namedpipes
NES Member
That looks like a list of 139 traitors.
-
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/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
How Did Your Representative Vote on ERPO?
- Thread starter jason19711971
- Start date
That looks like a list of 139 traitors.
You should run for office you would fit right in.
This is ridiculous. You guys want some of the few people that support us to commit political suicide over a purely symbolic vote? You'd rather fewer reps on our side voting for us when it REALLY matters just so you can feel like they love you unconditionally?
Again, conceptually these bills are not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that in MA they're redundant and they obliterated due process by changing the standard of proof and allowing non-LE to apply for them.
This bill sucks because everyone who contacted them (including GOAL) just rabidly opposed a bill that was GOING TO PASS. If we instead attempted to cogently explain where it fell short on due process, maybe we'd have a bill that was less harmful or even neutral.
But nope, let's just set up the circular firing squad, because that will help.
Again, conceptually these bills are not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that in MA they're redundant and they obliterated due process by changing the standard of proof and allowing non-LE to apply for them.
This bill sucks because everyone who contacted them (including GOAL) just rabidly opposed a bill that was GOING TO PASS. If we instead attempted to cogently explain where it fell short on due process, maybe we'd have a bill that was less harmful or even neutral.
But nope, let's just set up the circular firing squad, because that will help.
These bills aren't a bad thing?
![[banghead]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/045.gif "Bang Head [banghead]")
What are you talking about? The EPRO bill is absolutely horrendous. And any version of it would have been horrendous.
Because I have no interest in being a politician thats why. What is your point, you related to one of these turncoats or something?
You (and others) are claiming this was a waste of support? Why because it is MA? Every gun control bill that gets put forward is probably going to pass through. What good is their fake support if they don't do it come voting time. Based on your logic let's just all vote D and give it al up now since it is a matter of time.
slipknot
NES Member
So we were supposed to explain where it fell short in the few hours time period between when they finished writing the law and the vote. The ink was not even dry. What about a public comment period on the final version? Is that our only chance now that it will go for a vote in the Senate?
I thought it was obvious where it fell short.
I suppose it's not too late to stop it but it's an uphill battle now after that landslide.
These bills aren't a bad thing?
What are you talking about? The EPRO bill is absolutely horrendous. And any version of it would have been horrendous.
It is perfectly reasonable to pass a law that allows law enforcement (only law enforcement) to go to a judge and attempt to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person is a severe and imminent risk according to specific criteria in the law, provided you give a right to free counsel based on income and a right to appeal to lift the order.
If the Massachusetts bill had all the things in bold, as many other states have, how exactly would that be worse than the current "suitability" regime whereby the police can arbitrarily revoke your LTC at any time based on a whim and you have to sue to get it back?
Buck F
NES Member
I don't have any interest in being a politician either so we agree on something. I'm not related to any politician. Turncoat? Treason? That sounds a lot like those bleating about Trump committing treason. I'm sure if you try hard enough you can throw a Hitler reference in there too.
I guess I am the crazy one for expecting people to stick to the principles they ran on to get elected and then call them out for it. You can try and paint me anyway you want and throw words in my mouth while your at it... my view on this issue is very simple. So far all I have gathered from you is this is acceptable behavior because reps like Dooley are "good guys".
The legislators who took 2A supporters money, votes and support and in return promised to represent their interests did just the opposite. I would love to know what the bigger issue down the road is that these people are holding out their support for? Care to share some ideas, as if anything gun control related in this state is never going to be an uphill battle. I would love to know what they are going to actually support us on.
As for the question regarding the EPRO being a "good" bill. Yes I have an issue with someone's rights being taken from them while they meanwhile have to prove their innocence in court possibly at an expense to themselves. You want the same morons who write laws in THIS state to be the ones to define criteria that would justify all of this. You can't possibly think that is a good thing?
I agree.
If we were electing them just to cast certain votes on certain specific bills, it would be completely pointless in this state, because the antis will always have a majority and be able to pass something if they really want to.
Luckily for us, politics is not a zero sum game. It's not Hungry Hungry Hippos. It's chess. It involves persuasion, and dealmaking, and influence, and bargaining.
