• 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.

Wayland Rod & Gun Closure Attempt?

Should have just stayed in Cambridge
No bad apples there.
The progressives have created a utopia in their own image.
Time to move to new unsettled lands and bring them civilization.
Be wary if he starts handing out blankets over the winter
 
Watched the video. Predictably, it just pissed me off. His argument seems to be that putting a pointless restriction on lawful gun owners shows that the town is "standing up to gun violence". What BS. The bottom line is that there are people who don't like guns, and, by extension, don' t like people who own guns. Any law, regulation or restriction that harasses gun owners is therefore, by definition, a good thing, regardless of whether it has any practical effect on reducing crime or violence.

And the stuff about keeping out "bad apples" - does he have any empirical evidence that people who come to Wayland to hunt are bad apples? Of course not. In fact, since you can't buy a gun without a background check we are the one group that's been pre-screened to eliminate any bad apples. It would make more sense to pass an ordinance that prohibits anyone from hitting a golf ball within 1000 feet of a residence to insure that "bad apple" golfers stay out of town.
 
Wayland Special Town Meeting starts tonight Nov 13 at 7pm at the Wayland High School Field House. Wayland Voters - Please attend and vote No on Article 10.
 
John C. said:
Watched the video. Predictably, it just pissed me off. His argument seems to be that putting a pointless restriction on lawful gun owners shows that the town is "standing up to gun violence". What BS. The bottom line is that there are people who don't like guns, and, by extension, don' t like people who own guns. Any law, regulation or restriction that harasses gun owners is therefore, by definition, a good thing, regardless of whether it has any practical effect on reducing crime or violence.

And the stuff about keeping out "bad apples" - does he have any empirical evidence that people who come to Wayland to hunt are bad apples? Of course not. In fact, since you can't buy a gun without a background check we are the one group that's been pre-screened to eliminate any bad apples. It would make more sense to pass an ordinance that prohibits anyone from hitting a golf ball within 1000 feet of a residence to insure that "bad apple" golfers stay out of town.
Click to expand...

Wonder how he feels about bad apples at the southern border.
 
My club has about 1000 members. To the best of my understanding, none have ever been convicted of misuse of a firearm.

A woman I know switched from being a Rock/Heavy Metal concert tech to shooting. Her elderly mother was concerned. I asked her "would you rather she hang around rock type people and the attendant drugs or a group of people who have had state and federal criminal record checks and none of which have any serious or drug convictions?". She got the point.
 
Last edited:
Just got back from town meeting. The article was passed over. The petitioner was like number 15 in the gif below:

23IM.gif


The petitioner significantly amended the article from what was distributed in the warrant, so we got a two-page amendment from him at the town meeting. I believe that this was the third version of the article.

Unfortunately for the petitioner, one of the opponents was well versed on town bylaws and before the petitioner could present his article, the opponent made a point of order. The opponent pointed out to the moderator that, by town meeting rules, an article can not be amended if that amendment would further restrict the rights of citizens. The opponent pointed out portions of the amendment that would further restrict rights. The petitioner claimed that wasn't true, that the amendment would be less restrictive than the text in the warrant. After a fair bit of back and forth, the town moderator discussed the issue with town counsel and determined that, indeed, the amendment would further restrict rights of citizens, in violation of town meeting rules, so that the amendment would not be considered. This caused the petitioner some consternation.

The moderator then said that the town would consider the article as printed in the warrant. The petitioner waived his right to speak to his article, but instead wanted to amend it. Before that was allowed, another citizen made a point of order. This citizen said that the article was clearly poorly written, wasn't ready, and shouldn't be considered by the town in its current state. So he made a motion to pass over the article. That motion passed 200-something to 80-something. Since this was the last article, the special town meeting was adjourned.

I do expect him to bring it back up at town meeting again in the Spring. We will be there if he does.

ETA: the vote was 268 to 89 to pass over. Only a majority was required.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
Just got back from town meeting. The article was passed over. The petitioner was like number 15 in the gif below:

23IM.gif


The petitioner significantly amended the article from what was distributed in the warrant, so we got a two-page amendment from him at the town meeting. I believe that this was the third version of the article.

Unfortunately for the petitioner, one of the opponents was well versed on town bylaws and before the petitioner could present his article, the opponent made a point of order. The opponent told the moderator that, by town meeting rules, an article can not be amended if that amendment would further restrict the rights of citizens. The opponent pointed out portions of the amendment that would further restrict rights. The petitioner claimed that wasn't true, that the amendment would be less restrictive than the text in the warrant. After a fair bit of back and forth, the town moderator discussed the issue with town counsel and determined that, indeed, the amendment would further restrict rights of citizens, in violation of town meeting rules, so that the amendment would not be considered. This caused the petitioner some consternation.

The moderator then said that the town would consider the article as printed in the warrant. The petitioner waived his right to speak to his article, but instead wanted to amend it. Before that was allowed, another citizen made a point of order. This citizen said that the article was clearly poorly written, wasn't ready, and shouldn't be considered by the town in its current state. So he made a motion to pass over the article. That motion passed 200-something to 80-something. Since this was the last article, the special town meeting was adjourned.

I do expect him to bring it back up at town meeting again in the Spring. We will be there if he does.
Click to expand...
Been waiting for an update, so glad to read this post. Great news!
 
Nick Fury said:
As long as his fowl are not bothered I am sure it’s fine.

