Gun law opponents begin repeal campaign: Gun owners have taken the first step toward putting before Massachusetts voters a proposal to repeal law

From Facebook:

Facebook

www.facebook.com www.facebook.com


Massachusetts Attorney General Seeks Guidance from Chapter 135 Supporters to Determine if the Referendum to Repeal the Law Meets Constitutional Standards!
August 13, 2024
On August 12, 2024 the ten original signers to initiate a referendum petition to repeal Chapter 135 received an email from the Massachusetts Attorney General. (See Below) The email explained that the Secretary of the Commonwealth had asked the Attorney General to make a ruling on whether the proposed referendum complies with Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. It is a very simple determination that the Attorney General should be capable of discerning in a few minutes. Instead, the Attorney General’s office has sought guidance on the matter from a host of outside sources, many of which likely had a hand in writing the new law.
“It is confusing that the Attorney General would be seeking opinions from the very people that likely wrote Chapter 135. The AGs only job right now is to determine if the petition meets Constitutional standards, which it clearly does,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL and first signer of the referendum. “Why in the world would the AG need the input of anti-civil rights organizations to interpret a Constitution she is supposed to fully understand and protect?”
It would appear that the Attorney General is trying to find an excuse to deny the petition. From her email she is likely looking for support from the anti-civil rights groups to back such a position. Like most of the history of Chapter 135, the bulk of the “process” is questionable at best.
Should the Attorney General deny the petition, we will be seeking legal action.
Other than the original signers of the petition, the AG is seeking opinions from:
• Mass Chiefs
• Fraternal Order of Police
• Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
• Everytown
• Giffords
• Brady United
• Gary Klein Consulting (Former AG staffer who authored the 2016 AW piece.)
• MA Executive Office of Public Safety


Email from the Attorney General Staff (MA):
As you may be aware, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has asked the Attorney General to opine whether the referendum filed on Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 (“An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws”) complies with the constitutional standards set forth for referenda in Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. I will be coordinating the Attorney General’s review of that inquiry with my colleague Phoebe Fischer-Groban. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as a person or entity who may wish to provide input on the question whether Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 is a law that may be the subject of a referendum. Please be advised that the Attorney General’s review is limited to whether the law may be the subject of a referendum under Amendment Article 48, and will not extend to policy or other legal or constitutional considerations. In addition, the Attorney General is charged with preparing a “fair and concise summary” of the law.
Because this matter is time-sensitive, if you wish to provide input on the question whether this law may properly be the subject of a referendum, please do so by email on or before Wednesday, August 14, 2024. We appreciate your confining any input to the narrow legal question before us. We will also solicit input on our draft summary of the law when we are ready to do so; if you wish to submit your own draft summary for our consideration prior to that, please also do so ASAP. If you are aware of any other otherwise interested parties, please let me know so I can include them in this process, or feel free to forward this message to them.
Kindly reply-all with all future correspondence on these petitions, to facilitate an open process where you have the opportunity to respond to the other’s input, to the extent possible within our time constraints. And of course, please reach out with any questions about the process.
 
EMTDAD said:
what are other places that conservatives typically gather?
Click to expand...

Steve Harvey Smile GIF by ABC Network


Work.
 
Darksideblues42 said:
From Facebook:

Facebook

www.facebook.com www.facebook.com


Massachusetts Attorney General Seeks Guidance from Chapter 135 Supporters to Determine if the Referendum to Repeal the Law Meets Constitutional Standards!
August 13, 2024
On August 12, 2024 the ten original signers to initiate a referendum petition to repeal Chapter 135 received an email from the Massachusetts Attorney General. (See Below) The email explained that the Secretary of the Commonwealth had asked the Attorney General to make a ruling on whether the proposed referendum complies with Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. It is a very simple determination that the Attorney General should be capable of discerning in a few minutes. Instead, the Attorney General’s office has sought guidance on the matter from a host of outside sources, many of which likely had a hand in writing the new law.
“It is confusing that the Attorney General would be seeking opinions from the very people that likely wrote Chapter 135. The AGs only job right now is to determine if the petition meets Constitutional standards, which it clearly does,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL and first signer of the referendum. “Why in the world would the AG need the input of anti-civil rights organizations to interpret a Constitution she is supposed to fully understand and protect?”
It would appear that the Attorney General is trying to find an excuse to deny the petition. From her email she is likely looking for support from the anti-civil rights groups to back such a position. Like most of the history of Chapter 135, the bulk of the “process” is questionable at best.
Should the Attorney General deny the petition, we will be seeking legal action.
Other than the original signers of the petition, the AG is seeking opinions from:
• Mass Chiefs
• Fraternal Order of Police
• Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
• Everytown
• Giffords
• Brady United
• Gary Klein Consulting (Former AG staffer who authored the 2016 AW piece.)
• MA Executive Office of Public Safety