We elected these people because they support our rights. They have to make independent decisions about the best way to obtain the best outcome possible. That's not a blank check to vote any way they want on any bill whatsoever, but the reality is that from an optics and messaging perspective, this bill is extremely hard to oppose and explain to the public.
And while this law is stupid, it will have a limited impact in comparison to something like a "one feature" AW ban or taking away grandfathering or requiring FFL transfers for private sales or "smart gun" bills or any number of other issues. This bill does not involve those sorts of broad-based restrictions on our rights.
I'm not going to list all the other, more impactful bills that are more important to fight against. You can search the legislature's website if you want to see the panopoly of nonsense people like Linsky are putting out. Example: Bill S.1298
I'll repeat: "If the Massachusetts bill had all the things in bold, as many other states have, how exactly would that be worse than the current "suitability" regime whereby the police can arbitrarily revoke your LTC at any time based on a whim and you have to sue to get it back?"
I never said such a bill, even with all the safeguards, would be a good thing for MA, because it duplicates existing authority. But in states where there's no mechanism to deal with a Nikolas Cruz type, it's a perfectly reasonable measure.
As for this: "I have an issue with someone's rights being taken from them while they meanwhile have to prove their innocence in court possibly at an expense to themselves."
What you just described is what happens when someone commits a crime. We don't say there should be no criminal laws just because poorly written laws with insufficient due process would be bad.
TL; DR - Yes, this law is stupid in MA, but with the right provisions it would be harmless relative to the status quo, and for other states like Florida it's arguably a good mechanism to keep guns away from a few maniacs.
I'm not busting balls, it was a serious question.
If they are voting with the democrats to "Get along" or "Facing political realities" what exactly makes them different other than lip service ?
The votes get tallied just the same and your rights are gone just the same.
And yes , to some people principle really does matter. It's seems to far fewer these days, but it does matter.
If you look me in the eye, shake my hand , tell me your on my side, ask me for my vote and then f*ck me out of "Convenience", you're a two faced piece of shit.
That might hurt some feels, but there you have it.
MetalgodZ
NES Member
Been there, done that. A total of about 90 minutes on the phone with representatives.
The ones who care about due process voted that way.
Mike S
NES Member
All of the legislators are more scared of being labeled an enabler of the "NRA terrorists" (who don't care if children are murdered) than they are of losing our votes.
All of them, except 14.
Let that sink in, and get back to me on how to counter that.
All of them, except 14.
Let that sink in, and get back to me on how to counter that.
I tend to get a little tired of the 2a virtue signaling around here too but, at the same time, the revised piece of legislation is wholly unacceptable.
There has to be a line. The original bill was above the line, the revised bill is below. I'm not supporting politicians who think its OK to short circuit due process. It's just not happening. The 2a issue is almost secondary to me at this point.
Can any of us be surprised by that? They are right to be scared in this state. Have you seen the poll numbers? This was the quintessential "reasonable" bill from a public messaging standpoint
Counter it by trying to make the legislation better by attacking it from an angle the liberals are sympathetic to (due process).
That makes sense, but one note of caution. The way the legislative sausage is made, this vote doesn't necessarily mean they support this bill in its entirety as it is. The bill still has to go through the Senate and then conference. I talked to my (quite liberal) Senator's campaign manager and he didn't seem to have much doubt it was not going to pass as-is.
It's possible to advance a bill you know is flawed just so you can advance it to conference, where you can fix it behind closed doors. We need to keep up the pressure to make that happen.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
![[sad]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/004.gif "Sad [sad]")
slipknot
NES Member
got this email yesterday
New Problematic ERPO – Red Flag Bill Headed To Senate
Property Ownership, Modifying Orders and Stun Gun Language New Problems Added to the List
New Bill Number: H4539
To add to the list of the many problems with the new “gun licensing bill” (ERPO) passed by the house, there are new problems. Among them, a last minute amendment that was not available for public review prior to the voice vote on it.
