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

How on earth do Orrall and Lombardo reconcile their vote on this with the speeches they gave at our post-Maura state house rally? I've been singing their praises since then and now feel like I've been stabbed in the back. I made a point of withdrawing my Republican Town Committee's support of Orrall on our FB page.
 
They all run unopposed anyhow, so it doesn't matter.

So very true. And their first allegiance is to their weekly paycheck, NOT those that vote them into that job.

How on earth do Orrall and Lombardo reconcile their vote on this with the speeches they gave at our post-Maura state house rally? I've been singing their praises since then and now feel like I've been stabbed in the back. I made a point of withdrawing my Republican Town Committee's support of Orrall on our FB page.

Sadly you just learned that you can NEVER trust any politician!
 
But they will all be reelected so it will roll off their backs.

Keiko is running for state treasurer, trying to unseat an incumbent Democrat. This is a very long shot for her. Any chance she has would require darn near 100% support from Republicans and conservative leaning independents.
 
We need to keep something in mind here when trying to understand these votes. ERPOs, as first conceived, were an arguably good idea intended exclusively as a law enforcement tool for the states that don't have any broad-based licensing schemes or way to suspend gun rights for truly dangerous people. They've just been hijacked and repurposed in states like Massachusetts as a gun grab.

And that's what's so insidious about them. Imagine the headlines, as a politician up for re-election. How can someone in Massachusetts not support something that passed in Florida? How under the thumb of the NRA are you? Are you not as progressive as Florida Republicans? The devil is in the details, but the details don't make good headlines.

The difference is, in a place like Florida, there are people who are known as dangerous to law enforcement but don't meet the threshold for civil commitment, and there are no other ways to keep guns out of their hands. So a statute, used sparingly, only accessible by law enforcement, with proper standards of proof (clear and convincing), accountability (elected judges), and due process (law enforcement, appeal rights, appointed counsel), was a reasonable step that even the NRA supported.

Here, in a state where we live every day with the oppressive boot of "suitability" hanging over our heads, these laws are completely unnecessary in the first place. So this potent weapon has been bastardized, stripped of all reasonable safeguards, and made directly available to the people with the most intense emotional connections to us. Who, if they feel wronged or betrayed, are most likely to use that weapon against us.

Ironic, for a law that itself is designed to take weapons away.
 
Surprise, surprise. Faker supports the confiscation bill.

Gun-rights group opposes bill allowing removal of firearms from ‘extreme risk’ people

And Mora:
“Strong gun laws save lives,” said Attorney General Maura Healey in a statement. “They’re one reason Massachusetts has the lowest rate of gun violence in the country. This critical legislation will help us take the next step by making sure people who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others do not have access to a gun. I applaud Speaker (Robert A.) DeLeo, Representative (Marjorie) Decker, and the House for advancing this important measure, and urge the Senate and the Governor to act quickly to join them.”
[puke2][puke2][puke2]

Comments are generally skeptical of the legislature! Maybe Faker should re-think his position?
 
Last edited:
Mora's support for this steaming load of crap is a given.

Gov. Charlie Baker has indicated support for the law when it hits his desk.

“Governor Baker believes Massachusetts’ effective gun laws are a model for the nation and is supportive of the concept in the (Extreme Risk Protection Order) bill to establish an additional pathway to keep guns away from those who are unfit to possess them. The governor will carefully review any legislation that comes to his desk,” said Lizzy Guyton, Baker’s communications director in a statement.
I had (very?) small hopes that TD would find the complete lack of due process too much.
 
An interesting way to fight back would be for every gun owner in the state to request an ERPO on themselves or a friend. Cite the typical anti gunner reasons about having guns in the home leads to suicide, someday the guns might get stolen, etc etc. Frivolous but "factual" reasons that will surely get thrown out in court.

The effect will be to paralyze the system and therefore nullify the law.
 
There won't be many to vote for, that is for certain.
They all run unopposed anyhow, so it doesn't matter.
So very true. And their first allegiance is to their weekly paycheck, NOT those that vote them into that job.Sadly you just learned that you can NEVER trust any politician!
They need to pay a price for this betrayal. It's already starting on social media.
But they will all be reelected so it will roll off their backs.

All you negative ninnys just stay home!

I don't know if any of you noticed, but Susanna Whipps-Lee was one of the ones who voted on our side. Myself, and more importantly, another person here on NES was promoting her quite a bit here on NES. We need MORE OF THIS! Badmouthing the idiots is not getting us too far. What we need is to put up a good candidate who will ACTUALLY BEAT THEM! Not only is it possible, but it happened. Same with the young lady up in Peabody, who won a couple years ago. We really need to be on top of this, and field good candidates. Period!
 
An interesting way to fight back would be for every gun owner in the state to request an ERPO on themselves or a friend. Cite the typical anti gunner reasons about having guns in the home leads to suicide, someday the guns might get stolen, etc etc. Frivolous but "factual" reasons that will surely get thrown out in court.

The effect will be to paralyze the system and therefore nullify the law.

Since there are no repercussions for false reports - nothing to lose.

