with the bad (freedom AND responsibility) of adulthood to be treated as such.

She likened this to the 2nd Amendment argument and saying that we can not ignore the "Well-regulated Militia" portion.

Putting aside the fact that they tend to ignore EVERYTHING beyond the "Well-regulated Militia" portion, the more I thought about it over this weekend the more it made my blood boil. I am not 17. I am a RESPONSIBLE adult. I get up everyday at 4:30am to go to work, I am raising two young girls, I pay my taxes and am a productive citizen and don't really need to be likened to a 17 year old boy searching for his freedom and way in life. I am a responsible adult. RESONSIBLE for the life of my wife and two young daughters. And if this woman wants to tell me how to protect them and guarantee her safety via more restrictive laws, well then I will tell her where to she can shove her laws. I took this more and more personally the more that I thought about it over the weekend.

All that aside, we should engage this argument, b/c we all know the founding father's intentions of the 2nd Amendment. We know that it isn't hunting, isn't sporting, somewhat self-protection but more of a defense against tyranny.

My thoughts on how to articulate a response to this argument is in post # 526. I apologize to all on this board for not being able to do that on Friday during my testimony.

Another perfect testimony!

Maybe put these 2 together for 4 minutes of oral testimony (hey, we can run the clock, too).

... The entire Bill of Rights talks about personal/individual rights and what the government cannot do to it's own citizens, but if the anti's are to be believed the 2nd talks about the gov't keeping it's guns and the entire subject of personal ownership is mute, even though that is what started the Revolutionary War (the Red Coats coming for shot & powder).


I also find it interesting how Rabbi's are always Anti in these hearings. I watched Schindlers List, my Grandfather left Germany in 1927, I have studied the histories of The USSR, PRC, Cambodia and others.

There is no way I will trust someone or some government that says I have to give up mine, but they get to keep theirs for 'safety' - it's the same lie told over and over again.

I mentioned this earlier as well. This too, would make a great testimony. I would be best for someone of Jewish heritage, or who was there, to present.

 

[P-14]

The key to the 2A is "the right of the people." It always amazes me that the antis conveniently think "the right of the people" in the 1A is somehow different than "the right of the people" in the 2A.

1A:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

2A:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (emphasis mine)

 

[Horrible]

Here's another example of how less restrictive gun laws lower crime to throw out at the next hearing:



From FoxNews:

Virginia gun crime drops, as state's firearms sales soar | Fox News

NES Thread discussion:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...n-crime-drops-states-firearms-sales-soar.html