Amendment #43 was offered as a Ways & Means “Technical Amendment” by Chairman Jeffrey Sánchez. Tucked in the amendment is language dealing with who could store the confiscated guns and ammunition. It would appear that this new language may force a person to relinquish “ownership” of their property if they file an appeal, but it is not clear.
“… that nothing in this section or in said section 129D shall allow the respondent to: (i) transfer any firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, weapons or ammunition required to be surrendered, or surrendered, by the respondent to anyone other than a licensed dealer; or (ii) maintain control, ownership or possession of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, weapons or ammunition during the pendency of any appeal of an extreme risk protection order…”
This certainly could be just hastily written language where they usually get it wrong. What raises a “red flag” though is that it is attached to language allowing law enforcement to sell off guns and ammunition if they cannot ascertain ownership.
“…and provided further that, notwithstanding section 129D, if the licensing authority cannot reasonably ascertain a lawful owner of firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, weapons or ammunition surrendered pursuant to extreme risk protection order within 180 days of the expiration or termination of the extreme risk protection order the licensing authority may, in its discretion, trade or dispose of surplus, donated, abandoned or junk firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, weapons or ammunition to properly licensed distributors or firearms dealers and the proceeds of such sale or transfer shall be remitted or credited to the municipality in which the licensing authority presides to be used for violence reduction or suicide prevention.”
Modifying Orders
A further piece in Amendment #43 has to do with “modifying” a protection order.
And moves to further amend the bill in section 12 by inserting after the word “order.”, in line 113, the following words:- The court may modify its order at any subsequent time upon motion by either party. When the petitioner’s address is inaccessible to the respondent as provided in subsection (d) of section 131R and the respondent has filed a motion to modify the court’s order, the court shall be responsible for notifying the respondent. In no event shall the court disclose any such inaccessible address.
We believe this is the new language that supporters are pointing to as an appeal or review process being restored. The only alternative would be to appeal to a higher court with the burden of costs and proof of innocence on the shoulders of the accused. The great problem is with the vagueness of the new language. Since either party can ask for a modification, what are the standards for the request, what sort of modifications, can this be a way around the hearing standards for extension of orders? It could possibly work in a defendant’s favor, but we simply don’t know. Being in Massachusetts we must always look at vague language as to how it has been historically used against us.
Stun Guns
Another incredibly poorly written piece in the bill places stun guns under the official definition of “Firearm”. While normally a generic term in the gun owning world, the term legally means handgun in Massachusetts’ law. This brings a whole host of problems with it; since handguns have to meet standards including accuracy, trigger pull, drop tests and more. A stun gun will never be able to meet these requirements. This move would essentially ban stun guns. Since law enforcement is not exempt from the approved roster, they presumably would be prevented from purchasing as well. There is also the problem of NICS and MIRCS checks that are required for handguns. The systems are not designed for stun guns.
To further confuse this issue, the bill may ban the sale of stun guns, but it may completely de-regulate electronic dart guns (Tazers). The bill does repeal the entire existing Section 131J of Chapter 140 doing away with the unconstitutional ban for non-law enforcement. The problem now lies in the definition.
Most states that regulate these products define “stun guns” and “electronic dart guns” differently. This bill only provides a definition for “stun gun” that does not seem to include dart guns.
“Stun gun”, a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate.
So are dart guns now unregulated and stun guns banned if this passes into law? We simply don’t know. For the record, GOAL did point this entire problem out to house leadership and many others. Minority Leader Brad Jones tried to offer an amendment to address it (#30), but it was rejected on a voice vote.
New Problematic ERPO – Red Flag Bill Headed To Senate
Property Ownership, Modifying Orders and Stun Gun Language New Problems Added to the List
New Bill Number: H4539
To add to the list of the many problems with the new “gun licensing bill” (ERPO) passed by the house, there are new problems. Among them, a last minute amendment that was not available for public review prior to the voice vote on it.
Amendment #43 was offered as a Ways & Means “Technical Amendment” by Chairman Jeffrey Sánchez. Tucked in the amendment is language dealing with who could store the confiscated guns and ammunition. It would appear that this new language may force a person to relinquish “ownership” of their property if they file an appeal, but it is not clear.
