Responses from MA Representatives and Senators

From John Keenan (apparently co-sponsoring Linsky's Bill (HD2678)

Thank you for writing with yourconcern about Governor Patrick’s proposed Firearms Legislation. I alwaysappreciate hearing from our constituents and look forward to addressing yourconcerns in our upcoming legislative session.
In my opinion, public safety is jobnumber one for any elected official, local, state or federal. For the 2013-2014legislative session, I have cosponsored Representative David Linsky’s Bill(HD2678) “An Act to Reduce Gun Violence and to Protect the Citizens of theCommonwealth.” This legislation focuses on gun violence prevention,closing loopholes in our state’s current permitting requirements, and givingnecessary attention to mental health considerations.
In light of Newtown and otherrecent gun violence tragedies, we certainly hope to make a concerted effort toreduce all types of gun violence in the Commonwealth, while being sensitive andprotective of important Second Amendment rights. I look forward toworking with my fellow legislators to create meaningful legislation to achievethis goal.
As this legislative sessioncontinues, we welcome any additional concerns, information, or questions asrelates to this or any other issues.
 
Hacking through the 188th General Court website Name by name, you can add reps. Denise Andrews, Cory Atkins, and Ruth Balser to the lists of co-sponsors for the Linsky Bill.
 
Comments returned back yo me from Butt Plug


Your recent comments about gun safety have been brought to my attention. I appreciate you taking the time to share your personal perspective on this important matter, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The recent shooting in Connecticut as well as those in Arizona, Wisconsin and Aurora are terrible tragedies and my deepest sympathies continue to be with all victims and their families. The loss of innocent children of such tender years coupled with the loss of adults charged with their safety who so bravely sought to protect the children has struck a particular chord — or perhaps too, it is the accumulation of inconceivable grief - that now motivates so many to insist on action.

Consistently since before my initial election in 1996, I have maintained the position that common sense regulation of firearms, ammunition and the potential users of them should be adopted in this country as it has in so many others. With all due respect to those who communicated in opposition to any action, I do not believe that such reasonable measures need be inconsistent with any person’s constitutional rights.

Further, I believe we must support policies that seek to promote safety and reduce gun violence. One need not advocate confiscating all guns, but steps can and should be taken toward implementing sensible, fair, and balanced gun laws that will do more to protect everyone and particularly our nation’s children. I believe we should agree on commonsense measures that promote safety efforts designed to keep guns out of the hands of unsupervised children, dangerous criminals, and those who are mentally unstable and distinguish between weapons clearly intended for rapid-fire mass destruction and those used by responsible hunters or sports shooters.

In that vein, I am currently a co-sponsor of several measures before the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress that are aimed at addressing gun violence in a comprehensive manner. Some such legislation would strengthen background checks, institute a ban on high capacity ammunition, increase access and ability to conduct research on gun violence, and ban assault weapons.

No one believes that all incidents can be stopped through such legislation, but many rightfully believe many potential incidents can be avoided, and the severity of any that may be attempted can be curtailed. I applaud President Obama’s efforts and urge my colleagues to support common sense proposals such as banning assault weapons, expanding background checks and cracking down on gun trafficking. Along with the mothers and fathers in my community and nationwide, I continue to stand firm in my commitment to make our neighborhoods and our schools safer from violence.

I look forward to seeing you in the district soon. Be well.

Sincerely,

John F. Tierney
Member of Congress
 
This guy is at least willing to field a call from me....tell ya how that turns out.


I’m Mike in Representative Speliotis’ office and I wanted to take a moment to let you know that we have received your email in regards to gun control and the second amendment.
I would also like to talk to you over the phone about your proposed solutions to the problem you identified.
Please find Representative Speliotis’ office number below.
(617-722-2410)
Have a great day and I look forward to hearing from you soon,
-Mike

Michael Searles
Office of Chairman Theodore C. Speliotis
State House, Room 20
Boston, MA 02133
(p) 617-722-2410
[email protected]
 
Need to start slamming these committee members now that they have been formed. Best case scenario is that these bills don't make it out of committee. We should really focus on them....calls, faxes, handwritten letters, emails. In that order. We are in for a fight.
 
I'm interested in being more involved. I've sent all my letters/emails/ phone calls. I got all the usual replies.

