-
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
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
RockIt
Banned
If this proposal gets passed, then press for the Militia proposal to get passed too! Get yourself appointed "Colonel of the Militia", sign up every gun owner in town as one of the "troops". Right after that, requisition the town for new M4's so that you can fight off any attempts by crazed gun owners that may want to rebel against the town. Anyone who wants to get a new LTC must join the Militia and become proficient with the M4. Get yourself one of those snazzy new tanks too, while you are at it.
Let us know how this goes. I dont even think its legal, what they are proposing. But, the best way to fight this at a local level, is locally. Good luck!!!
avander123
NES Member
+1 THIS, They should all be put on notice, for knowingly pushing unconstitutional or at least repetitive bylaws. And his "entrapment scheme" of re-instituting the militia, this guy is something else.
What part of "shall not be infringed" does this loon not undertand?
ammo limits, AWB Bans, hardsided cases blah blah....He should be called out and removed from office.
Here is a guy this BoS can learn from: Tiananmen square activist turned American citizen demonstrates for the second amendment - YouTube
T2G
ammo limits, AWB Bans, hardsided cases blah blah....He should be called out and removed from office.
Here is a guy this BoS can learn from: Tiananmen square activist turned American citizen demonstrates for the second amendment - YouTube
T2G
Last edited:
Bob Jefferies, the selectman who started this whole mess, couldn't even be bothered to show up for the meeting. However, this seems to have been a smart move, because out of some misguided sense of courtesy, the 3 selectmen present declined to remove the article from the town meeting warrant and closed the warrant with it included. However, Jim Sullivan at least said he will support a motion to re-open the warrant and consider removing the article at the next BoS meeting when Jefferies is present.
So, out of courtesy, they didnt remove it, but fully intend to next meeting? I guess thats a good thing? It kind of shows where the selectman sits though, when he doesnt even show up, to stand for his legislation. Thats utter contempt for the voters right there. Make sure that this comes up, next time there is a town election. I live 2 towns over-I dont mind carrying a sign come election time to get someone like that out of office
So, out of courtesy, they didnt remove it, but fully intend to next meeting? I guess thats a good thing? It kind of shows where the selectman sits though, when he doesnt even show up, to stand for his legislation. Thats utter contempt for the voters right there. Make sure that this comes up, next time there is a town election. I live 2 towns over-I dont mind carrying a sign come election time to get someone like that out of office
One of the 3 selectmen present (of 5 total) said he supports opening a discussion toward removing it at the next meeting. It's something, but we would need to flip one of the other two who were there tonight to actually get it removed.
Alex Cannella
NES Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Messages
- 375
- Likes
- 140
Jeffries made that move on purpose to see what those against the article were going to talk about. Nothing like getting to see what the opposition is planning to bring right?
I have no doubt that Jeffries, Ross, and Peraner-Sweet set it up prior to this meeting so that the BoS had an excuse NOT to take it off the warrant because he was not there to defend it.
Everyone who presented at the BoS Meeting tonight did a GREAT job!. The BoS had every intention to listen to what was said and every intention to vote to put the article on the warrant anyway.
It is still going to boil down to the numbers that each side can bring to the town meeting to see if we can't defeat this article, at least force them to put in an amendment that requires that they put a committee together to study the issue before a final vote is made.
I also liked that the presenters against this article were incensed and pointed out the fact that Jeffries did not deem it importnat enough to show up tonight.
I hope that Nancy Rosinski will reconsider running for Selectmen again. She ran before and lost. I believe that Jeffires and Peraner-Sweet are coming up for re-election in 2013.
I have no doubt that Jeffries, Ross, and Peraner-Sweet set it up prior to this meeting so that the BoS had an excuse NOT to take it off the warrant because he was not there to defend it.
Everyone who presented at the BoS Meeting tonight did a GREAT job!. The BoS had every intention to listen to what was said and every intention to vote to put the article on the warrant anyway.
It is still going to boil down to the numbers that each side can bring to the town meeting to see if we can't defeat this article, at least force them to put in an amendment that requires that they put a committee together to study the issue before a final vote is made.
I also liked that the presenters against this article were incensed and pointed out the fact that Jeffries did not deem it importnat enough to show up tonight.
I hope that Nancy Rosinski will reconsider running for Selectmen again. She ran before and lost. I believe that Jeffires and Peraner-Sweet are coming up for re-election in 2013.
I told her after the meeting that she had my vote if she did.
Minor correction - Nancy did not run for re-election and lose. She declined to run for re-election.
At least there are a few months to prepare for town meeting. You could gather a lot of the facts people have posted on this forum and have a bunch of people one by one rattle them off hoping to convince the uneducated BOS and town meeting attendees.
Or you could make it a money issue. If they go forward with it they definitely open up the town to a potential lawsuit - is that in the towns best interest when it is possibly duplicating what the state is working on? Just staying with the money issue here but if the town is going to make illegal property that is currently owned legally by residents, shouldn't they offer to buy back what they are outlawing? Seeing as there are well over 1000 LTC permits alone, that could be a lot of 10 or 10+ mags in addition to all the guns. Worst case scenario for them, if every one of those people has a single now banned gun on average worth $1000 (guns and mags) the town would have to come up with 1 million or more.
Then there is the historical perspective. The Abbot School where town meeting is held has a weathervane made by one Paul Revere (as well as the bell in the high school lobby). One of his sons went to school in Westford. How disgusting is it that these selectman are reenacting what happened over 200 years ago when Revere made his famous ride to warn people the British were coming to take their arms.
Or you could make it a money issue. If they go forward with it they definitely open up the town to a potential lawsuit - is that in the towns best interest when it is possibly duplicating what the state is working on? Just staying with the money issue here but if the town is going to make illegal property that is currently owned legally by residents, shouldn't they offer to buy back what they are outlawing? Seeing as there are well over 1000 LTC permits alone, that could be a lot of 10 or 10+ mags in addition to all the guns. Worst case scenario for them, if every one of those people has a single now banned gun on average worth $1000 (guns and mags) the town would have to come up with 1 million or more.
Then there is the historical perspective. The Abbot School where town meeting is held has a weathervane made by one Paul Revere (as well as the bell in the high school lobby). One of his sons went to school in Westford. How disgusting is it that these selectman are reenacting what happened over 200 years ago when Revere made his famous ride to warn people the British were coming to take their arms.
This was irresponsible for the board to allow this article to continue on the warrant without any type of citizen input. The spinless BoS Chair mentioned that Jefferies (who couldn't convienently attend the mtg) crafted the article language on his own with a little by-law smithing by himself. The Chair also mentioned getting town counsel input just a couple of hours prior to last nights mtg. How do they expect the all the residents that will show up to the town meeting to adequately understand the proposed by-law and it's implications?
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,824
Did the town's counsel review this item on the warrant?
Just watched the meeting video:
Westford Community Access Television - Online - Powered by LEIGHTRONIX PEG Central ®
There clearly are some shenanagins going on here behind the scenes. The town lawyer produced language hours before the meeting and no one could have it up on the screen? I don't buy it for a second.
Having been on a Fincom for several years I've seen several town meeting cycles and watched the preparation of warrant articles. The BOS always has an agenda and tends to keep the final language vague until the last second. If you call them on it they have the perfect answer "the voters will just vote it down or ammend it at town meeting".
Another trick I have seen is the addition of dummy warrant articles to deflect attention away from the ones that they want to pass. Typically they put the dummies near the begining so you waste most of the night on them and by 10PM when everyone wants to leave there is little debate on their "pet" articles.
Its clear that this article was going on the warrant....letting people vent their ideas costs them nothing and was not going to affect their decision.
I loved the comments about "wisdom of town meeting" THERE IS NO WISDOM AT TOWN MEETING! Town meeting is an angry mob that often makes irrational decisions. It reminds me of something James Madison Wrote:
my .02
Westford Community Access Television - Online - Powered by LEIGHTRONIX PEG Central ®
There clearly are some shenanagins going on here behind the scenes. The town lawyer produced language hours before the meeting and no one could have it up on the screen? I don't buy it for a second.
Having been on a Fincom for several years I've seen several town meeting cycles and watched the preparation of warrant articles. The BOS always has an agenda and tends to keep the final language vague until the last second. If you call them on it they have the perfect answer "the voters will just vote it down or ammend it at town meeting".
Another trick I have seen is the addition of dummy warrant articles to deflect attention away from the ones that they want to pass. Typically they put the dummies near the begining so you waste most of the night on them and by 10PM when everyone wants to leave there is little debate on their "pet" articles.
Its clear that this article was going on the warrant....letting people vent their ideas costs them nothing and was not going to affect their decision.
I loved the comments about "wisdom of town meeting" THERE IS NO WISDOM AT TOWN MEETING! Town meeting is an angry mob that often makes irrational decisions. It reminds me of something James Madison Wrote:
my .02
Last edited:
Very True GomerPile. Normally there are the same 200-300 at town meeting every year. There are 1080 LTC-A in Westford, if a majority of them can be contacted to go to the meeting that would be very promising. At least according to the article below from the patch.
