Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dadstoys said:
Well if nothing else comes of this , it will be pretty clear that not a f*cking word that comes out of some of their mouths can ever be trusted again.
Our pal Naughton comes to mind at the top of that list.
"No really, I believe in the constitution and I'm really interested in input from the citizens of the state" [puke]
Lying sack of monkey shit.
If he told me it was daytime I'd still go look out the window.
Click to expand...

This 1000x!

Naughton is worse than Linsky

Sent from the blind
 
Permanent Waves said:
After we heard the news, we immediately reached out to Senator Ross - here's the correspondence

Q - Senator Ross, people are extremely upset with your "present" vote on 4121. Please explain...

A - Hello, and nice to hear from you. There is no "present" vote in committee. I reserved my right to vote on the bill in committee. As a licensed gun owner myself, I had a lot of questions and concerns with the bill, and until I got them addressed, I was not going to vote for it, or against it for that matter. However, when it passed, and it was made clear that they would not be allowing amendments, I voted to have it reconsidered. This vote unfortunately fell short. This was very disappointing, because we have a lot of work to do on this bill. I would certainly vote against it with it's current language.
Click to expand...
Stupid, deceitful, or both.
I'll take door #3 Bob.
 
He represents me, I wrote him and was sure he would vote against this.

Here is what I emailed just a few hours ago..

Senator Ross, I hope you can explain why you didn't vote to kill this Bill.* Its infringing and unclear provisions are dangerous to Liberty.* I don't want gun control groups of Police Chiefs interpreting the law and deciding whether I'm worthy of Constitutional rights.* Or holding my LTC ransom until I swear out an affidavit.* Neither should you.

Joseph, Franklin, MA
 
sieveboy said:
He represents me, I wrote him and was sure he would vote against this.

Here is what I emailed just a few hours ago..

Senator Ross, I hope you can explain why you didn't vote to kill this Bill.* Its infringing and unclear provisions are dangerous to Liberty.* I don't want gun control groups of Police Chiefs interpreting the law and deciding whether I'm worthy of Constitutional rights.* Or holding my LTC ransom until I swear out an affidavit.* Neither should you.

Joseph, Franklin, MA
Click to expand...

My email would have been shorter and contained and f and a u...

Sent from the blind
 
additionally -

Q - Thank you for your quick response. All I can say is people are shocked you did not vote NO on this terrible anti civil rights bill. 2A supporters are very upset with your vote. We are now extremely concerned about our already infringed upon rights.

Sen. Ross - I look forward to discussing this issue with you in detail. Furthermore, I am opposed to this bill, as I mentioned, and will be fighting to fix as much as possible. Please let everyone know. I have spoken to several other concerned constituents and have explained this to them as well.
 
Permanent Waves said:
After we heard the news, we immediately reached out to Senator Ross - here's the correspondence

Q - Senator Ross, people are extremely upset with your "present" vote on 4121. Please explain...

A - Hello, and nice to hear from you. There is no "present" vote in committee. I reserved my right to vote on the bill in committee. As a licensed gun owner myself, I had a lot of questions and concerns with the bill, and until I got them addressed, I was not going to vote for it, or against it for that matter. However, when it passed, and it was made clear that they would not be allowing amendments, I voted to have it reconsidered. This vote unfortunately fell short. This was very disappointing, because we have a lot of work to do on this bill. I would certainly vote against it with it's current language.
Click to expand...
Fascinating
 
Permanent Waves said:
After we heard the news, we immediately reached out to Senator Ross - here's the correspondence

Q - Senator Ross, people are extremely upset with your "present" vote on 4121. Please explain...

A - Hello, and nice to hear from you. There is no "present" vote in committee. I reserved my right to vote on the bill in committee. As a licensed gun owner myself, I had a lot of questions and concerns with the bill, and until I got them addressed, I was not going to vote for it, or against it for that matter. However, when it passed, and it was made clear that they would not be allowing amendments, I voted to have it reconsidered. This vote unfortunately fell short. This was very disappointing, because we have a lot of work to do on this bill. I would certainly vote against it with it's current language.
Click to expand...

Sounds like political double speak & BS to me. He didn't want to piss of his D constituents by voting against the bill so he abstained but then claims he got duped. He's trying to ride both sides of the fence. He also knows we can''t hurt his as bad as the other side so we got pushed under the bus.
 