I work everyday and try to shoot often but willing to do all I can.

As we all should be now. I called creem's office today, to voice my opposition to her bill as well. I will continue to do this, daily. We all need to. We need to put this issue to bed, once and for all!

Using my galaxy s2 via tapatalk, because I am too lazy to find a computer
 
My response back to Liz Warren after she fed me that canned trash. Might not do much, but I was pissed at such a schlock response from her....

Senator Warren,

At last check, your opinion wasn't on the line. What your constituents hired you for, and what WE want, is why you were hired. Your opinion about what is right for me or my family doesn't count, sorry to say. SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect me, that's my job. Are you now going on record saying your opinion overrules the ruling of the SCOTUS? If I, not you, determine that I need one round, so be it. If I, not you, determine that I need one million rounds, so be it. You, who are protected by Secret Service, have no understanding of what it is like to have experienced fear at the hands of someone else. My responsibility to my children is knowledge of how to handle, fire, clean, maintain the firearms so that they aren't prone to kneejerk/emotional responses when bad things happen. Your responsibility to me and my family is to do what you are told, by your constituency, and to keep your opinion to yourself.

No, Senator, your opinion is NOT why you were hired. Your representing me, is why you were hired. And by attempting to disarm me, the only thing you did was make it safer for the bad guys.
 
Please update Senator Kenneth Donnelly to "Leaning in Favor". Here is his latest reply to me:

I respect the long tradition of gun ownership in this country. I also believe we can and must address the issue of escalating gun violence.

There is no single solution to ending gun violence but that should not stop us from taking reasonable steps to help control that violence. I believe it includes steps like restricting access to dangerous weapons and high capacity magazines to law enforcement and military uses; background checks for all gun purchases regardless of where they take place; bringing Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and finding ways to better serve those with mental illness who need treatment but fall through the cracks of our healthcare system.

I cannot agree that nonrestrictive gun ownership is enshrined in the 2nd amendment. The language is clearly open to interpretation and thoughtful people on both sides of the debate have interpreted it differently throughout our history. Furthermore, we do control rights enshrined in the bill of rights; the most common one being speech. Free speech is protected but the public interest - in cases of justice, national security, and personal safety - override free speech. These restrictions have not affected people's ability to speak freely; commonsense gun control will not - nor should it - prevent gun ownership.

I have heard from constituents on both sides of this issue. I will carefully study the bills that come before the Legislature and do my best to balance the interests of those for and against gun control.

Though we may disagree on this matter, I appreciate you contacting me and I will keep your position in mind as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Senator Ken Donnelly
 
Please update Senator Kenneth Donnelly to "Leaning in Favor". Here is his latest reply to me:

I respect the long tradition of gun ownership in this country. I also believe we can and must address the issue of escalating gun violence.

There is no single solution to ending gun violence but that should not stop us from taking reasonable steps to help control that violence. I believe it includes steps like restricting access to dangerous weapons and high capacity magazines to law enforcement and military uses; background checks for all gun purchases regardless of where they take place; bringing Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and finding ways to better serve those with mental illness who need treatment but fall through the cracks of our healthcare system.

I cannot agree that nonrestrictive gun ownership is enshrined in the 2nd amendment. The language is clearly open to interpretation and thoughtful people on both sides of the debate have interpreted it differently throughout our history. Furthermore, we do control rights enshrined in the bill of rights; the most common one being speech. Free speech is protected but the public interest - in cases of justice, national security, and personal safety - override free speech. These restrictions have not affected people's ability to speak freely; commonsense gun control will not - nor should it - prevent gun ownership.

I have heard from constituents on both sides of this issue. I will carefully study the bills that come before the Legislature and do my best to balance the interests of those for and against gun control.

Though we may disagree on this matter, I appreciate you contacting me and I will keep your position in mind as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Senator Ken Donnelly

I also got the exact same reply back via email today from Donnelly.
 
I also got the exact same reply back via email today from Donnelly.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do they think is open to interpretation?

I have had them tell me that 1A has limits as well, "like yelling fire in a movie theatre," to which I respond that "prior restraint" means that all the limits on 1A are merely what INDIVIDUAL restriction of your rights, AFTER DUE PROCESS, they can impose. They can not prevent you from exercising your 1A right, but it may not protect you from consequences if your exercise brings harm.

