MA H.3081/H.3610 Extreme Risk Protective Orders (ERPO) - Linsky Bill

Coyote33 said:
If it was last March, isn't that session closed? So then the bill would need to be reintroduced? Didn't everything close shop in July or August?
Click to expand...

Linsky has a slew of bullshit he introduces at the beginning of every session. I'm sure this was probably part of it.
 
Coyote33 said:
If it was last March, isn't that session closed? So then the bill would need to be reintroduced? Didn't everything close shop in July or August?
Click to expand...

MA legislative sessions last 2 years. So when a State Rep is elected for a 2-year term, that term covers 1 legislative session until the next election.
Confusingly, the 2 year session is broken up into "1st annual legislative session" and "2nd annual legislative session", which really just means year 1 and year 2. I'm probably oversimplifying.

See here for dates: https://malegislature.gov/Download/Senate_Clerk/Deadlines
 
Tell me if this sounds like tin foil hat time or not. Someone give me a sanity check. I can picture in my mind once a bill like this gets passed some day in the future where some kind of natural disaster happens, let's say an offshore earthquake and a giant wave washes 50 miles inland. In the immediate aftermath, looters and rioters search homes, stores etc for valuables including guns. As a stopgap future governor X goes to a court and says that due to the extreme state of emergency and lack of police forces every gun owner is the subject of an extreme protection order and all firearms are to be confiscated. So with a legal stamp from a judge, poof everyone is disarmed. Fast forward a few years and people are antsy about getting their guns back but the government says that the state of emergency has not subsided so the protection order has to remain in place indefinitely until such time as everything is back to normal, which keeps getting pushed and pushed and pushed until it's forgotten. End result, second amendment is wiped out and gone. I can picture a government doing something like this and there won't be enough tragic boating accidents to account for losses. I know its a long shot, a very very long shot, but I can picture this happening.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Tell me if this sounds like tin foil hat time or not. Someone give me a sanity check. I can picture in my mind once a bill like this gets passed some day in the future where some kind of natural disaster happens, let's say an offshore earthquake and a giant wave washes 50 miles inland. In the immediate aftermath, looters and rioters search homes, stores etc for valuables including guns. As a stopgap future governor X goes to a court and says that due to the extreme state of emergency and lack of police forces every gun owner is the subject of an extreme protection order and all firearms are to be confiscated. So with a legal stamp from a judge, poof everyone is disarmed. Fast forward a few years and people are antsy about getting their guns back but the government says that the state of emergency has not subsided so the protection order has to remain in place indefinitely until such time as everything is back to normal, which keeps getting pushed and pushed and pushed until it's forgotten. End result, second amendment is wiped out and gone. I can picture a government doing something like this and there won't be enough tragic boating accidents to account for losses. I know its a long shot, a very very long shot, but I can picture this happening.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that is one of many possible scenarios that they already have in their playbook. All it will take is the right politicians in office, judges on the bench, manufactured events to prime the populace and final opportunity to present itself.
 
Last edited:
After 7/20 anything is now possible for any reason. We now longer live in a Constitutional Republic here in MA we live in a dictatorship supported by the majority of sheeple
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Tell me if this sounds like tin foil hat time or not. Someone give me a sanity check. I can picture in my mind once a bill like this gets passed some day in the future where some kind of natural disaster happens, let's say an offshore earthquake and a giant wave washes 50 miles inland. In the immediate aftermath, looters and rioters search homes, stores etc for valuables including guns. As a stopgap future governor X goes to a court and says that due to the extreme state of emergency and lack of police forces every gun owner is the subject of an extreme protection order and all firearms are to be confiscated. So with a legal stamp from a judge, poof everyone is disarmed. Fast forward a few years and people are antsy about getting their guns back but the government says that the state of emergency has not subsided so the protection order has to remain in place indefinitely until such time as everything is back to normal, which keeps getting pushed and pushed and pushed until it's forgotten. End result, second amendment is wiped out and gone. I can picture a government doing something like this and there won't be enough tragic boating accidents to account for losses. I know its a long shot, a very very long shot, but I can picture this happening.
Click to expand...

