-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Update 2/21 Westford Ban
- Thread starter FrugalFannie
- Start date
Tin Foil Hat ???
I am not one for conspiracy theories, but does anyone think the timing might not be coincidental? In other words, was the meeting scheduled to coincide with vacation week in an attempt to drive down the attendance?
PennyPincher, I'd love to attend but 2/20 is my anniversary. I'd almost certainly not see the next one if I skipped out.
Brad
I am not one for conspiracy theories, but does anyone think the timing might not be coincidental? In other words, was the meeting scheduled to coincide with vacation week in an attempt to drive down the attendance?
PennyPincher, I'd love to attend but 2/20 is my anniversary. I'd almost certainly not see the next one if I skipped out.
Brad
Arciero is reluctant to get into local politics because he's a state rep. I don't blame him and I doubt anyone you would elect in his place would be different. So far, he's shown no inclination whatsoever to vote for Linsky's or Patrick's bills. That's what you want.
PennyPincher, is it possible for you or other Westford residents to put a warrant in that counter's this?
Last edited:
I am not sure what to think. Based on their performances so far maybe they have no clue that it is vacation week next week. Then again, anyone with kids knows that nothing is ever scheduled during school vacation week because most people are not around. I just emailed selectman Ross and asked him why they did it.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4
- Likes
- 0
Absolutely it was. As intentional as the MO proposal to confiscate is, as well as the unprecedented ammunition buy by Homeland Security. Anyone who thinks can surely make the connection - the problem is, most Americans don't.
johniac7078
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2010
- Messages
- 207
- Likes
- 45
This town meeting attack on 2A shows how uninformed the US public is on democracy. Ayn Rand "The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights. Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights."
Does this not clearly articulate exactly why this MOB rule agenda should be stopped and people pushing it removed from office? Now stack a meeting, manipulate dates to skew attendance etc and you have perfect CORRUPTION. This is what happens when we vote in power hungry politcos with NO FRIGGIN QUALIFICATIONS other than being popular.
Does this not clearly articulate exactly why this MOB rule agenda should be stopped and people pushing it removed from office? Now stack a meeting, manipulate dates to skew attendance etc and you have perfect CORRUPTION. This is what happens when we vote in power hungry politcos with NO FRIGGIN QUALIFICATIONS other than being popular.
FrugalFannie
NES Member
We need to make sure we pack the next meeting. So whether you are a resident or not, please come out to the meeting on Wednesday evening at 7:30.
This meeting will be held at the Stony Brook School at 4 Farmer's Way. REMINDER: THIS IS A SCHOOL. FOLLOW ALL LAWS PLEASE.
Westford Pro 2A, (myself and Al Prescott), will be allowed to give a 10 minute presentation at the beginning of the public input portion. We will not be able to cover every problem with this bylaw. We will not be able to debunk every lie expressed by the gun control crowd. But I hope that you will all be proud of the presentation we make. Please prepare to share your own reasons for being opposed to this bylaw proposal.
This meeting will be held at the Stony Brook School at 4 Farmer's Way. REMINDER: THIS IS A SCHOOL. FOLLOW ALL LAWS PLEASE.
Westford Pro 2A, (myself and Al Prescott), will be allowed to give a 10 minute presentation at the beginning of the public input portion. We will not be able to cover every problem with this bylaw. We will not be able to debunk every lie expressed by the gun control crowd. But I hope that you will all be proud of the presentation we make. Please prepare to share your own reasons for being opposed to this bylaw proposal.
I don't know how to upload this here, but I have shown people a simple slide I made up.
It has a picture of Ruger 10/22 and SW AR15-22 side by side
-What are the differences?
-Both hold 10 bullets
-Both will shoot only each time you pull the trigger (semi automatically)
-both will shoot at the same rate of fire
Yet one is being proposed to be outlawed because it looks more dangerous!
DON'T YOU FEEL SAFER ALREADY!?
KNOW THE FACTS BEFORE YOU DECIDE!
It has a picture of Ruger 10/22 and SW AR15-22 side by side
-What are the differences?
-Both hold 10 bullets
-Both will shoot only each time you pull the trigger (semi automatically)
-both will shoot at the same rate of fire
Yet one is being proposed to be outlawed because it looks more dangerous!
DON'T YOU FEEL SAFER ALREADY!?
KNOW THE FACTS BEFORE YOU DECIDE!
No , maybe not making myself clear.
I purposely want to show one AR and one not AR that function identical. Under new proposals, people want to ban say a SW AR 15-22, but wouldn't ban a regular Ruger 10/22 (not the one you show, but a standard model) even though they both have the same features and capabilities (at least here in MA).