Now remember if food is ever scarce this guy is a must visit....
Click to expand...
Great outcome for Wayland residents and WR&GC members! Article 10 was passed over due to last minute wording changes by the petitioner and the will of Wayland voters. Special thanks to Tom A. & Jared N. for taking the mike and demonstrating why this proposition was inept and not concurrent with the beliefs and values of Wayland Patriots. Shout out to Chief Swanick and his officers for keeping the traffic and meeting safe and orderly. We will remain vigilant and protect all of our God given rights.
 
yanquidog said:
Should have just stayed in Cambridge
No bad apples there.
The progressives have created a utopia in their own image.
Time to move to new unsettled lands and bring them civilization.
Be wary if he starts handing out blankets over the winter
Click to expand...

Seriously. It's become such a progressive utopia that they don't even bother to report on the drive-bys anymore. [rolleyes]

To this day, I still don't know why I never saw anything about it. I know know what multiple gunshots and a getaway car peeling out sound like.
 
And the beat goes on........
Wayland special Town Meeting bans recreational marijuana businesses

Hasn’t given up

Duane Galbi said he hasn’t given up on his citizen petition to limit the discharge of firearms in Wayland. Galbi made the statement minutes after a 268-89 vote to pass over the article.

Several voters on the floor said the article was too confusing, including a recent change Galbi made to some of the article’s language.

“The whole process got a little confusing,” Galbi acknowledged. “I’ll try again (at spring Town Meeting).”

Galbi and co-sponsor Tom Gulley wanted to put limits on outdoor shooting, including the firing of guns within 1,000 feet from the nearest dwelling. State law calls for 500 feet. The measure also called for an end to any new gun ranges.

The Wayland Rod and Gun Club believed the petition was an effort to shut it down. Galbi said that was not his intention, because the club is grandfathered when it comes to local zoning and noise regulations.
 
Galbi previously said it was an effort to shut the club down, prior to being told that changing town bylaws wouldn’t restrict the club due to the club being grandfathered. His goal from the beginning was to shut down the club but, as is typical of him, he didn’t do his homework.
 
M1911 said:
......................... After a fair bit of back and forth, the town moderator discussed the issue with town counsel and determined that, indeed, the amendment would further restrict rights of citizens, in violation of town meeting rules, so that the amendment would not be considered. This caused the petitioner some consternation.......................
Click to expand...


Awww poor fella. I hope he cried himself to a restless sleep.

Anybody that didn't think this was an attempt to shut down WR&GC is a fool.
 
M1911 said:
Galbi previously said it was an effort to shut the club down, prior to being told that changing town bylaws wouldn’t restrict the club due to the club being grandfathered. His goal from the beginning was to shut down the club but, as is typical of him, he didn’t do his homework.
Click to expand...

He and his partner in crime stated it for the newspaper.

Petition targets Wayland Rod and Gun Club

Wayland resident Tom Gulley, one of the petition’s two co-sponsors, agreed the move is directed at the club.
“It hasn’t been a good neighbor,” he said.
His co-sponsor, Duane Galbi, said the petition “applies to anything new (in Wayland). From a Wayland perspective, shooting guns is not something we’re in favor of.”

“Shut down the gun club, that was the intent,” Galbi confirmed of the prior effort, although he added that it didn’t involve Gulley. After working with neighbors to reduce the speed limit on Stonebridge Road, Galbi said he wanted to repay those who didn’t want the gun club. But he withdrew the petition after realizing many neighbors accepted the gun club because it had been there for so long.
 
Actually, he withdrew that attempt to close the club because he was informed by the town that his attempt wouldn’t work. His attempt that time around was to use a noise bylaw. He was unaware that MGL specifically protects gun ranges from noise bylaws.

Also, his attempt to get the town to lower the speed limit on Stonebridge Rd resulted in the speed limit staying the same on most of it and increasing on part of it.
 
Yeah, that was pretty fricking hilarious. This Spring he ran for the Board of Public Works. Apparently he thought he got a raw deal when he tried to get the speed limit changed. He lost. We should start calling him 0-fer.
 
Here is a description from the Wayland Voters Network:

Petitioners’ Article 10, “To limit discharge of weapons,” ran into a buzz saw from the start. A voter raised a point of order, saying the Moderator’s rules wouldn’t permit consideration of an article that had changed so greatly in the last few days that it was no longer within the scope of the printed Warrant article. When the Moderator agreed, the proponent introduced the article as printed in the Warrant. Another voter asked for town counsel opinion on whether the changes would be consistent with state and federal law.

An opposition speaker said the article would prevent hunters from culling the large deer population and also make it impossible for the Rod and Gun Club to upgrade its facilities and for the police to have a firing range. Before a real debate could begin, one voter said the article was so full of inconsistencies that it should be withdrawn. His motion to pass over succeeded, 268-89.
Click to expand...

Full text here: Yahoo! Groups
 
The Wayland neighbors are now fighting a cell tower on gun club property. I wonder if this is just because of the usual NIMBY reasons, or if they have figured out that this will provide the club with money for legal fees, knowing that the first party who stops paying the lawyers will lose the shooting regulation dispute.
 

Similar threads

Finland Goes Pro-Gun
2
Replies
36
Views
904
Picton
Picton
New England gun tourism
Replies
26
Views
634
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Ma. March gun auction Major SUCCESS.
Replies
3
Views
239
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Biden Closing "Gun show loophole"
2
Replies
30
Views
860
zboys
zboys
Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
540
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Back
Top Bottom