They did this in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (And Has) Happened In America
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Tell me if this sounds like tin foil hat time or not. Someone give me a sanity check. I can picture in my mind once a bill like this gets passed some day in the future where some kind of natural disaster happens, let's say an offshore earthquake and a giant wave washes 50 miles inland. In the immediate aftermath, looters and rioters search homes, stores etc for valuables including guns. As a stopgap future governor X goes to a court and says that due to the extreme state of emergency and lack of police forces every gun owner is the subject of an extreme protection order and all firearms are to be confiscated. So with a legal stamp from a judge, poof everyone is disarmed. Fast forward a few years and people are antsy about getting their guns back but the government says that the state of emergency has not subsided so the protection order has to remain in place indefinitely until such time as everything is back to normal, which keeps getting pushed and pushed and pushed until it's forgotten. End result, second amendment is wiped out and gone. I can picture a government doing something like this and there won't be enough tragic boating accidents to account for losses. I know its a long shot, a very very long shot, but I can picture this happening.
Click to expand...

not only does it not sound like TinFoil, you must understand the larger forces at work here. Here's an example. Just a few years ago if you were to have publicly espoused a theory here or elsewhere that the Russians had teams of people it was paying to sit in front of a computer, to sow vitriol into American online discussion forums, social media, etc. at large, and therefore indirectly influence our election process, and mess with our freedom, they'd have called you a paranoid nut. Yet here we are today, and many want to bury the story of Russian meddling. The danger is that the effects of this psychological warfare are very real. It serves to move our national conversation and dialogue into negative and divisive territory.

Divide and Conquer (from Latin dīvide et imperā) is as old as perhaps 300BC. The danger of communism and it's influence is still a very real threat today. It's machinations are having a corroding effect on our society at large here in the US. Russia would love nothing more than to divide us into different races and then have us constantly at odds with each other. A divided US is a weaker US. This is a campaign of a war that is being waged on timelines of decades and century's.

So to answer your question, not only is your theory not tinfoil, it's part and parcel of the slow "boiling frog". If those forces that want to disarm the US are allowed to win and we give up our freedom, there's no place to run to, no place to hide. Although I do not believe there's some nefarious conspiracy that would effectuate your theory in the next 50 years, in the long run, anything is possible.

Take a look at this:



and legislation the ended up being vetoed in 2016:
New Hampshire HB512 | 2016 | Regular Session

Recently, Governor Hassan vetoed [...] the emergency powers bill, House Bill 512;
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What I like is how the Left demonized Trump for his stance on banning trannies from the military, but now someone with mental illness is going to be banned from possessing a gun?

So we’re willing to give someone who has a 40% chance of suicide a gun around other soldiers but not the person who may not be violent and was a little down after a breakup or divorce?

Suicide and Suicidal Behavior among Transgender Persons
 
Johnnyh said:
not only does it not sound like TinFoil, you must understand the larger forces at work here. Here's an example. Just a few years ago if you were to have publicly espoused a theory here or elsewhere that the Russians had teams of people it was paying to sit in front of a computer, to sow vitriol into American online discussion forums, social media, etc. at large, and therefore indirectly influence our election process, and mess with our freedom, they'd have called you a paranoid nut. Yet here we are today, and many want to bury the story of Russian meddling. The danger is that the effects of this psychological warfare are very real. It serves to move our national conversation and dialogue into negative and divisive territory.

Divide and Conquer (from Latin dīvide et imperā) is as old as perhaps 300BC. The danger of communism and it's influence is still a very real threat today. It's machinations are having a corroding effect on our society at large here in the US. Russia would love nothing more than to divide us into different races and then have us constantly at odds with each other. A divided US is a weaker US. This is a campaign of a war that is being waged on timelines of decades and century's.