Question - does the part about large capacity restrictions mean that anything that can take a 10+ mag like a glock would be banned?
Westford Had Over 1,000 Active Gun Permits Last Year - Westford, MA Patch
Question - does the part about large capacity restrictions mean that anything that can take a 10+ mag like a glock would be banned?
Westford Had Over 1,000 Active Gun Permits Last Year - Westford, MA Patch
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,824
And you didn't have a chance to look at it? I am loving this stupidity. The fix is in.
I don't want to tell the Westford folks how to handle this....only offer suggestions....
+ Out of town people can attend *any* town meeting they like, they just need to sit in the non voting setcion...and be courteous.
+ Out of town people can speak with permission of those at the town meeting. Someone makes a motion to allow an out of towner to speak and the moderator will typically take a show of hands to allow it or not. Typically this mechanism is used to let a regional director speak (school district administrator, state rep, etc). You can bring in an expert 2A person to speak and answer questions....someone from GOAL for example.
+ In small towns "voting blocks" (families and relations, neighborhoods, fire fighters, town union workers, etc) are the norm (and they collaborate). An effort to mobilize a block of LTC holders might not be a bad idea. Maybe someone knows if you can file a FOIA with the PD to obtain the list of LTC holders in the town. If so, then you can go door to door and get them to commit to attending the meeting.
+ If you have enough LTC holders in the audience, you can just keep calling for a vote which will keep the amount of discussion to a minimuim. You should be able to get the attendance numbers from last years meeting to see how many you need to win the vote....just assume everyone attending last year is a NAY. Fight fire with fire!
EDIT: A bylaw change should require a 2/3rds majority, so you need fewer LTC holders than you might think.
+ Out of town people can attend *any* town meeting they like, they just need to sit in the non voting setcion...and be courteous.
+ Out of town people can speak with permission of those at the town meeting. Someone makes a motion to allow an out of towner to speak and the moderator will typically take a show of hands to allow it or not. Typically this mechanism is used to let a regional director speak (school district administrator, state rep, etc). You can bring in an expert 2A person to speak and answer questions....someone from GOAL for example.
+ In small towns "voting blocks" (families and relations, neighborhoods, fire fighters, town union workers, etc) are the norm (and they collaborate). An effort to mobilize a block of LTC holders might not be a bad idea. Maybe someone knows if you can file a FOIA with the PD to obtain the list of LTC holders in the town. If so, then you can go door to door and get them to commit to attending the meeting.
+ If you have enough LTC holders in the audience, you can just keep calling for a vote which will keep the amount of discussion to a minimuim. You should be able to get the attendance numbers from last years meeting to see how many you need to win the vote....just assume everyone attending last year is a NAY. Fight fire with fire!
EDIT: A bylaw change should require a 2/3rds majority, so you need fewer LTC holders than you might think.
Last edited:
Yes, the proposed text we saw would ban all AR-15s, AKs, m1 carbines, Glocks, Sigs other than the 220 and 239, 3rd gen smiths, possibly M&Ps, etc etc.
LTC holders names and addresses are private, as they should be. Almost 300 are members at WSC though.
Someone said previously that bylaws only require a simple majority. I'll try to run down the actual law.
I have a request in to Selectman Jim Sullivan for the latest text, we'll see if he provides it.
You may be correct, near as I can tell (and I may be wrong) it varies with the type of bylaw being revised (zoning seems to have its own set of laws for example). The meetings I have been thru, the town lawyer advises the moderator what kind of vote it needs to be.
I can't locate anything one way or another.
I can't locate anything one way or another.
http://westfordma.gov/pages/governm...s/2013atm/ProhibitionCertainTypesFirearms.pdf is the town counsel's letter.
I'm looking to see what I can find about the town's relationship with the lawfirm, mainly to find out if there was a marginal cost to the town for this letter. If so, I'd ballpark it in the $2-5k range, depending on whether the lawyer was familiar with the laws involved or this was original research. It may, however, be included under some kind of fixed-fee contract. A full on 2nd amendment lawsuit, on the other hand, almost definitely wouldn't be. Also, if the law were overturned on 2A grounds, the town would be on the hook for the plaintiff's fees and costs.
It's important to keep a thread active in public to get more Westford residents aware of what is going on. The discussion here is far from the only strategy discussion occurring.
This meeting will likely have more than can be held at it's regular meeting place. I would be upset if registered voters of Westford were displaced by non-residents or non-registered residents. If we defeat this at town meeting and the hall is packed with outsiders and residents cannot get in, there will be doubt as to the validity of the vote.
