STOP ERPO TODAY!!! - Light Up The State House Phones!

[NewGuyRay]

The new rule for gun ownership is that you DO NOT talk about gun ownership. Ever........

While we are calling this a confiscation bill, doesn't your statement reflect what this bill is really all about?

I firmly believe the goal here is to further marginalize gun owners and drive us into the shadows. Make people afraid to have anyone know they own guns. Most importantly, it seeks to make us too afraid to speak up in public for our rights. Imagine showing up at a Statehouse hearing to speak against a new piece of anti-gun legislation. Voice your opinion strongly enough, maybe make some in attendance "uncomfortable" and next thing you know, a cop is taking down your personal info and you are getting dragged into an ERPO hearing.

This law certainly seems to serve its primary purpose of making gun owners afraid to call attention to themselves.

 

[Spicolii]

While we are calling this a confiscation bill, doesn't your statement reflect what this bill is really all about?

I firmly believe the goal here is to further marginalize gun owners and drive us into the shadows. Make people afraid to have anyone know they own guns. Most importantly, it seeks to make us too afraid to speak up in public for our rights. Imagine showing up at a Statehouse hearing to speak against a new piece of anti-gun legislation. Voice your opinion strongly enough, maybe make some in attendance "uncomfortable" and next thing you know, a cop is taking down your personal info and you are getting dragged into an ERPO hearing.

This law certainly seems to serve its primary purpose of making gun owners afraid to call attention to themselves.

Precisely. The bill of rights is like a woven cloth. All the strands intersect and reinforce each other. Your scenario illustrates this perfectly. ERPO is as much an assault on the first amendment as it is the second.

 

[Freddy B]

The bill of rights is like a woven cloth. All the strands intersect and reinforce each other.

That's beautiful, man. :emoji_cry:

 

[PeterC]

Baker will wait until Bobby DeLeo gives him the wink wink nod nod, indicating it's safe to veto it. Then he'll cast a meaningless, symbolic veto that will be quickly. Overriden


That's beautiful, man. :emoji_cry:

No way Baker vetoes this.

 

[Horrible]

No way Baker vetoes this.

No way I vote for his gun-grabbing RINO a$$

 

[Whutmeworry]

I saw the final roll call vote list. WTF happened with Keiko?

Also, does anyone know yet when they plan to take this up in the senate?

 

[Boston4567]

Well, I'm back. Thanks to others for updating. Amendments adopted:

7, 8: Minor technical corrections
15: ERPO can be in effect for up to 1 year rather than will be in effect for 1 year (judge has discretion to shorten term of order)
16: Confiscation occurs within 24 hours of the order rather than immediately
17: minor
19: Basically, data must be collected and regularly reported to a variety of political bodies
21: Unbelievably, this lowers the fine for a false petition from $5k to $2.5k. It also allows for both fine and imprisonment rather than either or.
23: More data collection/reporting.
24: 45 day enactment period rather than 30 (this amendment was adopted after changing 60 to 45)
25: Gives SJC and appeals courts concurrent jurisdiction over any proceedings, rulings, etc etc done with ERPOs. Also allows them to rule changes to the process of reviewing ERPO decisions if the process can be made more efficient/speedy.
26: Finally a bit of due process, but not much. This says that anyone receiving an ERPO hearing must be served with notice at least 7 days prior to the hearing by a LEO or other method (process server)

We interrupt this program to note that amendment 30, the stun gun bullshit, was REJECTED. Good news in my book, but I was not able to watch the stream to see if some other BS around this issue arose. I'll definitely want to see the debate on that.

Finally,
43: Can only surrender to licensed dealers. Licensing authorities that confiscate can do whatever they want with collections 180 days after the ERPO expires if they can't reasonably identify anyone qualified to receive them (e.g. a family member or friend with an LTC). Also, "The court may modify its order at any subsequent time upon motion by either party." Bunch of other gobbledygook.

All other amendments failed or were withdrawn. Mostly failed, I'd say, when it comes to the ones that mattered. This bill pretty much passed as written.

Bill passed the house, 139 to 14. If you want to know how people voted, there will be a supplement added to the bill's page. It's not up yet.

I would also like to say, it ain't over til it's over. Time to call your senators and the governor's office. Remind the governor how he was elected.

Two important things in amendment 43 worth expounding on:

1. The bad: They removed the word "significant" from "significant risk of causing bodily injury to self or others...". So now it just needs to be more likely than not you pose "a risk". We're entering Deflategate territory here in terms of evidentiary requirements... might as well say it's "more probable than not that you're at least generally a risk"
2. The good: The language added regarding petitioning to modify the order essentially restores the right of appeal that was originally removed. In fact, it's an improvement in that there are no limitations on how many times you can ask the court to lift the order.

 

[Coyote33]

While we are calling this a confiscation bill, doesn't your statement reflect what this bill is really all about?

I firmly believe the goal here is to further marginalize gun owners and drive us into the shadows. Make people afraid to have anyone know they own guns. Most importantly, it seeks to make us too afraid to speak up in public for our rights. Imagine showing up at a Statehouse hearing to speak against a new piece of anti-gun legislation. Voice your opinion strongly enough, maybe make some in attendance "uncomfortable" and next thing you know, a cop is taking down your personal info and you are getting dragged into an ERPO hearing.

This law certainly seems to serve its primary purpose of making gun owners afraid to call attention to themselves.

Auburn Sportsman's Club was invited to participate in the town's Memorial Day Parade. I have no idea what this is going to mean, but I am hoping for a banner and hand out candy.

 

[Dadstoys]

No way Baker vetoes this.

Remember a while back he said he would sign ANY anti 2A bill that hit his desk.
It's a no brainer he'll sign it.
They could put an order on his desk tomorrow for a round up and liquidation of all gun owners and the prick would sign it.
Anyone who votes for this guy no matter who's running against him needs to slam their pecker in the car door.
He's just a rubber stamp for the commies.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Did not get an opportunity today, but I will phone tomorrow to thank Rep. Jon Zlotnik for being one of only two Democrats to vote NO.
Losing cause I know, but if you live in his district maybe let him know it was appreciated.

The other Democrat voting NO was Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut, along with independent Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol, both of whom should be thanked also.

Especially considering that means there were 23 Republicans who voted YES for this crap.

 

[MachineryGun]

While we are calling this a confiscation bill, doesn't your statement reflect what this bill is really all about?
This law certainly seems to serve its primary purpose of making gun owners afraid to call attention to themselves.

This, and by the rate of the rejection of the amendments and the constant lies still told by the authors about what it includes, it seems like the whole thing was cut and pasted from a source outside of this legislative body with that kind of agenda.

 

[MachineryGun]

Just saw the governor on the news saying he would veto the bill as it currently stands and that it's a local law enforcement issue. The news then played a clip of him answering a question on the common that sounds like it's relating to illegal immigrants vs guns though.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Just saw the governor on the news saying he would veto the bill as it currently stands and that it's a local law enforcement issue. The news then played a clip of him answering a question on the common that sounds like it's relating to illegal immigrants vs guns though.

In MA police always have the power to "ERPO" people without an ERPO law. It's just that in MA anytime something bad happens legistraitors MUST knee-jerk and pass something to make themselves look relevant.

 

[LoginName]

Just saw the governor on the news saying he would veto the bill as it currently stands and that it's a local law enforcement issue. The news then played a clip of him answering a question on the common that sounds like it's relating to illegal immigrants vs guns though.

Doesn't go far enough for him?

Even if he does veto it, there's a solid majority to override his veto (even when Romney was Gov, I don't recall a time
when the legislature didn't override any of his vetos).

End result... Baker still looks good to moderate Republicans because he can always claim he did what he
could, but the Dem controlled legislature overruled him.

 

[Boston4567]

Doesn't go far enough for him?

Even if he does veto it, there's a solid majority to override his veto (even when Romney was Gov, I don't recall a time
when the legislature didn't override any of his vetos).

End result... Baker still looks good to moderate Republicans because he can always claim he did what he
could, but the Dem controlled legislature overruled him.

There have always been tons of instances of gubernatorial vetos that weren't overridden (even under Gov. Steve Urkel). It happens much more frequently on budget line-item vetos, rather than major bills, though. See, e.g., Governor's FY18 Vetoes

The threat of a veto, even if it can be overridden, can used prior to a bill's passage in combination with the bully pulpit to influence its provisions in the right direction.

Finally, MA has the somewhat unique provision of "returning with amendment". The Governor can rewrite/amend a bill and send it back to the legislature for them to vote on it. If they ignore his changes and send the original bill back, he can veto it.

If Baker is serious (not holding my breath on that) there's plenty he can do.

 

[Mike S]

I saw the final roll call vote list. WTF happened with Keiko?

Also, does anyone know yet when they plan to take this up in the senate?

As soon as the senate is done with the budget, I'm guessing it will be next Tuesday as I doubt they will work over the long weekend. If they do, it will be very telling.

Did not get an opportunity today, but I will phone tomorrow to thank Rep. Jon Zlotnik for being one of only two Democrats to vote NO.
Losing cause I know, but if you live in his district maybe let him know it was appreciated.

The other Democrat voting NO was Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut, along with independent Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol, both of whom should be thanked also.

Especially considering that means there were 23 Republicans who voted YES for this crap.

Lombardo voted for it as well, he was all over GOAL re: Chapter 284 in 2014 and he is MA Gun Rights/Chris Pinto's golden boy. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

[butlerrj]

Look, the "legislators" in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts do not give one sweet Sh*t about what their constituency wants. The vote as if they were the sole residents of this dump. And being mostly Democrats, well, you know how that'll go.
It's only a matter of time folks. We can't even vote 'em out, and if by some miracle we do, they will run to the courts to get it "corrected". Remember the gay marriage vote? and the Law that reduced the state income tax? We don't deserve these a**holes, but like termites, we can't get rid of 'em.

 

[butlerrj]

When the time comes, we muster over the canal. We can hold 'em off from there.

 

[Coyote33]

OK, so let's see who we have for senators.

Moore, Fattman, who else? Let's start a list.

By the way, does GOAL still give ratings?

 

[Mike S]

OK, so let's see who we have for senators.

Moore, Fattman, who else? Let's start a list.

By the way, does GOAL still give ratings?

Yes, there will be new ratings posted mid to late summer. There are two major votes that the grades will be based on, bump stock and ERPO.

 

[Waher]

Moore's office actually called my elderly mother today to wish her happy birthday. Odd things are, she doesn't nor ever lived in his district, never gave her phone number to any political organization, never wrote or called the senate, and it isn't her birthday. I'm wondering if identity thieves are impersonating the elderly and contacting the legislature to push agenda with the reps and senators none-the-wiser.

 

[Coyote33]

So, back to the list.

For:
Moore
Fattman
?

Against:


In the middle (this is where we need to spend our time and attention):

?
??
???
????

 

[FrugalFannie]

oh wait! you mean the MA legislature is STILL screwing the residents there?

 

[bigred460]

oh wait! you mean the MA legislature is STILL screwing the residents there?

Such a true statement. The Commonwealth loves to punish its own residents.

 

[71montess]

The new rule for gun ownership is that you DO NOT talk about gun ownership. Ever........

what guns ?

 

[71montess]

the veto Charlie was talking about was the immigration sanctuary bill, not gunz.

 

[BobR51]

OK, so let's see who we have for senators.

Moore, Fattman, who else? Let's start a list.

By the way, does GOAL still give ratings?

View: https://youtu.be/p-8W1P07Xok

 

[Coyote33]

No, really. If we are going to fight this in the senate, we need to figure out who we're working with, right?

So, back to the list. These are all I know. Someone else please help.

For:
Moore
Fattman
?

Against:
Eldridge?
Chandler?
?
??
???
????

In the middle (this is where we need to spend our time and attention):

?
??
???
????

 

[Boston4567]

No, really. If we are going to fight this in the senate, we need to figure out who we're working with, right?

So, back to the list. These are all I know. Someone else please help.

For:
Moore
Fattman
?

Against:
Eldridge?
Chandler?
?
??
???
????

In the middle (this is where we need to spend our time and attention):

?
??
???
????

I'm confused about your categories. Moore and Fattman are for the bill and Eldridge and Chandler are against? I think you have this backwards

 

[Coyote33]

No, we are FOR THEM in the next election. We need to start working towards the next elections. They support us. Thanks.