The SW would be banned because it's an 'AR' and LOOKs like it would be more harmful when in fact there is no difference. But people who don't follow this don't know these things. I believe we can only move foward with education. This is step 1.
As I said I can’t make the meeting as my daughter has a college recruiting visit I can’t miss. I wanted to make several points at the meeting that I can share in case anyone wants to use them.
My first point was going to be that town meeting is not the proper place for educating people on this issue. However arguing this with the BoS is a moot point as even if they vote it down it will be at town meeting anyway thanks to the citizen’s petition.
One of the reasons town meeting is a terrible place for educating people on this issue is that you can’t submit documents, videos, etc at the meeting and even if you could people would not have the proper time to digest them. Take for example the AR Ban report from the DOJ Al Prescott showed on his Westford Eagle interview, he could not submit that at town meeting, have them give a copy to everyone there, and then stop the meeting so they had hours to read and digest the information so they could make an informed vote. It is a complex issue that really needs to be studied at length in committee, which would allow fact checking to take place, have them produce a report for the town, and then vote on it.
The worst thing about the Town Meeting and Wednesday’s meeting is that there is no possibility or mechanism for fact checking. A sixth grader with a smartphone could stand in front of them and in 5 -10 minutes of googling debunk all the statements in the Article 30’s preamble. However the anti 2A side can come back with their own studies and “facts” and then it is a he said/she said situation. In the end sadly it will not be about the facts, it will be about the presentation. Whoever gives the best, most believable, and powerful presentation at Town Meeting will win. Of course getting all the LTC owners out there at the meeting so you can outvote the other side is even more critical, then presentations do not matter.
I am sure people will go through each point in the preamble and counter it with the facts, citing the sources of their information unlike the authors of article 30. That definitely needs to be done, especially the sources part. What is important is to have the best sources you can get ie FBI etc and also to make as memorable a factual statement as possible, something that will stick in the voters minds.
For example, take this part of the preamble : "“assault weapons”, which are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple human targets very rapidly".
Machine guns were made illegal in 1934 (cite source here). The only type of weapon you can buy now is the kind that fires a single bullet when you pull the trigger (again cite source). Will people remember that – maybe. However if you also say: “These weapons can fire no faster then the pistols from the 1800's you see in Clint Eastwood westerns. In fact they are harder to fire fast, Massachusetts requires a 10 pound trigger on handguns so it is much harder to pull the trigger quickly”.
The problem with this battle of arguments is that judging by how uninformed just the board of selectman are about guns the 10 or 20 minutes we will have to make our case at town meeting may not be enough. When your typical LTC Mass Safety Class is four hours long how much can they learn in the short time available at town meeting. The Wednesday meeting will be a good dry run to see how that works out.
However I think the real winning arguments will be on the potential costs to the town for this, costs we cannot afford without an override, and why this warrant will make the citizens of the town less safe. I think people will have a much easier time understanding that then understanding facts about guns.
So the second point I wanted to make was about the potential costs to the town, especially considering the fed and state governments are proposing their own measures, so whatever the town comes up with may be redundant. The selectman should explain why it is so important to risk bankrupting us instead of waiting to see what the fed and state governments come up with. The selectman have said they don’t think this will hold up in court but they have no problem spending money we don’t have on this and that is fiscally irresponsible. It is a 100% certainty that it will be challenged in court. (You could even ask for a show of hands of how many would be part of a class action lawsuit if this gets passed). They have already been informed at previous meetings that any time bans that involve defending one’s home are involved they have lost every time, including the Supreme Court. So not only do they know we will be sued they know odds are that we will lose, and they (Jefferies) has said he expects it to lose at some point.
- Have they even looked at ballpark figure of how much this could cost us?
- What about the worst case scenario?
- Shouldn’t the citizens know of the potential financial risk this could cost the town if it is passed?
- Should they be budgeting money for this?
- Why are we doing this before waiting to see what happens on the federal and state levels as it may be a duplicate effort. Let the feds and the states pay for the lawsuits first.
So what is the worst case scenario for the town? Well suppose the town approves Article 30, and then the AG decides to rubber stamp it so Westford can pay court costs on this instead of the state as the first test case. It goes to court, and the court upholds all of it except for the part about regulatory taking, so that the town is responsible for reimbursing gun owners for their now illegal guns and mags. How much could that cost?
Take the 1080 LTC class A permit holders + 165 FID holders and you get 1245. The average gun owner owns 3 guns. So assign $3000 per person for their guns and magazines time 1245 and you get $3,735,000. Again that is without legal costs.
The voters should be made aware of that potential cost, a cost that would require an override ie higher taxes on all. The cost to put armed officers in schools does not seem so great when you look at a figure like that. Not to mention there is no evidence to support article 30 would protect anyone but armed officers in schools definitely would.
My third point is that this Warrant will make people less safe. Take for example the issue of banks, jewelry stores, businesses, and delivery trucks such as Fedex and UPS.
Banks, jewelry stores and businesses all use armored trucks for cash delivery/pickups, which have armed guards. These guards will no longer be able to be sufficiently armed as the way the law is written now they are limited basically to shotguns and revolvers as the warrant bans roughly 95% of the weapons out there as the majority are semiautomatic. Any weapon that can take a magazine is considered a large capacity weapon in this warrant. Will Brinks allow their trucks to serve Westford unarmed or underarmed? Who knows? Will they just refuse service, or worse will they sue the town as well?
Are UPS and Fedex drivers going to want to come to Westford unarmed? They may be armed as they drive to other towns besides Westford, are they going to be able to go back to their warehouses and drop off their weapons before coming back to Westford?
And what about the criminals? They are going to know all the Fedex and UPS trucks in Westford are either unarmed or underarmed. This is making the town less safe.
My first point was going to be that town meeting is not the proper place for educating people on this issue. However arguing this with the BoS is a moot point as even if they vote it down it will be at town meeting anyway thanks to the citizen’s petition.
One of the reasons town meeting is a terrible place for educating people on this issue is that you can’t submit documents, videos, etc at the meeting and even if you could people would not have the proper time to digest them. Take for example the AR Ban report from the DOJ Al Prescott showed on his Westford Eagle interview, he could not submit that at town meeting, have them give a copy to everyone there, and then stop the meeting so they had hours to read and digest the information so they could make an informed vote. It is a complex issue that really needs to be studied at length in committee, which would allow fact checking to take place, have them produce a report for the town, and then vote on it.
The worst thing about the Town Meeting and Wednesday’s meeting is that there is no possibility or mechanism for fact checking. A sixth grader with a smartphone could stand in front of them and in 5 -10 minutes of googling debunk all the statements in the Article 30’s preamble. However the anti 2A side can come back with their own studies and “facts” and then it is a he said/she said situation. In the end sadly it will not be about the facts, it will be about the presentation. Whoever gives the best, most believable, and powerful presentation at Town Meeting will win. Of course getting all the LTC owners out there at the meeting so you can outvote the other side is even more critical, then presentations do not matter.
I am sure people will go through each point in the preamble and counter it with the facts, citing the sources of their information unlike the authors of article 30. That definitely needs to be done, especially the sources part. What is important is to have the best sources you can get ie FBI etc and also to make as memorable a factual statement as possible, something that will stick in the voters minds.
For example, take this part of the preamble : "“assault weapons”, which are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple human targets very rapidly".
Machine guns were made illegal in 1934 (cite source here). The only type of weapon you can buy now is the kind that fires a single bullet when you pull the trigger (again cite source). Will people remember that – maybe. However if you also say: “These weapons can fire no faster then the pistols from the 1800's you see in Clint Eastwood westerns. In fact they are harder to fire fast, Massachusetts requires a 10 pound trigger on handguns so it is much harder to pull the trigger quickly”.
The problem with this battle of arguments is that judging by how uninformed just the board of selectman are about guns the 10 or 20 minutes we will have to make our case at town meeting may not be enough. When your typical LTC Mass Safety Class is four hours long how much can they learn in the short time available at town meeting. The Wednesday meeting will be a good dry run to see how that works out.
However I think the real winning arguments will be on the potential costs to the town for this, costs we cannot afford without an override, and why this warrant will make the citizens of the town less safe. I think people will have a much easier time understanding that then understanding facts about guns.
So the second point I wanted to make was about the potential costs to the town, especially considering the fed and state governments are proposing their own measures, so whatever the town comes up with may be redundant. The selectman should explain why it is so important to risk bankrupting us instead of waiting to see what the fed and state governments come up with. The selectman have said they don’t think this will hold up in court but they have no problem spending money we don’t have on this and that is fiscally irresponsible. It is a 100% certainty that it will be challenged in court. (You could even ask for a show of hands of how many would be part of a class action lawsuit if this gets passed). They have already been informed at previous meetings that any time bans that involve defending one’s home are involved they have lost every time, including the Supreme Court. So not only do they know we will be sued they know odds are that we will lose, and they (Jefferies) has said he expects it to lose at some point.
- Have they even looked at ballpark figure of how much this could cost us?
- What about the worst case scenario?
- Shouldn’t the citizens know of the potential financial risk this could cost the town if it is passed?
- Should they be budgeting money for this?
- Why are we doing this before waiting to see what happens on the federal and state levels as it may be a duplicate effort. Let the feds and the states pay for the lawsuits first.
So what is the worst case scenario for the town? Well suppose the town approves Article 30, and then the AG decides to rubber stamp it so Westford can pay court costs on this instead of the state as the first test case. It goes to court, and the court upholds all of it except for the part about regulatory taking, so that the town is responsible for reimbursing gun owners for their now illegal guns and mags. How much could that cost?
Take the 1080 LTC class A permit holders + 165 FID holders and you get 1245. The average gun owner owns 3 guns. So assign $3000 per person for their guns and magazines time 1245 and you get $3,735,000. Again that is without legal costs.
The voters should be made aware of that potential cost, a cost that would require an override ie higher taxes on all. The cost to put armed officers in schools does not seem so great when you look at a figure like that. Not to mention there is no evidence to support article 30 would protect anyone but armed officers in schools definitely would.
My third point is that this Warrant will make people less safe. Take for example the issue of banks, jewelry stores, businesses, and delivery trucks such as Fedex and UPS.
Banks, jewelry stores and businesses all use armored trucks for cash delivery/pickups, which have armed guards. These guards will no longer be able to be sufficiently armed as the way the law is written now they are limited basically to shotguns and revolvers as the warrant bans roughly 95% of the weapons out there as the majority are semiautomatic. Any weapon that can take a magazine is considered a large capacity weapon in this warrant. Will Brinks allow their trucks to serve Westford unarmed or underarmed? Who knows? Will they just refuse service, or worse will they sue the town as well?
Are UPS and Fedex drivers going to want to come to Westford unarmed? They may be armed as they drive to other towns besides Westford, are they going to be able to go back to their warehouses and drop off their weapons before coming back to Westford?
And what about the criminals? They are going to know all the Fedex and UPS trucks in Westford are either unarmed or underarmed. This is making the town less safe.
Garetjax; excellent post.
I really do agree with the cost issue that I mentioned earlier. Also, I had mentioned about whether or not there are gun related crimes in Westford. I did a quick google search, couldn't find anything, but I am sure the police know. I might be wrong, but I would believe this number is countable on a single hand per year? If that is the case, then make the point of why is this an issue.
In fact, I think someone should stand up and say, "Regardless of if you believe or don't believe what the different sides say, what is worrisome is the cost the town will have to bear if this passes. We are messing around with something that is normally decided at the Federal and State level. If this passes, there will certainly be legal challenges. These will cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe more. We have enough problems keeping up the budget for fire/police/teachers/town workers. (If there are stats on gun related crime and it is low, I would add). In light of the fact there have been 5 gun related crimes and no homicides, why do we want to have this financial burden around our necks when the limited funds can be going to....
Just my thoughts on what someone might want to bring up. I agree that town meeting isn't the place to educate as there will be very limited time, and it's going to be hard to convince un decideds. But tax $ are always very important!!
I really do agree with the cost issue that I mentioned earlier. Also, I had mentioned about whether or not there are gun related crimes in Westford. I did a quick google search, couldn't find anything, but I am sure the police know. I might be wrong, but I would believe this number is countable on a single hand per year? If that is the case, then make the point of why is this an issue.
In fact, I think someone should stand up and say, "Regardless of if you believe or don't believe what the different sides say, what is worrisome is the cost the town will have to bear if this passes. We are messing around with something that is normally decided at the Federal and State level. If this passes, there will certainly be legal challenges. These will cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe more. We have enough problems keeping up the budget for fire/police/teachers/town workers. (If there are stats on gun related crime and it is low, I would add). In light of the fact there have been 5 gun related crimes and no homicides, why do we want to have this financial burden around our necks when the limited funds can be going to....
Just my thoughts on what someone might want to bring up. I agree that town meeting isn't the place to educate as there will be very limited time, and it's going to be hard to convince un decideds. But tax $ are always very important!!
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 0
Doesn't this ban go against something in the Declaration of Independence? If the Ban actually went through wouldn't that pretty much put the Westford Sportsman's Club out of business, and if it didn't, don't you think it would definitely be dentrimental to their business???
![[rules]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/034.gif "Rules [rules]")
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
If this ban went through it is in comnplete oposition to these "truths" that are supose to be self-evident... My question is, how did something like this even make it as far as it has already??? Kinda scary that there is even a discussion about this...
