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

VTski4x4 said:
Maura and the AG are shitting themselves. They're staring down the barrel of FPCs insane legal army who announced they have been drawing their suit for week, and now "we" (who knows if it was goal, comm2a, or both, with or without the help of FPC) have found a legal maneuver they likely didn't even realize was possible. Exact as posted above, this is unprecedented, and while I'm sure Maura was expecting to deal with lawsuits, her cabal seems to have been caught with their pants down and are panicking.
Click to expand...

All of which reinforces what some of us have been saying all along:

This law will never, ever be meaningfully enforced on anyone. All the people here fretting about making sure their Glock 17 has only ten rounds after October are worrying needlessly. The LAST thing the State needs on its plate is an actual criminal case about any aspect of this law.
 
Picton said:
All of which reinforces what some of us have been saying all along:

This law will never, ever be meaningfully enforced on anyone. All the people here fretting about making sure their Glock 17 has only ten rounds after October are worrying needlessly. The LAST thing the State needs on its plate is an actual criminal case about any aspect of this law.
Click to expand...
It can be very effectively used to extract plea bargains, and to "get" people who acted legally but in a way the government does not like.
 
Picton said:
All of which reinforces what some of us have been saying all along:

This law will never, ever be meaningfully enforced on anyone. All the people here fretting about making sure their Glock 17 has only ten rounds after October are worrying needlessly. The LAST thing the State needs on its plate is an actual criminal case about any aspect of this law.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree there. This law has so many tentacles that they will absolutely use a handful of them, and frequently. There are plenty of aspects that are safe from judicial jeopardy because we’re in the 1st circuit and SCOTUS is unlikely to grant cert to most of it.

The AWB/standard capacity mag restrictions are the areas most likely to be overturned though. But I think the state is feeling pretty confident in LCFD charges as they have all along.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps adding the preamble is an admission of terrible governance. If a gun law reform is such an emergency then crime is rampant, existing laws arent working, and their entire messaging campaign is implied BS.
 
What the Governor fails to articulate is what specific part(s) of this 100+ pages of legislative nonsense will impact criminals? Thats right none. It will however further restrict the already law-abiding citizens of this commonwealth. Mariano, Spilka and Healy have used this unconstitutional bill in open defiance of the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen SCOTUS decisions. It is an emotional and illogical solution to solve a problem that doesn't even exist.

The Media has handed them a major victory by referring repeatedly to ghost guns, red flag laws, and "gun safety" to the exclusion of the tangible and specific impacts on our citizenry. We have already lost the public awareness battle. Hope we can win the war in court. This is going to be a long fight.
 
PappyM3 said:
Gotta disagree there. This law has so many tentacles that they will absolutely use a handful of them, and frequently. There are plenty of aspects that are safe from judicial jeopardy because we’re in the 1st circuit and SCOTUS is unlikely to grant cert to most of it.

The AWB/standard capacity mag restrictions are the areas most likely to be overturned though. But I think the state is feeling pretty confident in LCFD charges as they have all along.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see them try.

I do agree that they'll use this to tangle people up in pleas. I think that danger evaporates, though, if the accused calls the state's bluff on this statute.
 
PappyM3 said:
Gotta disagree there. This law has so many tentacles that they will absolutely use a handful of them, and frequently. There are plenty of aspects that are safe from judicial jeopardy because we’re in the 1st circuit and SCOTUS is unlikely to grant cert to most of it.

The AWB/standard capacity mag restrictions are the areas most likely to be overturned though. But I think the state is feeling pretty confident in LCFD charges as they have all along.
Click to expand...
Cert is automatic for a circuit court case, as is an appeal to a 3 kangaroo panel. EnBanc (all judges, or a random sample in a large district like the 9th) is where the granting of cert comes in.

But it's really much simpler than that - They can just rule against us, or even offer a summary judgment, if they do not like the possible outcome of having the case tried.

I do agree that they'll use this to tangle people up in pleas. I think that danger evaporates, though, if the accused calls the state's bluff on this statute.
Click to expand...

Tough in cases involving persons not of the criminal class given the choice between a CWOF and COUGH (as in cough it up) vs. the real possibility of lifetime PP status. EVERYONE says they will not knuckle under until it's their future on the line, then it's a different story. It's as common as people negotiating their "non-negotiable demands".
 