“… that nothing in this section or in said section 129D shall allow the respondent to: (i) transfer any firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, weapons or ammunition required to be surrendered, or surrendered, by the respondent to anyone other than a licensed dealer; or (ii) maintain control, ownership or possession of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, weapons or ammunition during the pendency of any appeal of an extreme risk protection order…”
This certainly could be just hastily written language where they usually get it wrong. What raises a “red flag” though is that it is attached to language allowing law enforcement to sell off guns and ammunition if they cannot ascertain ownership.
“…and provided further that, notwithstanding section 129D, if the licensing authority cannot reasonably ascertain a lawful owner of firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, weapons or ammunition surrendered pursuant to extreme risk protection order within 180 days of the expiration or termination of the extreme risk protection order the licensing authority may, in its discretion, trade or dispose of surplus, donated, abandoned or junk firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, weapons or ammunition to properly licensed distributors or firearms dealers and the proceeds of such sale or transfer shall be remitted or credited to the municipality in which the licensing authority presides to be used for violence reduction or suicide prevention.”
Modifying Orders
A further piece in Amendment #43 has to do with “modifying” a protection order.
And moves to further amend the bill in section 12 by inserting after the word “order.”, in line 113, the following words:- The court may modify its order at any subsequent time upon motion by either party. When the petitioner’s address is inaccessible to the respondent as provided in subsection (d) of section 131R and the respondent has filed a motion to modify the court’s order, the court shall be responsible for notifying the respondent. In no event shall the court disclose any such inaccessible address.
We believe this is the new language that supporters are pointing to as an appeal or review process being restored. The only alternative would be to appeal to a higher court with the burden of costs and proof of innocence on the shoulders of the accused. The great problem is with the vagueness of the new language. Since either party can ask for a modification, what are the standards for the request, what sort of modifications, can this be a way around the hearing standards for extension of orders? It could possibly work in a defendant’s favor, but we simply don’t know. Being in Massachusetts we must always look at vague language as to how it has been historically used against us.
Stun Guns
Another incredibly poorly written piece in the bill places stun guns under the official definition of “Firearm”. While normally a generic term in the gun owning world, the term legally means handgun in Massachusetts’ law. This brings a whole host of problems with it; since handguns have to meet standards including accuracy, trigger pull, drop tests and more. A stun gun will never be able to meet these requirements. This move would essentially ban stun guns. Since law enforcement is not exempt from the approved roster, they presumably would be prevented from purchasing as well. There is also the problem of NICS and MIRCS checks that are required for handguns. The systems are not designed for stun guns.
To further confuse this issue, the bill may ban the sale of stun guns, but it may completely de-regulate electronic dart guns (Tazers). The bill does repeal the entire existing Section 131J of Chapter 140 doing away with the unconstitutional ban for non-law enforcement. The problem now lies in the definition.
Most states that regulate these products define “stun guns” and “electronic dart guns” differently. This bill only provides a definition for “stun gun” that does not seem to include dart guns.
“Stun gun”, a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate.
So are dart guns now unregulated and stun guns banned if this passes into law? We simply don’t know. For the record, GOAL did point this entire problem out to house leadership and many others. Minority Leader Brad Jones tried to offer an amendment to address it (#30), but it was rejected on a voice vote.
You really think that voting against a piece of "blow in astroturf" legislation is political suicide? Basically if you interviewed 100 randos on the street right now nobody would know what ERPO
is. Hell every other gun owner I've talked to doesn't even know what it is let alone some random person.
-Mike
Buck F
NES Member
Those random people won’t care what’s in the bill when it comes to campaign time, they will be told over and over that the candidate voted against common sense gun laws that prevent mentally unstable people from getting guns. While it happens to be pure BS, it will be effective in most districts except the super safe ones. I’m sure the reps will have no problem rationally explaining how bad the bill was and why they voted against it <sarcasm>.
Very true, maybe I will roll back my judgement until I see what actually gets passed. It still concerns me, but I do get that the BS political process is bigger than a couple of reps.
Yes, this.