If someone doesn’t have an LTC, but gets an ERPO called on them - does anything happen? After all it’s just a gun bill and if you don’t have an LTC, you can’t have a gun....,,
 
I received the following message from Keiko Orrall, who called me and gave me an earful about the online grief I was giving her. I asked her to write me, promising I would update my posts critical of her. I have.

Thank you for taking my call earlier. As I mentioned, attacking Republicans and trying to tear people down based on this vote does not help the 2nd Amendment cause. As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment with an A rating from GOAL and the NRA, it is important to me to protect lawful gun owners and their rights and I carefully weighed these opinions with the ERPO legislation. For 2nd Amendment groups to single me out and say that I should not be elected or that somehow I am now the enemy is troubling given the alternatives.

There has been confusion about what the final bill does. The main concern that people expressed to me was that anyone would be able to take their guns away. That is NOT the case. We were successful in limiting those able to petition the court to family or household members, NOT neighbors and strangers. This bill is not taking guns away from lawful gun owners. It is about taking a weapon from someone who has indicated that they want to hurt others. It creates a defined process requiring a preponderance of evidence, for an ERPO to be requested against a person owning a firearm who poses a risk of causing bodily injury to themselves or others. Firearms are not “permanently” confiscated. Petitioners cannot be anonymous. The bill ensures due process and protects the civil rights of law abiding gun owners. Amendments that were adopted in the final version clarify the process for families and law enforcement to help prevent tragedies and keep our communities safe.

I reached out to numerous law enforcement officers with the language and also had conversations with the Gun Owners Action League on the legislation. A key aspect that weighed heavily in my decision was the strong support by police chiefs across the state, who are well-versed on this issue as the designated authority responsible for approving state-issued firearms licenses.

It was a difficult vote that was influenced by a number of amendments that were adopted during the House floor debate on May 23. Two amendments impose severe penalties on fraudulent petitions and will further ensure this legislation will not be abused. In addition, the House approved a delay in the implementation date for the bill and adopted corrective language to ensure ERPO decisions can be reviewed – and changed – by an appellate court or the Supreme Judicial Court. The adoption of these amendments also factored in to my decision to support this legislation, which passed by a wide margin on a vote of 139-14.

I fully appreciate that this issue is an important one for many constituents. Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me on this issue. If you should have any questions on this or any other issue, please feel free to contact my office at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Keiko
 
Can anyone name 1 school or mass shooter who had a ltc ,have a family member say
I knew he was going to go off, but I called police and their hands were tied.?
 
What are the repercussions of saying you lost them anyway?? Assuming you knew someone is/was going to file an ERPO against you?

Not sure
Can anyone name 1 school or mass shooter who had a ltc ,have a family member say
I knew he was going to go off, but I called police and their hands were tied.?

The Google Shooter?
 
Oh, Keiko, this state doesn't lock up armed heroin dealers who are multi time offenders, do you really expect us to take comfort in "severe penalties" for a false report?

Also, she is basically saying, if you don't vote for me, the alternative is a lot worse.

I have to ask how that is?
 
Not sure


The Google Shooter?


No ,the family didn’t say shit.

Police find her parked in her car...

A second officer arrives and the Mountain View police dispatch center says the reason Aghdam was reported “at risk” when the missing person’s report was filed was because she had no prior reports of having gone missing.


The officers then called Aghdam’s father and told him she had been located and that she didn’t want to go back to San Diego. The father thanked them and hung up.

About an hour later he called the officer back to say that his daughter had recently become upset about changes on the YouTube platform that had affected videos she posted on living a vegan lifestyle and suggested that may have been one of the reasons she had driven to that area.

“At no point in either of our conversations did the family bring up any concerns about their daughter’s behavior, any potential violence she may carry out, or any likelihood that she could be a danger to herself or others,” the department’ statement said.

A few hours later, Aghdam went to a gun range where she practiced shooting. After that, she went to the YouTube headquarters and opened fire.
 
Here's the response I got from Len Mirra (we had several phone conversations and email exchanges) - basically throws GOAL under the bus, says it was going to pass anyway so why not vote for it and his opponent is even worse then he is....

I dunno - were the amendments that actually got approved any improvement at all ? For instance I thought the penasties for a false report were actually lowered ?

P

"I'm a member of GOAL and I received the same email that I'm guessing you received; it's full of lies and distortions. They continue to send these emails because it results in increased donations and memberships. Their recent emails are nothing more than fund drives, playing upon the current emotional climate.