Email from the Attorney General Staff (MA):
As you may be aware, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has asked the Attorney General to opine whether the referendum filed on Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 (“An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws”) complies with the constitutional standards set forth for referenda in Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. I will be coordinating the Attorney General’s review of that inquiry with my colleague Phoebe Fischer-Groban. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as a person or entity who may wish to provide input on the question whether Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 is a law that may be the subject of a referendum. Please be advised that the Attorney General’s review is limited to whether the law may be the subject of a referendum under Amendment Article 48, and will not extend to policy or other legal or constitutional considerations. In addition, the Attorney General is charged with preparing a “fair and concise summary” of the law.
Because this matter is time-sensitive, if you wish to provide input on the question whether this law may properly be the subject of a referendum, please do so by email on or before Wednesday, August 14, 2024. We appreciate your confining any input to the narrow legal question before us. We will also solicit input on our draft summary of the law when we are ready to do so; if you wish to submit your own draft summary for our consideration prior to that, please also do so ASAP. If you are aware of any other otherwise interested parties, please let me know so I can include them in this process, or feel free to forward this message to them.
Kindly reply-all with all future correspondence on these petitions, to facilitate an open process where you have the opportunity to respond to the other’s input, to the extent possible within our time constraints. And of course, please reach out with any questions about the process..
Click to expand...
A lot of time, energy and a short supply of money will be thrown at a petition that will never see the light of day.

We are dealing with Socialists, Progressives as they like to be called but they are just Communists. Everyone must accept this.

Everything the 2A Soldiers have must be directed at ending up before SCOTUS.

This State will spit in our face.

I am a few days away from turning 70, well into the back nine as they say. I was just told here that my priorities are effed up.

I beg to differ.

Over 40 years of my life I have been a member of several 2A rights organizations. I did the call thing, did the letter thing but mainly gave thousands of dollars to fight for the cause.

Not looking for any pat on the back as really a pat on the back is just a inches away from a kick in the ass.

Sometimes I wonder if it was just a waste of time and money.

I have long stated here my frustration over the years struggling to understand why the vast majority of gun owners have never lifted a finger to help.

That seems like an effed up priority....to me anyway.

To this day we have many that are unable or unwilling to stop voting for Democrats. I have never.

That priority really hasn't turned out well has it......

I said Healey and Campbell would lay out a plan to eliminate dealers, FFLS and ban slingshots. I was called a pants shitter.

I know I am flirting with I told you so which is not my intention but sometimes this issues angers me greatly.

MA is breaking the Law, breaking the Constitution and only SCOTUS will stop them.

They are gonna jerk you around over any petition, they don't care about such things.

We are on the edge of the loss of the Republic. It is that close.

Is it too late? I honestly don't know. If it all turns around I am not certain I will still be alive to see it.

At the end of the day we shall see if the priorities of the future undo the priorities of the past.

I am at peace for the priorities I have lived by and followed during my life.
 
robjax said:
There is also an ask to suspend the law until it is voted on in 2026.

Trashing GOAL for taking steps is wrong.

This will need to be fought on multiple fronts, not just in the courts.

Will it work? I don’t know.

But it will also depend on how pro gun groups sell it.

The message should be focused on that this is a 2A violation. This effectively violates 2A.

Compare it to how in some circumstances .gov already violates other rights established in the bor.

And this does nothing to combat crime nor does it prevent criminals from obtaining and using any firearm.

Regardless of how blue Mass is and aside from the welfare leaches and extremism’s most support 2A.

They may want certain firearms banned but this steps way over that line.

If done strategically and correctly There is a chance voters would overturn this.

But still needs to be fought in the courts as well.
Click to expand...
That may be the desire, but it will not be the effect. If you read the article, it plainly says that with little work the governor can bypass the suspension. All that's required is for her to write a one paragraph emergency preamble. It's a piece of cake for her, and then all this effort is for not. I agree with others that this is a waste of time and will not end well for our side.

Effort should be spent in court. That's is where we see success. Furthermore, I find it a little disturbing that goal starts the process and then abandons it for others to pick up. Don't start something you know you can't finish.

Like lake trout had suggested, I'm not giving them money anymore. I'm shifting my giving to FPC and GOA. Those are the organizations getting it done.

You know, I could get behind GOAL if they at least tried and failed in court. But this effort it's just going to make things worse. I can't support that. Not at all, not one dime.

It will never pass with the voters. The governor will never let it suspend the law. And goals starting and then bailing on the process for others to pick up is frankly despicable. Finish what you start and don't waste resources.
 
Last edited:
ThePreBanMan said:
That may be the desire, but it will not be the effect. If you read the article, it plainly says that with little work the governor can bypass the suspension. All that's required is for her to write a one paragraph emergency preamble. It's a piece of cake for her, and then all this effort is for not. I agree with others that this is a waste of time and will not end well for our side.
Click to expand...

There are state courts, too. And state lawsuits.

This would very likely trigger one. Might not go anywhere, of course.
 
HARRYM said:
I am a few days away from turning 70, well into the back nine as they say. I was just told here that my priorities are effed up.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. I said they sucked.

You're living in the past, which is understandable but not useful.
 
not new guy said:
So the AG is reaching out to gun grabbing groups for help... interpreting state law on how laws go into effect?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure she was quite prepared for the repeal thing. I take it as a positive sign that she's not just throwing an emergency preamble out there right away.

Who knows who she's asking, or what they'll tell her?

I do know that if this gets to the SJC (and it probably would), there are many groups other than gun-rights lobbyists that would take an interest. A power play like this by the governor would raise eyebrows, because a governor who can do this on gun control can do it on any one else's pet issue, too.
 
HARRYM said:
We are dealing with Socialists, Progressives as they like to be called but they are just Communists. Everyone must accept this.
Click to expand...
HARRYM said:
MA is breaking the Law, breaking the Constitution and only SCOTUS will stop them
Click to expand...
HARRYM said:
We are on the edge of the loss of the Republic. It is that close.
Click to expand...
Picton said:
You're living in the past, which is understandable but not useful.
Click to expand...

Everything @HARRYM said is true now, I don't think he's living in the past. I always try to imagine what the people of germany thought was happening in the 1930s. Or all those poor european countries that fell to communism around the same time. It is never obvious to us as it happens, only if you compare today to the past. I'm scared of the democrats now.
 
VigilantesLiberi said:
Everything @HARRYM said is true now, I don't think he's living in the past. I always try to imagine what the people of germany thought was happening in the 1930s. Or all those poor european countries that fell to communism around the same time. It is never obvious to us as it happens, only if you compare today to the past. I'm scared of the democrats now.
Click to expand...

I've addressed that with him.

NOW is the past for the future. What he's going to fail to do NOW is going to have repercussions down the road.

In five years' time, when @HARRYM is crying because there are no gun dealers left in MA, these posts will tell him why. If he's willing to go back and read them, anyway. The repeal petition is another angle of attack on this law, an angle he refuses to recognize because he thinks it'll take away momentum from the SCOTUS lawsuits.

I don't understand his position. Certainly I agree with him that the SCOTUS suits are what will kill this law; my disagreement comes from my knowledge that we can, indeed, do two things at once. And from my belief that there's no point in having a secure RKBA (through the federal courts) if Maura has succeeded in killing off gun retail (which she might still do, if our repeal petition does not buy them time).

The SCOTUS suits will take time and money. The repeal petition will literally cost nothing except a signature.
 
Picton said:
The repeal petition is another angle of attack on this law, an angle he refuses to recognize because he thinks it'll take away momentum from the SCOTUS lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Yea, I'd have to agree that the petition, even if only a delay tactic, will not hurt the SCOTUS momentum. As someone who assed out and was too late, this would be f***ing great:)

Picton said:
if Maura has succeeded in killing off gun retail (which she might still do, if our repeal petition does not buy them time).
Click to expand...

So I have called fudd dealers, none of them sounded worried. They barely even cared about this law. The fudds say things like "AR-15's are illegal to sell", "Never have, never will!". Are these gun dealers REALLY going to be affected by the ban? They never sold ARs, yet somehow stayed in business, and seem to think they will continue to do so regardless.
 
VigilantesLiberi said:
So I have called fudd dealers, none of them sounded worried. They barely even cared about this law. The fudds say things like "AR-15's are illegal to sell", "Never have, never will!". Are these gun dealers REALLY going to be affected by the ban? They never sold ARs, yet somehow stayed in business, and seem to think they will continue to do so regardless.
Click to expand...

I suspect they will be very surprised when they figure out that the shotguns they love to sell are going to be treated just like the ARs they refuse to sell.

They will be "affected by the ban" whether they like it or not: by falling income and, if they've not hedged properly, by eventual bankruptcy.
 
VigilantesLiberi said:
….So I have called fudd dealers, none of them sounded worried. They barely even cared about this law. The fudds say things like "AR-15's are illegal to sell", "Never have, never will!". Are these gun dealers REALLY going to be affected by the ban? They never sold ARs, yet somehow stayed in business, and seem to think they will continue to do so regardless.
Click to expand...

They’re ignorant. This law will outright prevent them from selling ANY rifles or shotguns until they start getting sent in for testing by manufacturers and approved. I think the lists are only updated once a quarter too. Who knows how long it will be before they can start selling any rifles or shotguns.

Further, the “assault type firearm” features will result in banning virtually all semi auto centerfire rifles with detachable magazines.

They will definitely take a hit, even if they don’t sell ARs.
 
VigilantesLiberi said:
Everything @HARRYM said is true now, I don't think he's living in the past. I always try to imagine what the people of germany thought was happening in the 1930s. Or all those poor european countries that fell to communism around the same time. It is never obvious to us as it happens, only if you compare today to the past. I'm scared of the democrats now.
Click to expand...
Now???

I was scared of the democrats when I started voting in 1988. Now....they are full out socialist retards.

Their gun and freedom grabbing started LOOONNG before that to anyone that's been paying attention, people like my Dad and Harry saw this shit coming before I was born and never inked a D vote in their lifetime. And always gave to NRA, GOAL and whoever.

To truly think if he sits this vote out......it will change anything........anyone that thinks that has rocks in their head.

The sheeple D pussies in MA will always outvote the red areas no matter what. And the amount of fuddy type people in that state, that could care less about their gun rights and their rights in general is amazing. Truly a lost cause.
 
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

The 1968 gun act was the warning. They came for everything. The NRA was still a gun safety organization with no lobby branch.

Very lucky many Democrats were pro gun in those days and the final damage was less than the bill sponsors wanted.

Always knew they would try and try again.

Gun owners could have done more, should have done more, it didn't happen.

Priorities just weren't made.

I guess we shall see how this plays out now.
 
Mark from ? said:
Now???

I was scared of the democrats when I started voting in 1988. Now....they are full out socialist retards.

Their gun and freedom grabbing started LOOONNG before that to anyone that's been paying attention, people like my Dad and Harry saw this shit coming before I was born and never inked a D vote in their lifetime. And always gave to NRA, GOAL and whoever.

To truly think if he sits this vote out......it will change anything........anyone that thinks that has rocks in their head.

The sheeple D pussies in MA will always outvote the red areas no matter what. And the amount of fuddy type people in that state, that could care less about their gun rights and their rights in general is amazing. Truly a lost cause.
Click to expand...
I was 14 in 68 but a devout history buff and even then followed news stories and world history with great interest, still do to this day. JFK in 63 and RFK and MLK in 68 and the riots and the country was a mess indeed. My Dad always said they came for all guns but ended up getting far less than they wanted.

My involvement with the NRA started around 73/74 as the NRA realized 1968 would happen again. That's when I joined because I wanted to support the newly created lobbing wing of the NRA. I knew strength in numbers had to be the way going forward.

It's not crying over spilled milk it's things I lived through.

And If 2A supporters fail to answer the call this time then the game will most certainly be over.
 
Over 100 million gun owners and lucky if 8 million step up to the plate.

They say people deserve the government they vote for.

Well, gun owners get stuck with gun laws they don't join up and fight against.

It's very, very late in the game but they better heed the alarm call and step up an join the fray.

Every 2A Solider must sign up, every extra dollar must be donated.
 
Reptile said:
www.gazettenet.com

Gun law opponents begin repeal campaign

Gun owners have taken the first step toward putting before Massachusetts voters a proposal to repeal the firearms law signed on July 25 by Gov. Maura Healey, a statute the governor called the “most significant gun safety legislation in a decade.”A...
www.gazettenet.com www.gazettenet.com
Click to expand...
Where do I f***ing sign? That should literally be the only question on anyone's lips at this point.

Seriously though, where do I sign up for the referendum?
 
mav said:
Where do I f***ing sign? That should literally be the only question on anyone's lips at this point.

Seriously though, where do I sign up for the referendum?
Click to expand...

It’s not out yet. The AG’s office is currently working with anti-gun groups to determine if the referendum is constitutional before allowing people to sign it.
 
PappyM3 said:
It’s not out yet. The AG’s office is currently working with anti-gun groups to determine if the referendum is constitutional before allowing people to sign it.
Click to expand...
isn't that great. "We want to collect signatures as we feel what you're doing is unjust" State: "Understood, however, we need to print and provide the 'official' forms for you to use, so just stand over there and wait while we work on it, HOWEVER, the clock is still ticking"
 
M1911 said:
Personally, I think this effort is a waste of time and effort at best and will be a negative at worst.
Click to expand...
I disagree. This will be a thorn in the side of the anti's and will get more votes than you think. This repeal has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Imagine if it wins. If it loses we go at it again but maybe break it down.

Losing has no affect on the courts because that decision will be based on our rights.

Frankly I don't even get your position at all.
 
mousegunfan said:
I disagree. This will be a thorn in the side of the anti's and will get more votes than you think. This repeal has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Imagine if it wins. If it loses we go at it again but maybe break it down.

Losing has no affect on the courts because that decision will be based on our rights.

Frankly I don't even get your position at all.
Click to expand...
Here is my position succinctly:

1) The ballot question will fail. We don’t have the votes. If it makes it onto the ballot we will lose 30% to 70% at best and likely far worse.

2) GOAL has very limited money and a very small staff. They should focus their efforts where we have a chance of success, not on efforts bound to fail.

3) In comparison to GOAL, the AG’s office has effectively unlimited money. It is no significant pain for the AG to try to keep this off the ballot — she can just assign several lawyers to it, while waiting for anti-gun orgs to give her advice about how best to do that.

4) It is no significant pain for anti-gun organizations. If this makes it on the ballot, they will win the vote even if they do nothing.

Look at our elected politicians. All of our federal representatives and senators, every single one, are antigun liberal Democrats. Every statewide elected official (Governor, AG, etc.) are liberal anti-gun Democrats. In the MA House of Representatives there are 134 D and 24 R — 84% D. The MA State Senate is 36 D, 4 R — 90% D. MA voters overwhelmingly vote for liberal, anti-gun politicians. That is because MA voters are overwhelmingly liberal and anti-gun.

The idea that somehow people who vote for Senator Warren and Senator Markey would vote for such a ballot question is completely delusional.
 
Last edited:
Question and apologies if it’s already been asked/answered;

Can we sign if we’ve recently jumped the wall, but still have an active MA LTC?

Thank you
 

Similar threads

Legislative push starts to repeal Massachusetts gun law
2 3
Replies
82
Views
3K
Foudre
F
Mass. gun law opponents challenge restrictions on young adults
Replies
1
Views
106
Drix
Drix
Massachusetts High Court Provides Cover for Unconstitutional Gun Laws
Replies
0
Views
1
GOALJim
GOALJim
AG Bondi Proposes Stronger Gun Confiscation Laws
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Individualist
Individualist
Arkansas Students to Begin Receiving in-School Gun Safety Training
Replies
3
Views
71
Drix
Drix
Back
Top Bottom