I'll cite this MA poll again for anyone who missed it: http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2018/03/Topline-2018-03-WBUR-Senate-Climate-Guns.pdf
In general, do you feel that the laws we have here in Massachusetts covering the sale of firearms should be more strict, less strict, or kept about the same as they are now?
More strict 55%
Less strict 12%
Kept about the same 30%
Don’t Know / Refused 3%
Would you support or oppose each of the following ideas related to gun ownership in the United States?
Prohibiting people found to be a risk to themselves or others from owning or possessing guns
Support 89%
Oppose 7%
Don’t Know / Refused 4%
Still, not sure if serious, you really think that would emerge as an issue in a lot of these districts? I doubt "gun control" is a hot button thing in many of
them. Most people "in the rest of massachusetts" care mostly about how f***ed up their schools, or roads and bridges are. The rest of this stuff is mostly crap, that nobody really cares about outside of the districts that have a few big dump cities.
Of course the pols apparently have been successfully hoodwinked into believing this, as well as yourself and other people here. Congratulations, you've bought into the first layer of
anti rhetoric. Their plan is working swimmingly. An aide in Bloombergs office is probably reading this thread with a smile on their face now, because they know they've managed a win when they get even gun owners to start getting fully invested into their lies/propaganda. They probably had a phone bank full of blown ins calling up a few legislators and suddenly everyone thinks its this huge, mainstream issue.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
-Mike
We are defending politicians ability to be re-elected still?
They didn’t vote against or oppose the bill. They being Republicans... exactly what is it that makes them different from the potential alternative that you are afraid of?
I would have far more respect for this argument if you just came out and admitted they are no worse or better than the alternative.
They didn’t vote against or oppose the bill. They being Republicans... exactly what is it that makes them different from the potential alternative that you are afraid of?
I would have far more respect for this argument if you just came out and admitted they are no worse or better than the alternative.
Still, not sure if serious, you really think that would emerge as an issue in a lot of these districts? I doubt "gun control" is a hot button thing in many of
them. Most people "in the rest of massachusetts" care mostly about how f***ed up their schools, or roads and bridges are. The rest of this stuff is mostly crap, that nobody really cares about outside of the districts that have a few big dump cities.
Of course the pols apparently have been successfully hoodwinked into believing this, as well as yourself and other people here. Congratulations, you've bought into the first layer of
anti rhetoric. Their plan is working swimmingly. An aide in Bloombergs office is probably reading this thread with a smile on their face now, because they know they've managed a win when they get even gun owners to start getting fully invested into their lies/propaganda. They probably had a phone bank full of blown ins calling up a few legislators and suddenly everyone thinks its this huge, mainstream issue.
-Mike
I get what you're saying, but State Rep elections are generally very low-information affairs. Sending out a few district-wide mailers slamming a rep for opposing taking away guns from lunatics can have a big impact.
The "you're either with us or against us" stuff is getting rather silly. I replied here and you ignored my argument: How Did Your Representative Vote on ERPO?
It doesn't cover ERPO specifically nor does it tell the person answering the question that there are a ton of laws that already disqualify a shitload of people "found to be a risk to themselves or others" from owning guns.
ERPO is a very specific thing compared to the context of that question.
Also let me put this out there.... Let's look at the methodology of the survey...
For starters... it's a TELEPHONE poll.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Ponder that for a minute. (whens the last time you answered a phone for a number you didn't recognize?) This poll doesn't do anything to show how the issue is treated in different districts, either, so because of population bias, that alone makes it unusable as a "by district" political
predictor in MA. Where are these people in the survey? They couldn't have even bothered to separate it by county?
Also the survey doesn't ask a critical question, probably the most important one, which is:
"Would a candidates position on gun control be a key/overriding factor in your decision to vote for them? "
-Only if they are pro gun
-Only if they are anti gun
-Gun control would not be a key factor
Or similar. This survey does not determine the importance of gun control in the voter's mindset at all, or even attempt to pick at it. It just asks "who they would vote for" and then a couple sidebar questions about Global Warming and Gun Control. It doesn't even attempt to determine whether or not the voter actually thinks either of those things are important enough to swing their vote.