So to answer your question, not only is your theory not tinfoil, it's part and parcel of the slow "boiling frog". If those forces that want to disarm the US are allowed to win and we give up our freedom, there's no place to run to, no place to hide. Although I do not believe there's some nefarious conspiracy that would effectuate your theory in the next 50 years, in the long run, anything is possible.

Take a look at this:



and legislation the ended up being vetoed in 2016:
New Hampshire HB512 | 2016 | Regular Session
Click to expand...


The Russians and other commies have had success achieving there psyops goals for years since after ww2. Clinton-dnc "Correct the Record" not so much.

4-5 years ago Obama was spewing "The Cold War" has been over for years. And now it's Russia, Russia, Russia cuz Trump.

I'm more worried about the domestic swamp. Recently watched 13 Hours in Benghazi to the end. Much worse terror attack than originally portrayed even after the lies were exposed. Lies spewed directly to Americans in their face that "It was the video"
 
Put your head out the window. You'll be able to hear when the "collections" department is on your street. Pew-Pew-Pew...
 
According to the video in one of the other threads, the legislature takes off school vacation week (because... why not?). So they're on vacation this week and will resume on Monday 2/26. If you you can find your Rep/Senator in your district this week, go talk to them. This has a real danger of passing, likely from behind closed doors with no input from our side. This bill was not reported out of committee (AFAIK), so it should be, by all rights, dead. We need to convince enough legislators that this bill is seriously flawed beyond repair, and that ramming this through is a terrible way to make laws.

Let's brainstorm the biggest flaws that can be communicated effectively to legislators. Maybe some combination of how this combined with suitability will be ripe for abuse? Maybe the part about healthcare professionals being able to report you - this will discourage people from seeking mental health counselling. What happens to seized guns? They go to bonded warehouses and are de-facto gone forever?

The problem is that on the surface this seems like a good idea to many people. The execution is flawed and ripe for abuse.
 
Linsky's bill appeared to die in Judiciary. Deckers identical bill (H.3610) ended up in Public Safety where it due to be reported out on 4/15/2018.
Deckers bill is more onerous than Linsky's.
 
Telegram and Gazette now pushing it too: Editorial: Making a difference in gun violence – How Massachusetts gun laws might affect mass shooters like Nikolas Cruz at Parkland, Florida

upload_2018-2-21_10-9-31.png


As mentioned in another thread, this bill went to committee over a year ago:
upload_2018-2-21_10-10-45.png

The bill was not reported favorably out of committee, this deadline hasalready passed:

upload_2018-2-21_10-11-54.png

By all proper order of the process for lawmaking, this bill should be dead. When they come back next Monday 2/26 they will be pushing hard to pass it without any kind of legitimate process.
 
H.3081 is for all purposes dead, and they will leave it that way, especially since they have H.3610 to play with. H.3610 is the 1 everyone needs to work on to get defeated.
 
inkdesigner said:
H.3081 is for all purposes dead, and they will leave it that way, especially since they have H.3610 to play with. H.3610 is the 1 everyone needs to work on to get defeated.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

Here's the legislature's page on H.3610 (including full text): Bill H.3610
As you noted, it's still listed as in committee: Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

upload_2018-2-21_12-36-48.png


Looks like they got the deadline to report extended:
upload_2018-2-21_12-39-27.png

If I can figure out how to update the thread title in the OP I will do so.
 
So if someone is subject to one of these orders, will their driver's license also be revoked and their car impounded? We've seen vehicles used as pretty effective terror weapons. will the police search their homes and remove all items that could be used as dangerous weapons, or are we just concerned about crazy people killing with guns? In other words, if the person poses that much of a threat, shouldn't they be locked up rather than focusing on whether they have the ability to legally posses a firearm?