I think a couple of folks who wanted to vote against the bill had the arm put on them and they chose to "abstain" rather than piss off the speaker.
 
Mike S said:
Exactly, why would he vote to reconsider if he wasn't going to vote? So he could not vote for it twice?
Click to expand...

May be coincidental but Ross has a moonbat challenger - where he had none last election - City Councilor Sara-Lynn Reynolds (D-Attleboro) in a district that includes Wellesley, Needham, and Wayland. I couldn't find anything about her gun-rights position, but it might be telling that she's an agent of Control:

"She, along with support from the Attleboro Board of Health and the Attleboro community, passed the first tobacco control regulations in Massachusetts..." (from her campaign page)
 
However, when it passed, and it was made clear that they would not be allowing amendments,


Does that mean the bill that will be voted on will be the bill as it is written with none of the crap taken out.
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
However, when it passed, and it was made clear that they would not be allowing amendments,


Does that mean the bill that will be voted on will be the bill as it is written with none of the crap taken out.
Click to expand...

I belive the answer to that is, "yes," although I am not completely certain. If that is the case, the bill is on the fast track to passage. The kinks can be fixed later at taxpayers' expense.

It isn't like they waited until all the previous anti 2A bills were well written before they passed them.
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
However, when it passed, and it was made clear that they would not be allowing amendments,


Does that mean the bill that will be voted on will be the bill as it is written with none of the crap taken out.
Click to expand...
It's not clear whether that meant only in committee, or on the floor. Either was it sucks.
 
Jbarila said:
Ross's Aide lied about his vote! What a rat!

Not good news. But who's surprised. 16 People on the committee. Only 3 are non-Democrat and those 3 voted for us. ( Man! we really need a more balanced Legislature. This is one party rule! Not good)

The information comes thanks to MARGO Massachusetts Responsible Gun Owners. I'll send more as I get it.

MARGO: Here is how the voting went down to move the bill out of the Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security (which lost 7-6, with 3 reserved). Below that is how the voting to reconsider the bill went (which we also lost 10-6) Stay strong!

Move Out of Committee Votes:
Brady, Michael D.
House
Democrat
Y
Naughton, Harold P.
House
Democrat
Y
Silvia, Alan
House
Democrat
Y
Chang-Diaz, Sonia
Senate
Democrat
Y
Ashe, Brian M.
House
Democrat
Y
Campbell, Linda
House
Democrat
Y
Curran, Sean
House
Democrat
Y
Dwyer, James J.
House
Democrat
R
Mannal, Brian
House
Democrat
R
Ross, Richard J.
Senate
Republican
R
Turner, Cleon H.
House
Democrat
N
Vieira, David T.
House
Republican
N
Moore, Michael O.
Senate
Democrat
N
Timilty, James E.
Senate
Democrat
N
Boldyga, Nicholas A.
House
Republican
N
Welch, James T.
Senate
Democrat
N
Â
**Representative Brian Mannal wished to reserve his rights, but indicated if the vote came to a tie, he would vote "ought to pass" in order to allow the bill to move forward to the House Floor for debate. Â
***Representative Boldyga did not respond to the poll by the 12:00pm deadline. Â He later informed the committee that he did in fact vote on the bill, but it failed to be submitted to the committee due to technical problems. Â The representative provided the committee with a time-stamped screenshot of his attempted vote which the committee accepted. Â
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXÂ
RECONSIDERATION OF H4121
Name
Branch
Party
Y/N
Brady, Michael D.
House
Democrat
N
Campbell, Linda
House
Democrat
N
Dwyer, James J.
House
Democrat
N
Mannal, Brian
House
Democrat
N
Naughton, Harold P.
House
Democrat
N
Silvia, Alan
House
Democrat
N
Curran, Sean
House
Democrat
N
Chang-Diaz, Sonia
Senate
Democrat
N
Welch, James T.
Senate
Democrat
N
Ashe, Brian M.
House
Democrat
N
Boldyga, Nicholas A.
House
Republican
Y
Turner, Cleon H.
House
Democrat
Y
Vieira, David T.
House
Republican
Y
Moore, Michael O.
Senate
Democrat
Y
Ross, Richard J.
Senate
Republican
Y
Timilty, James E.
Senate
Democrat
Y
Click to expand...
The Senate Democrats don't seem to be too thrilled with the bill. And neither does Cleon Turner, though he's not running for relelction this year and probably doesn't care if he tells the Speaker to shit in a hat.
 