LOL I would not be surprised if Bloomberg and his minions sent out a copy of similar surveys that seemed reasonable on the surface, but down below were deeply flawed, it's a great way to sell the big lie.
-Mike
It's not silly at all really. What is silly is people refusing to admit that they were bent over the table like the rest of us and fed BS by these reps that claim to be supportive. They were the ones who took our money, spoke at our clubs and rallies and ran on the principles of being Pro 2A, and when they don't and people like me call them on it I am the bad guy? Admit that they screwed up and were wrong, happens every day. Instead we get Democrats showing it back in our faces about how a majority of the R caucus was in support of the bill and it is bi-partisan... how do you not see the irony with this? And again I ask what is this magical issue or cause they are holding out their support for?
I understand what your getting at with regards to the bill. Is it that much different than CLEO's having authority to revoke someone's LTC... no it isn't. Is it possible to maybe get the language changed to something more favorable... sure it might be. At what point do we just decide that enough is enough and stop giving up ground? Why should it ever be ok for us to accept guilty until proven innocent?
The fight in MA will never be easy and may be a lost cause but does that mean we need to accept abject failure by the people we elected to support our interests?
It doesn't cover ERPO specifically nor does it tell the person answering the question that there are a ton of laws that already disqualify a shitload of people "found to be a risk to themselves or others" from owning guns.
ERPO is a very specific thing compared to the context of that question.
Also let me put this out there.... Let's look at the methodology of the survey...
For starters... it's a TELEPHONE poll.
This poll doesn't do anything to show how the issue is treated in different districts, either, so because of population bias, that alone makes it unusable as a "by district" political
predictor in MA. Where are these people in the survey? They couldn't have even bothered to separate it by county?
Also the survey doesn't ask a critical question, probably the most important one, which is:
"Would a candidates position on gun control be a key/overriding factor in your decision to vote for them? "
-Only if they are pro gun
-Only if they are anti gun
-Gun control would not be a key factor
Or similar. This survey does not determine the importance of gun control in the voter's mindset at all, or even attempt to pick at it. It just asks "who they would vote for" and then a couple sidebar questions about Global Warming and Gun Control. It doesn't even attempt to determine whether or not the voter actually thinks either of those things are important enough to swing their vote.
LOL I would not be surprised if Bloomberg and his minions sent out a copy of similar surveys that seemed reasonable on the surface, but down below were deeply flawed, it's a great way to sell the big lie.
-Mike
I agree with much of what you're saying, and much of it applies to polls in general. This poll is not the sort of thing that can be relied upon to give a precise accounting of the nuances of public opinion, it doesn't address the details or arguments for and against ERPO, etc.
And accounting for issue intensity has always been something that's been lacking in polls and surveys. Traditionally speaking, on that issue, the pro-gun side has had it by a landslide.
But scientific telephone polls conducted by live humans are generally considered to be the "gold standard" of polling. While it's getting harder to reach people these days than it used to be, that just means they're more expensive to conduct because it takes more calls, not that the results are off. These days they do a pretty good job of adjusting for any selection bias in the sample.
The margin of error for county-level results would have been very high on a survey this size, which is likely why they weren't released.
With all of that said, I was trying to make a very limited point with those results, and I think that point still holds. The poll shows that, as a threshold matter, public opinion in this state is heavily weighted in favor of more gun restrictions. At this moment the antis seem to be at their zenith as far as issue intensity. Saying someone "voted with the NRA against a bill to take guns away from 'extreme risk' people" is a simple message, and the response requires more nuance to understand.
In a low-information election such as those for state legislators, at a time when people are generically "fed up" with shootings, it's not hard to imagine voters on the fence reading a mailer saying their rep voted with the NRA not to take guns away from dangerous people, and voting against them. It is hard to imagine some response mailing from that rep that attempts to explain the nuances of the ERPO vote actually being persuasive. No one cares about the details.
Unbelievable. Guarantee that none of those people actually have any idea what the laws are. GUARANTEE it. They're just reacting to the news without thinking.
Bad sign for us.