The difference here is that gun owners are being labeled criminals as a class, and their rghts abridged without their day in court. Even when our exercise of rights brings no harm to anyone.
 
Last edited:
Please update Senator Kenneth Donnelly to "Leaning in Favor". Here is his latest reply to me:

I respect the long tradition of gun ownership in this country. I also believe we can and must address the issue of escalating gun violence.

There is no single solution to ending gun violence but that should not stop us from taking reasonable steps to help control that violence. I believe it includes steps like restricting access to dangerous weapons and high capacity magazines to law enforcement and military uses; background checks for all gun purchases regardless of where they take place; bringing Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and finding ways to better serve those with mental illness who need treatment but fall through the cracks of our healthcare system.

I cannot agree that nonrestrictive gun ownership is enshrined in the 2nd amendment. The language is clearly open to interpretation and thoughtful people on both sides of the debate have interpreted it differently throughout our history. Furthermore, we do control rights enshrined in the bill of rights; the most common one being speech. Free speech is protected but the public interest - in cases of justice, national security, and personal safety - override free speech. These restrictions have not affected people's ability to speak freely; commonsense gun control will not - nor should it - prevent gun ownership.

I have heard from constituents on both sides of this issue. I will carefully study the bills that come before the Legislature and do my best to balance the interests of those for and against gun control.

Though we may disagree on this matter, I appreciate you contacting me and I will keep your position in mind as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Senator Ken Donnelly



I would have to go and do some research to verify this is actually true - but I believe I have read the background information that details the bolded statement from him above - is simply untrue.

We actually DO NOT have "escalating violence" and in fact the crime rates and murder rates have been dropping for a decade or more - while gun ownership has been increasing dramatically.

This guy goes thru some of the actual data and statistics:



This might be something you want to forward off to Senator Donnelly.


Listen to what he says - 50% reduction in violent crime.

Which would mean that Senator Donnelly is full of crap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Calsdad, Just replied to Ken D. To watch this video you posted.

Ken,

Do you really know about the "escalating" violent crime stats you are so politically held to, so you can further Implement unconstitutional gun control measures in this state?

Overall violent crime is not escalating, and let this short YouTube video educate you on the
Facts from the FBI's own data, that it is not. Target jobs, education with strong family and community values in the inner cities with populations of 250,000 and greater, then violence will be reduced, because that is where the high spikes are.

Watch this short video so you get your facts straight first and don't appear to be retarded when discussing escalating violence to people who have fetted source data...please

Choose Your Own Crime Stats - YouTube
 
Here's another article with a whole bunch of VERY good information that you can use when talking to these guys.

A Brief and Bloody History of Gun Control

a portion of the article:

The first thing to touch upon, and perhaps most relevant to our modern society, is how deadly firearms really are. First of all, let us examine the factors that are responsible for deaths within the United States. This will put death counts into perspective and allow us to go deeper into the firearm-related deaths themselves later. Examining data from the CDC for the leading causes of death and including death statistics from the FBI regarding homicides, we find the following numbers:


Leading US Killers
Annual deaths from heart disease based on CDC data: 597,689
Cancer deaths from CDC data: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases (CDC): 138,080
Stroke deaths (CDC): 129,476
Deaths from accidents, unintentional injuries (CDC): 120,859
Alzheimer’s disease deaths per year (CDC): 83,494
Diabetes (CDC): 69,071
Influenza deaths each year (CDC): 50,097
Suicide deaths (CDC): 38,364
Overall weapons deaths (2009 FBI): 13,636
Overall firearm deaths (2009 FBI): 9,146



Knives, Hammers, Hands Kill More than Rifles & Shotguns
These FBI statistics really deflate the argument that rifles are ultimate killing machines when you look at how human hands are actually much more dangerous in terms of the sheer numbers. In fact, the digits really deflate the entire movement to ban rifles by realizing that by the same logic bats, hammers, knives, and even hands should therefore be heavily regulated. Going by the numbers alone, all hands should be considered lethal weapons. Of course we know that all hands are not used to kill innocents, just as all guns are not used to kill innocents.

Let’s take a look at the FBI data for the homicides committed via non-firearm sources to get an idea of how it compares to the death toll of key firearms like rifles and shotguns:
Knives and cutting tools accounted for 1,825 deaths in 2009, 1,477 more than rifles
Clubs, hammers, and other blunt objects totaled 611 in 2009, 263 more than rifles
Hands, fists, and feet killed 801 in 2009, 453 more than rifles


He also refers to the massive decline in violent crime - so once again we have the cold hard evidence that the politicians who are talking about increases or "gun crime raging out of control" or whatever other forms of lies they are spewing - are just simply full of shit:

What these stats tell us is that violent crime has been in rapid decline over the past several years by a considerable amount. In other words, despite much of a fuss being made over the apparent necessity to ban guns due to violent crime, the statistics show that it has actually been on the massive decline.

Now in order to compare this to the resulting crime stats that follow the implementation of gun control laws, we need to examine a chart that demonstrates this relationship. For this, we turn to the Department of Justice (Justice.gov), which offers a graph containing figures that help us to understand the link between gun ownership and crime stat fluctuations. As you can see from the chart below, the increased amount of gun ownership throughout the years (which has been quite dramatic) ia known to lead to a sharp decline in violent crime (as can be seen between 1995 and 2003):

As gun ownership goes up - crimes go down:

The DOJ chart, as you can see for yourself, spans 40 years and shows that violent crime has plummeted as the number of guns in the United States per 1,000 citizens has gone up exponentially. It would seem quite the opposite would be true if guns were truly dangerous in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

We can even narrow down this area further by examining areas in which gun bans have gone into effect and taking a look at the results. We have established that firearm homicides are much lower than many think, that more guns actually statistically suggests less crime, and now it is time to figure out where the concentration of many gun murders are and why. This is how we take a real approach to the issue and determining a solution.

Chicago is a perfect example of a city that has enacted a ban on all handguns with the minor exception of those who had previous gun registrations before that time. Going into law in 1982, we can see how Chicago’s murder rate spun out of control following the extreme regulations, while the rest of the United States (as we documented in the previous graph) saw a decline in murder rates as guns surged:



Chicago is a cesspool:

Following the handgun ban in Chicago, crime increased by 40%. This trend continued for decades, with police revealing that 96% of firearm murders in Chicago were actually committed by handguns.


Lots more info in the article.

Print it out - send it to everybody you know.

The cold hard fact of the matter is that all the people who are calling for more gun bans - and SPECICALLY for bans on "assault weapons" - are just completely and totally full of shit.

Their very own government has the numbers that say so.
 
My response back to Liz Warren after she fed me that canned trash. Might not do much, but I was pissed at such a schlock response from her....

Senator Warren,

At last check, your opinion wasn't on the line. What your constituents hired you for, and what WE want, is why you were hired. Your opinion about what is right for me or my family doesn't count, sorry to say. SCOTUS has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect me, that's my job. Are you now going on record saying your opinion overrules the ruling of the SCOTUS? If I, not you, determine that I need one round, so be it. If I, not you, determine that I need one million rounds, so be it. You, who are protected by Secret Service, have no understanding of what it is like to have experienced fear at the hands of someone else. My responsibility to my children is knowledge of how to handle, fire, clean, maintain the firearms so that they aren't prone to kneejerk/emotional responses when bad things happen. Your responsibility to me and my family is to do what you are told, by your constituency, and to keep your opinion to yourself.

No, Senator, your opinion is NOT why you were hired. Your representing me, is why you were hired. And by attempting to disarm me, the only thing you did was make it safer for the bad guys.

Send her the links to the video and the article I just posted above with all of the cold hard stats.

Then just tell her she is just plain WRONG. And then remind her that you and everybody else you know are out there telling as many people as you can possibly reach what the TRUTH is - and you will make sure they know just how WRONG she is.

Not that this will stop her. But arrogant, stupid, WRONG people sometimes need to be told they will pay a price if they continue to pursue their stupidity.
 
This Thursday in my local paper's editorial section (North Reading), John Tierney published "Time to Take a Stand on Assault Weapons". It was almost half the page, the standard dribbling nonsense. I promptly emailed a response.
Anyone else see this in their local papers?
 
To everyone who lives in Peabody:

I just wanted to say that I had a conversation with Leah Cole, candidate for state representative, earlier today, and she is completely on our side. I don't think that I could have been more impressed with what I heard. She is against more gun control and opposes the assault weapons ban as well as the complex licensing structure that we have here in MA. I urge everyone to vote for her in the upcoming special election. Please remember the primary election is on March 5th.
 
I just received this response from Senator Downing (emphasis mine):

In response to the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, our nation’s attention has rightly turned to how to reduce violence, especially gun violence and mass shootings. This is an issue we have struggled with in the past in western Massachusetts. You may recall that the event in Newtown occurred 20 years to the day after Wayne Lo shot and killed one student, one professor and injured four others at Simon’s Rock College of Bard in Great Barrington. Personally, I remember my father, then serving as the Berkshire District Attorney, being woken in the night to respond to the shootings. His descriptions of the incident, the families of the victims and the community’s response flashed before my eyes as I heard the horrible news of Newtown.

I think it’s important to begin with this statement: no matter your thoughts on gun safety and control, I believe that each of the 230 plus constituents who have written or called my office on this topic want to make sure something like Newtown never happens again. We may have different opinions on how to do so, but our goal is shared: reducing violence. Certainly the policy debate on how to do so will be passionate, but we should not forget our common starting point.

Many of those who have written have asked for my position on pending legislation, namely bills filed by Governor Deval Patrick, Representative David Linksy of Natick or being advocated for by the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL). I have specifically chosen not to co-sponsor any of the aforementioned proposals. Rather, I will continue to collect input from constituents on what steps they believe ought to be taken. Thus far your input, combined with my own research, has led me to the following conclusions.

First, we must do a better job of enforcing our existing laws. Massachusetts has strong gun control laws, which I support. However, as a state, we have a role to play in making sure federal laws are effective. Additionally, we must provide our state, city and regional public safety agencies the resources to do the preventative work that averts a crisis from occurring. For instance, we must do more to help improve our background check system. Two years ago 153,487 background checks were performed in the Commonwealth using a national database that was incomplete partially because of our own lack of participation. Massachusetts has only submitted one mental health record to the national background check database. In comparison, Washington State has a similar sized population and submitted 88,054 mental health records. To make sure our national background check system is effective, all states must participate fully. Massachusetts needs to do better here, not only to make our own streets and communities safer, but to help our fellow citizens throughout the country. This is something I intend to pursue in conversations with my colleagues at the Executive Office of Public Safety & Security.

Enforcing existing public safety laws, while investing in mental health services and violence prevention efforts, requires significant financial resources. Securing these resources has become a greater challenge because of our current economic situation. However, we can and must do better. Our public safety and mental health agencies need more resources to be able to carry out their most important work – the preventative efforts which never make their ways to the headlines. While there will never be enough money to catch every criminal or stop every misdeed, we must robustly invest in public safety agencies and mental health services, and direct public funds to support proven strategies that reduce and prevent gun violence.

Finally, to reduce the chances of another tragic event -- like Newtown, Aurora, Tucson or Simon’s Rock -- happening again we need to look at gun laws at all levels of government. At the federal level, I support reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2005, and closing the “gun show” loophole, to have a truly universal system of background checks. Here in the Commonwealth, we must adjust our state budgeting priorities and fully participate in the national background check system. During this legislative session I will examine all proposals to address gun violence with the above thoughts in mind, never forgetting my commitment to do all I can to prevent another parent from experiencing what the parents in Newtown just went through.

Certainly other issues should be considered, such as the role today’s media plays in normalizing violent acts, but they are much more ably addressed at the federal level. In the short-term I believe we can have a thoughtful and productive debate in Massachusetts that results in common sense updates to our gun safety laws, respecting the rights of law-abiding sportsmen and hunters while creating a safer Massachusetts for us all.

Again, thank you for writing and sharing your comments on this very relevant matter. I appreciate the passion you have expressed as you described your position on these proposals.

Sincerely,

BENJAMIN B. DOWNING, State Senator
Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin & Hampden District
 
Last edited:
Yeah I really don't understand the ratings, supporting reinstating the Federal "AWB" would seem to me to deserve an F rating.
This is a frustrating process, particularly now that many of them said one thing last year and are doing another this...

Ratings are also a never ending process that I believe ultimately require both objective ratings from surveys as well as subjective evaluations of actions that speak louder than their words.
 
Back
Top Bottom