Last edited:
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...

I am trying very hard to understand this.

The AG is the chief lawyer for the PRM. That office is where a legal opinion should originate. If the AG can't determine whether a referendum is constitutional on her own, then she should resign or be fired, because this clearly indicates that she is incompetent.

If she does have to do research to determine constitutionality, what the he'll do those anti-gun groups know about constitutional law that she doesn't??? That's like an exterminator asking mice how to build a better mousetrap.

JFC, this state is FUBAR.
 
The other issue is how the summary and pro/con statements that go in the booklet telling subjects how to vote is worded.
 
center442 said:
I am trying very hard to understand this.

The AG is the chief lawyer for the PRM. That office is where a legal opinion should originate. If the AG can't determine whether a referendum is constitutional on her own, then she should resign or be fired, because this clearly indicates that she is incompetent.
Click to expand...
It's an elected position. The governor can't fire her. And why would she resign? She's just a figurehead. It is the assistant AG's that do the actual legal work.

I'm not arguing that she is a competent lawyer. Andrea Campbell is a moron, near as I can tell.
 
How do we get the average, non-enthusiast gun owner in MA to see this law as a big deal? My Dad and Stepdad are both gun owners in their 70s and neither had any idea about this law. They both don’t see how this really changes things for them. Neither owns an ASF, my Stepdad doesn’t carry and my Dad only carries a j-frame or pocket 380. Stepdad will likely never buy another gun or step foot in a gun shop again, and my Dad seems to only buy old 22’s and shotguns from private face to face sales.
I think many gun owners in MA are in a similar boat, and I think getting those guys to take action and see this as a big deal is going to be a hurdle when it doesn’t seem to change things for them.
 
Picton said:
All of which reinforces what some of us have been saying all along:

This law will never, ever be meaningfully enforced on anyone. All the people here fretting about making sure their Glock 17 has only ten rounds after October are worrying needlessly. The LAST thing the State needs on its plate is an actual criminal case about any aspect of this law.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt in my mind that people will be charged under this law. The DA’s won’t be able to resist.
 
Toast said:
And you've decided that you're going to sit on your hands and proclaim about "muh principles".

FFS, just go stand in front of a closed FFL and shout "Shall not be infringed". Won't do anyone any good, but I'm sure you'll be quite pleased with yourself.
Click to expand...
J F C Y A A D F B
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Cert is automatic for a circuit court case, as is an appeal to a 3 kangaroo panel. EnBanc (all judges, or a random sample in a large district like the 9th) is where the granting of cert comes in.

But it's really much simpler than that - They can just rule against us, or even offer a summary judgment, if they do not like the possible outcome of having the case tried.



Tough in cases involving persons not of the criminal class given the choice between a CWOF and COUGH (as in cough it up) vs. the real possibility of lifetime PP status. EVERYONE says they will not knuckle under until it's their future on the line, then it's a different story. It's as common as people negotiating their "non-negotiable demands".
Click to expand...

The granting cert comment was for SCOTUS. The 1st Circuit, I almost guarantee will rule against us.
 
not new guy said:
So if the ballot question passes in our favor by some miracle (humor me), is the law dead on the spot or does it require the legislature or administrative machine to actually take steps to make it a reality? I'm thinking about how ma.gov didn't actually comply with the successful ballot measure 25 years ago to drop the state income tax rate.
Click to expand...

The law is dead, but a new law with the exact same language could be passed and signed within days. To prevent that would require an amendment to the Mass. Constitution.

Picton said:
This law will never, ever be meaningfully enforced on anyone. All the people here fretting about making sure their Glock 17 has only ten rounds after October are worrying needlessly. The LAST thing the State needs on its plate is an actual criminal case about any aspect of this law.
Click to expand...

I don’t know why you think that. Cops already arrest people now when they find standard capacity mags, and the removal of grandfathering makes it a slam dunk case for any anti-gun prosecutor looking to score political points and raise their batting average.

When Massachusetts got slapped down hard in Caetano, did it cause Maura or anyone else any financial or political damage? Not that I saw.
 