![[bs2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/047.gif "BS2 [bs2]")
The more I think about this, the sicker I get.![[puke2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/031.gif "Puke2 [puke2]")
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
If this ban went through it is in comnplete oposition to these "truths" that are supose to be self-evident... My question is, how did something like this even make it as far as it has already??? Kinda scary that there is even a discussion about this...
The more I think about this, the sicker I get.
You need to do a better google search. There have been others too...
Teen among victims in Westford, Mass. murder suicide
Yeah, there were a couple in a very short time. I believe they were both committed with handguns, which would not be affected by the proposed ban.
Garetjax,
You need to put that in to the local paper. Try to get it in today, to make the presses for this week. Usually doing it electronically will make the cut.
Even so, get it in anyhow, in case there is another postponement or some other vote. Also send it in to the BOS as written testimony. Make sure someone submits it on your behalf and have them say you could not make it, but have written testimony for the board.
You need to put that in to the local paper. Try to get it in today, to make the presses for this week. Usually doing it electronically will make the cut.
Even so, get it in anyhow, in case there is another postponement or some other vote. Also send it in to the BOS as written testimony. Make sure someone submits it on your behalf and have them say you could not make it, but have written testimony for the board.
FrugalFannie
NES Member
A man killed his wife and then 'attemtped' suicide though that is in dispute as some feel it may have been a cover up. He is awaiting trial. Another man killed his teenage daughter, shot his wife (who had a long recovery but survived) and then killed himself. These 2 incidents only tell us that there are some mentally disturbed individuals who sometimes attempt to solve temporary problems with permanent solutions. Both were committed with hanguns. Most handguns would be banned uner this proposal as it would ban all firearms (handguns and long guns) which can accept a magazine over 10 rounds (regardless of what magazine you actually had) and there is no grandfathering of items currently owned.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually in this proposal both would be banned as there are magazines which can hold more than 10 rounds for both of these rifles. The ban is not dependent on what magazine you have with your firearm, just the fact that a 'large capacity' magazine exists would ban the firearm.
What Westford Officer is going to go around and do research on what magazines are manufactured to "fit" your gun? Example: I went to ______gun shop and bought a Ma complient handgun. It came with a Ma complient magazine. But there is an obscure website that sells a 30 round magazine for my gun. I had no idea they existed.
So....I would be in violation and subjected to a fine. Right?
this is insane.
So....I would be in violation and subjected to a fine. Right?
this is insane.
CrackPot
NES Member
Westford Ban - UPDATE 2/13
Laws written by antis and you want logic?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Laws written by antis and you want logic?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 432
- Likes
- 43
Actually, the point is to ban as much as possible while calling them "reasonable gun laws."
FrugalFannie
NES Member
You are correct. I randomly googled magazines for 1911's. Did you know they make a 15 round magazine for the 1911? Now, I'm not much on fashion but that would look just silly. So now my 1911 would be banned. It is RIDICULOUS!
Is it too late to add a citizen's petition to have 3D printers included in the ban?
Apparently they're capable of printing out a gun in the secrecy of someone's basement good enough for at least one killing spree.
Weapons made with 3-D printers could test gun-control efforts - The Washington Post
3D printer offer fascinating possibilities - Lowell Sun Online
"Whereas the emerging technology of 3D printing has been proven to be capable of facilitating the creation in ones home of high-capacity magazines for use in semi-automatic rifles and handguns, etc, etc.
Apparently they're capable of printing out a gun in the secrecy of someone's basement good enough for at least one killing spree.
Weapons made with 3-D printers could test gun-control efforts - The Washington Post
3D printer offer fascinating possibilities - Lowell Sun Online
"Whereas the emerging technology of 3D printing has been proven to be capable of facilitating the creation in ones home of high-capacity magazines for use in semi-automatic rifles and handguns, etc, etc.
This is along the lines of the post I put up here a while back - when you follow the logical extensions of this law - it becomes a lot like the current day drug laws are, where things like drill presses, milling machines, 3D printers, etc - will all become illegal - because they could be used to manufacture assault weapons.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 432
- Likes
- 43
Also, any compact or subcompact gun that could take a magazine from the full sized version would also be banned. If the gun could take a large capacity magazine, it's banned, even if it would stick out a foot below the grip. Doesn't matter - evil gun, so it goes. Have a Glock 26? It takes Glock 17 magazines, so it goes.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 543
- Likes
- 165
Out of curiosity, what's the town's position on tar and feathers?