Will an employer be able to fire someone for being subject to such an order? If the person is so allegedly dangerous, their presence in the work place poses a great risk to their coworkers and a huge potential liability for the employer.
 
NewGuyRay said:
So if someone is subject to one of these orders, will their driver's license also be revoked and their car impounded? We've seen vehicles used as pretty effective terror weapons. will the police search their homes and remove all items that could be used as dangerous weapons, or are we just concerned about crazy people killing with guns? In other words, if the person poses that much of a threat, shouldn't they be locked up rather than focusing on whether they have the ability to legally posses a firearm?

Will an employer be able to fire someone for being subject to such an order? If the person is so allegedly dangerous, their presence in the work place poses a great risk to their coworkers and a huge potential liability for the employer.
Click to expand...
We all know what this is about. Its about control through disarmament. Its a lot harder to control an armed populace. That is why they don't GAF about the violent crime rate, only about "gun violence"
 
NewGuyRay said:
So if someone is subject to one of these orders, will their driver's license also be revoked and their car impounded? We've seen vehicles used as pretty effective terror weapons. will the police search their homes and remove all items that could be used as dangerous weapons, or are we just concerned about crazy people killing with guns? In other words, if the person poses that much of a threat, shouldn't they be locked up rather than focusing on whether they have the ability to legally posses a firearm?

Will an employer be able to fire someone for being subject to such an order? If the person is so allegedly dangerous, their presence in the work place poses a great risk to their coworkers and a huge potential liability for the employer.
Click to expand...

If it’s not going to be stopped, then it might as well be poisoned with tons of ridiculousness. I see what you’re saying.

Btw, I can see a responsible divorced father who’s with his kids on the weekend being thrown under the bus by an Ex telling the kids to report dad is a little sad he doesn’t se the kids more often.

This bill is poison.
 
MachineHead said:
If it’s not going to be stopped, then it might as well be poisoned with tons of ridiculousness. I see what you’re saying.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. If this has to be rammed through, I want it to hurt everyone, not just gun owners. I want this to be onerous enough that when people start getting hit with them that normals look at it and go "What the f*** is this shit? We need to get this repealed."

And then someone needs to file one against Linstain, Creem, Decker, et al.
 
Here's the fatal flaw in both bills.

The state declares a person to be so dangerous that they can't have guns.

The state takes guns.

The state does nothing else.

Said declared dangerous person goes out and causes mass harm (pick your means).

The state now owns that crime.
 
Mike S said:
Here's the fatal flaw in both bills.

The state declares a person to be so dangerous that they can't have guns.

The state takes guns.

The state does nothing else.

Said declared dangerous person goes out and causes mass harm (pick your means).

The state now owns that crime.
Click to expand...

Only the "State" owns nothing. The "State" has no duty to protect any of the individuals who will have suffered harm. Not to mention, any state actor whether political appointee, civil servant, or elected official is indemnified and immune so; there is no cost to the state for getting this wrong.
 
Mike S said:
The state now owns that crime.
Click to expand...
No. Wrong for the same reason the sobbing high school girl all over the news this morning ("The FL legislature owns the next mass shooting") is wrong.

The person doing the action owns the crime. May have some added conspirators, but the person who does it is the one responsible, not 3rd parties nor inanimate objects.
 
Toast said:
No. Wrong for the same reason the sobbing high school girl all over the news this morning ("The FL legislature owns the next mass shooting") is wrong.

The person doing the action owns the crime. May have some added conspirators, but the person who does it is the one responsible, not 3rd parties nor inanimate objects.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the state doesn't give two shits about the crime if it can't be used to further their agenda.
 

Similar threads

Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Nashville School Shooting: Federal Judge Orders Release of Transgender Shooter’s Journals
Replies
7
Views
277
bejay
B
  • Locked
How long till new gun reform bill comes into law (MA)
Replies
3
Views
527
drgrant
drgrant
Turkey Hunting in MA
Replies
29
Views
583
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Back
Top Bottom