rocket500 said:
I think a couple of folks who wanted to vote against the bill had the arm put on them and they chose to "abstain" rather than piss off the speaker.
Click to expand...
Not quite true. It's been reported that at least one abstainer would have voted "Yes" if the vote had been tied. Either way them all still big heap liars.
 
kevin9 said:
Not quite true. It's been reported that at least one abstainer would have voted "Yes" if the vote had been tied. Either way them all still big heap liars.
Click to expand...
You don't understand. The ones that wanted to abstain were allowed to do so because Ross was pressured to abstain as well.

Watch for the tit-for-tat from DeLeo to Ross the newest "rat".

Do you folks actually believe that the speaker moves bills forward where he doesn't know the results beforehand?
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
However, when it passed, and it was made clear that they would not be allowing amendments,


Does that mean the bill that will be voted on will be the bill as it is written with none of the crap taken out.
Click to expand...

I assume it means the committee would not be allowing amendments, unless he has knowledge that DeLeo will try to force it to a vote before any amendments once it hits the floor.
 
Quiet said:
You don't understand. The ones that wanted to abstain were allowed to do so because Ross was pressured to abstain as well.

Watch for the tit-for-tat from DeLeo to Ross the newest "rat".

Do you folks actually believe that the speaker moves bills forward where he doesn't know the results beforehand?
Click to expand...

No.
 
I hope you all read the rest of our correspondence with Mr. Ross... Post #2672.

Still doesn't make it any better.

My wife actually followed up with him after by requesting to know when his very next offices hours were in our area.
 
I'm so lost. It seems like all the reps are from the eastern part of the state. Where are all the central mass and western mass reps? Are they on different committees and can't vote on this till it comes there way?


Ma LTC-A
GOAL Member
 
Permanent Waves said:
I hope you all read the rest of our correspondence with Mr. Ross... Post #2672.

Still doesn't make it any better.

My wife actually followed up with him after by requesting to know when his very next offices hours were in our area.
Click to expand...


I just went and re-read 2672.

There is no reason to vote to abstain if you are against the bill. The ONLY reason to do that is he was promised something so that someone else who didn't want to vote Y can also abstain.

He got bought off. Ask him about it next time, but I doubt he'll ever admit it... Maybe tell him someone you know is suggesting that he must have been promised something in return for abstaining, and that you'd be OK with that if he got something good for us, so did you get something good for us?

I'm not so good at being sneaky with a question, maybe someone else can help out.
 
jasons said:
What makes you think they would trade one for the other?
Click to expand...

Can I expand this question to the broader overall question:

What makes ANY of us law abiding legal gun owners here think that ANY of the crew of POLITICIANS at the State House "can", "would", "might", "oughta", or "should" give, trade or offer to trade anything to LAW ABIDING, LEGAL GUN OWNERS??

When they've never "offered" us ANYTHING - except more moonbat infringement upon our constitutional right to arm ourselves.
Arm ourselves in protection of the SCUM that they CONTINUE to release back into our society?

The same crew that believes it's a great idea to allow police chiefs to "decide" who gets to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? (Police chiefs - like the former one in Waltham, who had the "power" to decide who should or should not be granted an LTC, while also simultaneously beating the hell out of his own wife in their own home).

The (basically) same crew that rammed through the gun control act of 1998??...The same crew that (etc etc). Yet some gun owners think these arrogant elitist bast*rds are going to offer you a "deal"?

Please. (and, please, insert vomit icon here, since I don't have one readily available)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Number of new gun owners since 2020 election surged to equal population of Florida: report
Replies
4
Views
137
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The 10 Commandments of Gun Safety
Replies
2
Views
388
deerdad
deerdad
Cerakote Color of the Month
Replies
1
Views
259
MAGA99
MAGA99
The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law
4 5 6
Replies
174
Views
4K
sbhaven
S
CT: Armed Patrol wants New Haven residents to take safety into their own hands despite opposition
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Zappa
Zappa
Back
Top Bottom