I don’t believe so. Signatories need to be MA voters.
-
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/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Gun law opponents begin repeal campaign: Gun owners have taken the first step toward putting before Massachusetts voters a proposal to repeal law
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
The Usual Suspect
NES Member
Yes, but by then there are multiple Supreme Court decisions to reckon with. 2026 is not 2024.
The Usual Suspect
NES Member
How and where do I sign?
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.
EMTDAD
NES Member
everything you say is 100% true.. but I don't think a ballot repeal is the goal here.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, if it can get enough signatures to get on the ballot, then the law's enactment is on hold until the election. The next statewide election is in 2026 (assuming this cannot make the 2024 election). That means this crappy law has no teeth until at least 11/2026. The hope is that SCOTUS rules in our favor by then. Worst case, is we've delayed the inevitable for 2 yrs.. Best case, SCOTUS makes this entire law null and void in the meantime, and effectively halts any new laws that they'd enact on top of this.
IANAL.
Night_solstice
NES Member
Yes, the only goal is to buy time:
Law is put on 'hold' for 2 years and we still exist under the 'current' law:
• Ammo transfers not recorded.
• No new training requirements for LTC (which doesn't yet exist and no funding or timeframe to stand up exists).
• Frame transfers can still continue.
• Rifles and shotguns can continue to be purchased (under the new rules, they are now subject to 'the list' which doesn't currently contain shotguns and rifles, and since the requirements aren't defined yet, who (if any) will submit them for 'testing'?).
• And all the other pieces of ‘love and protection’
Since the new rules put everything on block for an indeterminate length of time (while it's 'developed'), most FFLs will be forced to close since they can't sell anything.
All this while we await the results of current challenges and submission to the court systems that will impact many of these conditions.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 39,372
- Likes
- 63,703
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.
That is the only thing that might make sense, if in fact it is true that it would delay implementation.
Night_solstice
NES Member
I'm not sure (but wouldn't be surprised) if there's a provision to allow them to override a vote on it, but nothing would stop them from resubmitting the bill and voting on it in a slightly modified format after the vote.
That's not the only time, either. Ages ago there was a referendum to overturn the mandatory seatbelt law. The voters told the state to get f***ed, and not long later the state essentially overruled it and put it back. "Cuz money".
We can guess this number based on the states data dumpm
The Usual Suspect
NES Member
Literally what I had said. The delay buys us time, we focus on other legal efforts.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,496
- Likes
- 1,708
Will illegals be barred from signing the petition?
EMTDAD
NES Member
are they registered voters.. if so.. not barred.
Their signatures will not count as they are not registered voters.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
But that will be muted by the emergency preamble that can be added to the current bill which she can do at ANYTIME before the vote on the referendum.
“if the governor, 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…”.”
https://www.mass.gov/news/governors-authority-to-make-new-law-effective-immediately
VigilantesLiberi
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2024
- Messages
- 1,603
- Likes
- 1,750
The AG is probably delaying to let Maura do the preamble.
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.
chris_1001
NES Member
I’m still pissed about that. I remember it as I was driving then.
We said no! You said f*** you!
VTski4x4
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
- Messages
- 46
- Likes
- 76
There's nothing to preamble yet, there are no signatures and no referendum yet. They're literally trying to kill the referendum itself with what the AG is doing.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
- Messages
- 46
- Likes
- 76
Exactly they're in uncharted territory. But also, maybe I am wrong, but what is there to preamble at this point? Isn't the preamble only a reaction to the suspension of the law and the 10/23 effective date due to a successful collection of signatures? Otherwise she would have just preambled it now, making it effective now (post July signing without a preamble) all while still getting the AG to try to kill the referendum.
Rose colored glasses me tells me all their actions over the past few days means that they know they f'ed up.
My WAG?
Yes. This is uncharted. I suspect that since the preamble, at this point, would be only a reaction to the petition, they need to make sure they've got the term "emergency" defined loosely enough to make sure some attorney can make it sound like this is all kosher.
IANAL, but that might not be a straightforward process.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
- Messages
- 46
- Likes
- 76
I think all of us finding the need to become internet lawyers has really soured me on GOAL. They need to be more proactive with keeping people up to date on what's happening with some level of analysis. They have a platform where they could put out more information on a daily basis to help interpret what's going on and bringing us lay folk up to speed better. I'll still donate because at this point it's almost a necessity, but they really need to get information flowing better. Especially when the referendum is their idea.
They might not know.
Again, this is uncharted territory. A law that knowingly runs afoul of SCOTUS, which is already certain to be overturned down the road, imposed with a delay that complicates ownership of Constitutionally-protected items? Incoherent wording that guarantees that nobody, from us to GOAL to the governor herself, understands any of the very considerable requirements the legislature has now put on the executive, with no funding to accomplish it? A petition to suspend the law? Then a tardy "emergency" preamble?
She has no idea what's going on. Why would you think GOAL knows?
VTski4x4
NES Member
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.