Dcdr said:
How do we get the average, non-enthusiast gun owner in MA to see this law as a big deal? My Dad and Stepdad are both gun owners in their 70s and neither had any idea about this law. They both don’t see how this really changes things for them. Neither owns an ASF, my Stepdad doesn’t carry and my Dad only carries a j-frame or pocket 380. Stepdad will likely never buy another gun or step foot in a gun shop again, and my Dad seems to only buy old 22’s and shotguns from private face to face sales.
I think many gun owners in MA are in a similar boat, and I think getting those guys to take action and see this as a big deal is going to be a hurdle when it doesn’t seem to change things for them.
Click to expand...


Tell them not to worry…Maura and the legislature I’ll get to them eventually.
 
HARRYM said:
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.
Click to expand...
A 16% involvement rate is great for just about any cause.
 
M1911 said:
So what?

Legal challenges to the law will go forward regardless of this silly ballot question.

SCOTUS rulings won’t change MA voters from anti-gun to pro-gun. In 2026 MA voters will still be overwhelmingly liberal and anti-gun.
Click to expand...
The ballot referendum is not about a court fight on the constitutionality of the bill.
It's about delaying the enactment of the entire bill in one action at low cost and risk.
To delay the bill's enactment with the referendum, the ball is in our court. If we perform by getting the signatures the bill is delayed. No judge shopping, no mother may I.
 
OMM 0000 said:
Perhaps adding the preamble is an admission of terrible governance. If a gun law reform is such an emergency then crime is rampant, existing laws arent working, and their entire messaging campaign is implied BS.
Click to expand...
You think she cares about her perception among our community in this state on this issue? She'll be laughing while she writes it.
 
PappyM3 said:
Gotta disagree there. This law has so many tentacles that they will absolutely use a handful of them, and frequently. There are plenty of aspects that are safe from judicial jeopardy because we’re in the 1st circuit and SCOTUS is unlikely to grant cert to most of it.

The AWB/standard capacity mag restrictions are the areas most likely to be overturned though. But I think the state is feeling pretty confident in LCFD charges as they have all along.
Click to expand...


 
robjax said:
Just got an email from GOAL stating Marsha is threatening to file an emergency preamble to 135.
Click to expand...
In an August 13, 2024 State House News Service article, Governor Maura Healey stated that she strongly opposes “…the petitioners’ attempt to suspend the law before their referendum seeking to repeal the law makes its way onto a statewide election ballot.”

Just days ago, a small group of patriots filed the initial paperwork to create a statewide referendum petition to repeal Chapter 135. With the matter being properly filed with the Secretary of State, the next step is for the Attorney General to declare that the filing meets the State’s constitutional requirements.

According to the Massachusetts Constitution, if the required amount of signatures are collected and certified, the implementation of the law would be postponed until the question can appear on the next statewide ballot. Which makes it likely that this question would not go before the voters until 2026. It seems that the intention of Governor Healey could be to continue the pattern of disrespect for the Second Amendment by using yet more unusual and rare maneuvers to deny citizens their civil rights – much like her counterparts in the legislative leadership.

“The Legislature and the Governor had every opportunity to include an emergency preamble to Chapter 135 and saw no urgent need to do so,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of Gun Owners’ Action League. “It is clear the sudden emergency was only manifested because the proponents of the law are witnessing a rising up of the citizens. This is completely unfamiliar ground for government officials that have done everything possible to avoid any legitimate public input.”

We will continue to keep our members informed on the constant erosion of our civil rights and legislative processes.

Article XLVIII of the Part of the Second of the Massachusetts Constitution allows the Governor to submit an emergency declaration prior to the referendum being put before the people. It does not appear that the Governor can stop the petition process.
“…at any time before the election at which it is to be submitted to the people on referendum, files with the secretary of the commonwealth a statement declaring that in his opinion the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety or convenience requires that such law should take effect forthwith and that it is an emergency law and setting forth the facts constituting the emergency, then such law, if not previously suspended as hereinafter provided, shall take effect without suspension, or if such law has been so suspended such suspension shall thereupon terminate and such law shall thereupon take effect: but no grant of any franchise or amendment thereof, or renewal or extension thereof for more than one year shall be declared to be an emergency law.”
 

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
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
Stricter Mass. gun law in crossfire with safety activists, firearms advocates
Replies
0
Views
182
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom