Responses from MA Representatives and Senators

I've emailed, then called, and lastly sent letters to Katherine Clark and Paul Brodeur. Neither has had the decency to reply in any way.
 
Hello Folks...I got the following from my State Rep. Betty Poirier:

Dear Mr. xxxx,
Thank you for taking your time to personally write to me regarding the matter of the new gun law proposals. Please know that you can rest assured that I will continue to do all that I can to fight against the Governor's proposal, as it doesn’t make too much sense.

The Legislature is looking towards enacting changes that would have positive effects on the Commonwealth, not necessarily “feel good” pieces. I have in fact recently co-sponsored several pieces of Rep. George Peterson’s legislation pertaining to gun issues. I will continue to fight for our Second Amendment rights. Please feel free to contact me again in the future with any other concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

Betty

Elizabeth A. Poirier
State Representative
14th Bristol District


Boy...it sure is nice to see that 'R' after the name!
 
I made a hand written letter and email and sent them out to Senator Richie Moore, Representative Peter Durant, and Congressman Richard Neal. I haven't received anything back so far, but i did get to talk to Richard Moore's aide and reassured me that he's for us. The other two I can only hope, Durant has an R in front of his name and Neal, a D.
 
Got this back today...looks like her "canned" response..but mainly positive. Would like to know what her co-sponsored legislature is.

Thank you for taking your time to personally write to me regarding the matter of the new gun law proposals. Please know that you can rest assured that I will continue to do all that I can to fight against the Governor's proposal, as it doesn't make too much sense. The Legislature is looking towards enacting changes that would have positive effects on the Commonwealth, not necessarily "feel good" pieces. I have in fact recently co-sponsored several pieces of Rep. George Peterson's legislation pertaining to gun issues. I will continue to fight for our Second Amendment rights. Please feel free to contact me again in the future with any other concerns you may have.

Sincerely,
Betty

Elizabeth A. Poirier
State Representative
14th Bristol District
 
Last edited:
received and email from Patricia Jehlen
Thank you for writing regarding the various proposed gun control laws. As you know, this is a subject that has been in the forefront of the minds of people throughout the country as a result of tragic events that have taken place, most recently the tragedy in Sandy Hook, CT.

It is important that the issue of gun control be discussed in depth, and it is my hope that the conversation will be robust and evidence based. Gun control laws are not intended to take away the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners, but rather regulate the process in the hopes of reducing the number of unnecessary deaths. Gun control measures are intended to protect the public from those that take advantage of their rights and are not well-suited to own a gun. A better screening process must ensure that those who are allowed to possess a firearm are, in fact, responsible and law-abiding.

Gun control is a matter to be analyzed from multiple angles including public safety, mental health, citizens' rights and existing laws. Mental health programs, including training teachers to recognize symptoms of mental illness in students, are also very important aspects of the discussion. The mental health issue is critical to a comprehensive effort to reduce gun violence. Throughout the process, I will be sure to take all opinions and all evidence into account when making decisions about public safety.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me. Please feel free to contact me with comments or concerns about this or any other issues in the future. If you do not already receive my occasional email newsletter and would like to, you can subscribe at Home | Pat Jehlen.

Best Wishes,

Pat Jehlen
State Senator


she sounds like she is undecided
 
From Senator Brian Joyce:

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your email regarding gun control proposals. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

Several different proposals related to guns and gun control have been filed for consideration this legislative session in both branches of the Legislature. At this time, it remains unclear which proposals, if any, I will have an opportunity to vote on. Should I have the opportunity to act on any of these proposals, please rest assured that I will keep your thoughts, and those of your neighbors, in mind.

Thank you again for your thoughtful email. Feel free to contact me should you have any additional questions, or if I can provide further assistance.

Best,

Brian Joyce

From Representative Shaunna O'Connell:

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for contacting me. You accurately point out the flawed approach of the Governor and anti-gun groups.



Massachusetts currently has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, yet they are not enforced. The only laws that seem to be enforced in this state are the ones that criminalize law-abiding citizens.


I am watching this issue closely, and I will not support laws that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens yet do nothing to keep people safe. As a member of NRA and GOAL, you can count on me to protect our sacred Second Amendment rights.



Please don't hesitate to contact me anytime. I appreciate your time and participation.



Kind regards,

Shaunna

From Representative Bruce Ayers:

[FONT=&quot]Dear xxxx,

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email. It was nice speaking with you last Friday as well in regards to the Governor's proposed gun legislation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please know that I will forward your email onto the appropriate committee so that it can be factored into their legislative deliberations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sincerely,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bruce J. Ayers[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]State Representative[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1st Norfolk District[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Just received a voicemail from Dan Winslow's (R) assistant. He's made it very clear that he would not support the Patrick or Linsky legislation.
 
I have emailed and sent letters to all my reps and like most of you, rcvd the canned responses. Got this one from from my Representative Steven Howitt:

Art,
Thank you for your correspondence. Massachusetts already has some the strictest gun laws in the country. As a 2nd ammendment rights supporter, any decision made on this issue will be carefully considered.
Thank you.
Steven Howitt
 
Ross, Richard (SEN)

Hello Nathan,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your opposition to the recently proposed updates to gun control laws in Massachusetts. I appreciate the valuable information that you have shared with me.
Massachusetts already has among the strictest gun control laws in the United States. Among these are laws regulating licensing and possession, as well as highly restrictive bans on assault weapons, large capacity weapons and large capacity feeding devices. As it stands, the Commonwealth already bans the types of weapons and feeding devices that have been used in some of our country’s recent tragedies.
It is of the utmost importance to me that while preserving the safety of our communities, we also protect the rights granted to us as law-abiding citizens by our state and federal Constitutions. I assure you that I will keep your rights and concerns in mind as I address all proposed legislation related to gun control in Massachusetts.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Ross
State Senator

[thumbsup]
 
Pat Jehlen will vote Against EVERYTHING that we stand for......don't buy her s**t ..she is as anti as they get.......
 
This is from MA State Rep. Jay Kaufman I got todat after I emailed him 5 days ago:

Thank you for your email regarding proposed gun safety legislation. I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including, of course, the second amendment. While I have no argument with the basic right to bear arms, I also have no argument with the corollary commitment that I have to advance public safety. The challenge is to balance those two commitments.

In their proposed legislation, both Governor Deval Patrick and Representative David Linsky have invited a conversation about whether or not there is anything that we can do to enhance public safety. I think we can all agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with our society when there are 30,000 gun-related deaths every year. There are many ways to account for this outrageous violence, but I trust that we agree that something must be done. There seems to be a growing consensus that sharpening our focus on background checks and addressing issues of mental health are a good place to start. Beyond that I am intrigued by, but not committed to, some of the other ideas that have been introduced and that I am eager to learn more about. I recently attended a briefing and strategy meeting with over 100 House and Senate lawmakers, including gun owners, gun advocates, and anti-gun crusaders to discuss gun violence and efforts to strengthen the laws in Massachusetts. I learned a great deal and, even so, left with many questions unanswered. I take seriously what you have written and am eager to keep learning as the debate about gun violence moves forward. I will admit to being particularly intrigued by the idea of requiring liability insurance of gun owners. We require drivers and automobile owners to carry insurance, and cars are far less dangerous than guns. As I see it - and I readily admit that I am at the beginning of the process of analyzing this option, not at the end - requiring insurance would provide a market-based incentive for greater training and safety, rather than relying on government as the enforcer of first and last resort. I’m keeping an open mind on this and the other ideas that have been put on the table.

I appreciate your insight and will keep your thoughts in mind as these conversations continue. I hope you’ll continue to be in touch on this and other issues of importance to you.

Warmly,
Jay Kaufman
 
This is from MA State Rep. Jay Kaufman I got todat after I emailed him 5 days ago:

Thank you for your email regarding proposed gun safety legislation. I have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including, of course, the second amendment. While I have no argument with the basic right to bear arms, I also have no argument with the corollary commitment that I have to advance public safety. The challenge is to balance those two commitments.

In their proposed legislation, both Governor Deval Patrick and Representative David Linsky have invited a conversation about whether or not there is anything that we can do to enhance public safety. I think we can all agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with our society when there are 30,000 gun-related deaths every year.
We clearly cannot agree Mr Kaufman when you use invalid data which does not account for more than half of those deaths being suicide and suicide showing no linkage to gun control or gun availability.
 
So, is he intrigued by the idea of requiring media outlets to maintain liability insurance for the results of their stories? How about a tax on voting, a poll tax? Maybe anyone that holds a rally at the State House should be required to post an insurance bond in case anyone gets injured? Requiring any of those would be a clear violation of the First Amendment and would not stand the first instance of a challenge in court. Why should a tax or insurance be used to deprive gun owners of their rights when neither would be permissible if someone were to exercise their First Amendment rights?

The courts will even appoint an attorney for indigent clients in order to insure that they are able to exercise their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

More and more I'm convinced that some of these elected officials are banking on us not understanding our rights.

This is from MA State Rep. Jay Kaufman I got todat after I emailed him 5 days ago:
I will admit to being particularly intrigued by the idea of requiring liability insurance of gun owners. We require drivers and automobile owners to carry insurance, and cars are far less dangerous than guns. As I see it - and I readily admit that I am at the beginning of the process of analyzing this option, not at the end - requiring insurance would provide a market-based incentive for greater training and safety, rather than relying on government as the enforcer of first and last resort. I’m keeping an open mind on this and the other ideas that have been put on the table.

I appreciate your insight and will keep your thoughts in mind as these conversations continue. I hope you’ll continue to be in touch on this and other issues of importance to you.

Warmly,
Jay Kaufman
 
Here is what I received from Senator Richard Ross:

Hello John,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your opposition to the recently proposed updates to gun control laws in Massachusetts. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and concerns with me.

Massachusetts already has among the strictest gun control laws in the United States. Among these are laws regulating licensing and possession, as well as highly restrictive bans on assault weapons, large capacity weapons and large capacity feeding devices. As it stands, the Commonwealth already bans the types of weapons and feeding devices that have been used in some of our country's recent tragedies.

It is of the utmost importance to me that while preserving the safety of our communities, we also protect the rights granted to us as law-abiding citizens by our state and federal Constitutions. I assure you that I will keep your rights and concerns in mind as I address all proposed legislation related to gun control in Massachusetts.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Ross
State Senator

- - - Updated - - -

I received this from Rep. Betty Poirier's assistant:


"Rep. Poirier asked that I contact you on her behalf regarding your e-mail pertaining to the new gun law proposals. She would first like to thank you for taking your time to personally write to her regarding this matter.

Rep. Poirier wanted you to know that you can rest assured that she will continue to do all that she can to fight against the Governor's proposal, as it doesn’t make too much sense.

The Legislature is looking towards enacting changes that would have positive effects on the Commonwealth, not necessarily “feel good” pieces. She has recently co-sponsored several pieces of Rep. George Peterson’s legislation pertaining to gun issues. She indicated that she will continue to fight for our Second Amendment rights and to please feel free to contact her again in the future with any other concerns you may have."

Sincerely,

Elaine

Elaine M. Hyland
Research Analyst
Office of the Assistant Minority Whip
Representative Elizabeth A. Poirier
State House, Room 124
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-2100 x8132
617-626-0108 (Fax)
[email protected]
 
Sen Pres Pro Tem Stanley Rosenberg and Rep Stephen Kulik both responded (with personalized e-mails) saying they appreciated the input and would not make a decision until they heard all the arguments involved...soooo, noncommittal. Better than opposed I guess...FYI for anyone else who wrote to Sen Rosenberg, it took him 15 days to write back, but he did, and it wasn't a form letter, so if you wrote him it may take a while but he will get back to it appears.

Rep McGovern on the federal side has still not responded; we'll see what happens there.
 
Sen Pres Pro Tem Stanley Rosenberg and Rep Stephen Kulik both responded (with personalized e-mails) saying they appreciated the input and would not make a decision until they heard all the arguments involved...soooo, noncommittal. Better than opposed I guess...FYI for anyone else who wrote to Sen Rosenberg, it took him 15 days to write back, but he did, and it wasn't a form letter, so if you wrote him it may take a while but he will get back to it appears.

Rep McGovern on the federal side has still not responded; we'll see what happens there.

wow another couple of A rated GOAL endorsed guys that can't even commit to opposing Deval/Linsky's bills, maybe we are truly f&cked.
 
Response from Senator Mike Knapik (Westfield/Chicopee area):

I just wanted to send you a quick email. I am sure you are aware of my long-standing record in support of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment and the rights of Gun Owners during my career as a State Legislator. I would expect, based on past practice, to oppose any of the onerous requirements that have been proposed in the Legislation that has been in the news of late.

On another note, on the GOAL legislation, I will be reviewing those matters later this week and expect to co-sponsor a number of their initiatives.

Feel free to follow the discussion on this issue and to stay in contact with your legislators.

Mike



BOOM! Gotta love Knapik!

I fully expect Representative Humason (Westfield) to vote the same way, he worked under Knapik when he was a Representative and won his seat when he moved to the Senate.
 
here is my responce from Stan Rosenberg

Rob

Thank you for your email about gun related legislation. This is just the beginning of what I expect to be a very challenging and contentious debate. Please be assured that I will take the same approach as I have throughout my career on legislation in this area as I do in all others. I will jump to no conclusions. I will carefully consider all sides of any proposals that come before us. I value hearing from you on this and will keep your opinions in mind as I do my homework on the proposals before us.



Thanks again for taking the time to be in touch with me to let me know how strongly you feel about the issue and why.



Stan
 
Senator Robert Hedlund ( received this in the mail today)

Dear Mr. ----------,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your concerns over gun control laws. I
appreciate hearing from constituents on issues that affect them.

The event that transpired in Connecticut was a devastating tragedy. I have great sympathy for the
many victims of this crime as well as for their friends and families. It must be ensured that
horrific acts such as this never happen again

Steps must be taken to ensure that dangerous weapons do not fall into the hands of criminals or
the mentally ill. Massachusetts does not issue licenses to those who have had a disqualifying
conviction or have been previously confined for a mental illness. Massachusetts also has a ban
on "assault weapons" such-as the type used in this tragedy.

However, I am also a steadfast supporter of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the
Constitution. Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation and I cannot
support any legislation that would strengthen these laws at the expense of our constitutional
freedom. Already citizens of the Commonwealth face a variety of checks before they can receive
a license. Applicants must pass a certified firearms safety course or Basic Hunter Education
Course and must be fingerprinted for a background check. These laws ensure the safety of the
citizens of the Commonwealth while also keeping them protected from misuse of these weapons

Thank you again fortaking the time to contact me regarding this issue. If I may be of any
assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me
 
Jan 25 the dam broke?

It took a while, but I suddenly got a few replies from my Ruger link messages. The replies are boilerplate computer generated crap.
It's kinda strange they all came in on the same day. The first three within minutes of each other.

Also heard from the ILA, telling me they would not be using PayPal, since they are anti-gun.
(After waiting two weeks for them to reply to my Jan 5 letter, I used PayPal to renew my NRA membership).

replys_zps76f34046.jpg


Did anyone else get canned replies on Jan 25??
 
Just received this from the house rep Peter Durant.

Hi xxxxxxx,

Thanks for taking the time to share your opinions with me.

I too am very concerned! And although I am going to reserve final judgment on any specific legislation until I have had the opportunity to fully digest the many proposals, it appears that there is very little in the Governor's bill or in Rep. Linsky's bill that I will like. As a current gun owner I can assure you that I will be looking out for the rights provided us by the Constitution.

It is unfortunate that this discussion has turned away from ‘violence prevention’ which is the true problem we face, to ‘gun control’ which will only penalize law abiding citizens as criminals will break the law no matter what it is.
Some of the things that I would be open to discussion on, pending the details of course, include background checks, mental health awareness for gun owners, strict enforcement of current laws against straw purchasing and illegal possession, and the closing of potential gun-show loopholes.


On the other hand, I do not support magazine limits, banning of certain weapons, 1-gun a month limits, etc. I believe that those measures only function to penalize the law abiding citizens.

Again, thank you for reaching out to my office and sharing your thoughts on this very important issue.

Best regards,
Peter Durant
State Representative
6th Worcester District
 
It took a while, but I suddenly got a few replies from my Ruger link messages. The replies are boilerplate computer generated crap.
It's kinda strange they all came in on the same day. The first three within minutes of each other.

It's quite possible that they were delayed in processing your letters. When I sent my letters using congress.org a couple of weeks ago, I got auto-replies from almost everyone within a few minutes.

Except Warren. I'm pretty sure that emails to her just go out to the void, and that she waits for Obama to tell her what to think, then she thinks it. I sent her another one today, and when I hit submit, the page just went to a blank web page that said 'Submitted'. I guess the Harvard post-docs she brought in as web slaves don't know how to build web sites.
 
It took a while, but I suddenly got a few replies from my Ruger link messages. The replies are boilerplate computer generated crap.
It's kinda strange they all came in on the same day. The first three within minutes of each other.

Also heard from the ILA, telling me they would not be using PayPal, since they are anti-gun.
(After waiting two weeks for them to reply to my Jan 5 letter, I used PayPal to renew my NRA membership).

replys_zps76f34046.jpg


Did anyone else get canned replies on Jan 25??

Yes I got the same replies.
 
It took a while, but I suddenly got a few replies from my Ruger link messages. The replies are boilerplate computer generated crap.
It's kinda strange they all came in on the same day. The first three within minutes of each other.

Also heard from the ILA, telling me they would not be using PayPal, since they are anti-gun.
(After waiting two weeks for them to reply to my Jan 5 letter, I used PayPal to renew my NRA membership).

replys_zps76f34046.jpg


Did anyone else get canned replies on Jan 25??

Dammit, I did the same thing using PayPal. Note to self. Stop using them. Is there a list of businesses to boycott here such as PP and BOA that are anti gun?
 
Back
Top Bottom