The original bill was very flawed and that's why the language was changed in two separate committees, and then changed again on the day it was passed, so it's totally untrue to say our amendments were not accepted. It's even more of a lie to say it doesn't recognize due process. One of the main changes was to actually improve due process over current laws. Right now a police chief can confiscate your license and your guns on mere supposition; he can deem you "unsuitable" based on his own opinions. This ERPO law requires a person to appear before a judge, and produce credible evidence, before an ERPO can be used. Additionally, it provides additional avenues for appeals, and time limits on having a hearing. We also changed the wording so that a court can have discretion to order an ERPO for "up to" a year instead of a blanket one year order. We also expressed concerns over a person using false allegations to have an ERPO served, so we put in penalties for anyone who does that.
As I explained to you before, this bill had broad support and was going to pass regardless of what a small number of us said or did. So we had two choices: we could make a symbolic vote against the original bill and end up with a deeply flawed law, or we could work with the majority and get the bill improved so that due process and gun rights are better protected. I chose the latter and I think it's a bold faced lie to say this is a gun confiscation bill. Also keep in mind that even the NRA supports ERPO laws when the changes we made are included. NRA's Gun Violence Restraining Order Support: A Good Move | National Review
You have every right to be a single issue voter, but please bear in mind that I have a far left opponent who would not only vote for the original version of this bill but will also support another bill coming up that would ban all semi-automatic weapons. Please keep that in mind as she also supports sanctuary cities and a sanctuary state. I'm sure you know where I stand on those issues."
 
Lol so the NRA supports this bullshit too? with "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

Can't say I'm surprised though. So basically, those a**h***s are helping shitberg make ERPO another lautenberg... great.

-Mike
 
Oh, Keiko, this state doesn't lock up armed heroin dealers who are multi time offenders, do you really expect us to take comfort in "severe penalties" for a false report?

Also, she is basically saying, if you don't vote for me, the alternative is a lot worse.

I have to ask how that is?

Anyone who has been involved in a divorce knows that nobody is every tried for perjury even if it can be proved that they lied in court, lied to get a 209A, etc. Same thing here, they could write in life in prison for lying and still nobody would ever go to jail over it and likely never even face any prosecution. This is just the "one more law" will solve everything mentality that is rampant in the Mass legislature.

Liars, all of them.

But then again, how does one know when a politician is lying?

Easy, their lips are moving.
 
Here's the response I got from Len Mirra (we had several phone conversations and email exchanges) - basically throws GOAL under the bus, says it was going to pass anyway so why not vote for it and his opponent is even worse then he is....

I dunno - were the amendments that actually got approved any improvement at all ? For instance I thought the penasties for a false report were actually lowered ?

P

"I'm a member of GOAL and I received the same email that I'm guessing you received; it's full of lies and distortions. They continue to send these emails because it results in increased donations and memberships. Their recent emails are nothing more than fund drives, playing upon the current emotional climate.

The original bill was very flawed and that's why the language was changed in two separate committees, and then changed again on the day it was passed, so it's totally untrue to say our amendments were not accepted. It's even more of a lie to say it doesn't recognize due process. One of the main changes was to actually improve due process over current laws. Right now a police chief can confiscate your license and your guns on mere supposition; he can deem you "unsuitable" based on his own opinions. This ERPO law requires a person to appear before a judge, and produce credible evidence, before an ERPO can be used. Additionally, it provides additional avenues for appeals, and time limits on having a hearing. We also changed the wording so that a court can have discretion to order an ERPO for "up to" a year instead of a blanket one year order. We also expressed concerns over a person using false allegations to have an ERPO served, so we put in penalties for anyone who does that.
As I explained to you before, this bill had broad support and was going to pass regardless of what a small number of us said or did. So we had two choices: we could make a symbolic vote against the original bill and end up with a deeply flawed law, or we could work with the majority and get the bill improved so that due process and gun rights are better protected. I chose the latter and I think it's a bold faced lie to say this is a gun confiscation bill. Also keep in mind that even the NRA supports ERPO laws when the changes we made are included. NRA's Gun Violence Restraining Order Support: A Good Move | National Review
You have every right to be a single issue voter, but please bear in mind that I have a far left opponent who would not only vote for the original version of this bill but will also support another bill coming up that would ban all semi-automatic weapons. Please keep that in mind as she also supports sanctuary cities and a sanctuary state. I'm sure you know where I stand on those issues."

I said this before in less explicit terms, but this just confirms it.

An ERPO bill of some kind was GOING to pass whether we liked it or not. You could have read the political tea leaves over a month ago and known it. It is conceptually and messaging wise too much of a "reasonable" bill for it not to.

GOAL could have focused on fixing the lack of due process and pushed for changes that would bring it in line with Florida's bill, which would make it basically neutral relative to current law. Instead they opposed it root and branch, accomplished nothing in terms of improving the bill, came off as extremists, and alienated allies.

The "make this a mental health bill" stuff, to anyone in this state's political establishment, came off as a sideshow and a distraction. It was never going to work. I know lots and lots of people in the "squishy middle" in this state ideologically who saw that argument as absolute gobbeldygook. These are persuadable people; once I explained the due process arguments they understood. But you're not going to sell them on "a law getting guns out of the hands of dangerous people is a bad thing unless paired with a mental health bill."

Next time a bill comes up that really matters, we'll have fewer allies, and the people that might otherwise be open to GOAL's message will be much less likely to listen, having been insulted and thrown under the bus.
 
[Quoting Len Mirra]
Right now a police chief can confiscate your license and your guns on mere supposition; he can deem you "unsuitable" based on his own opinions. This ERPO law requires a person to appear before a judge, and produce credible evidence, before an ERPO can be used.


If ERPOs replaced suitability I'd be all for it. Once we get ERPO laws on the books, certainly the legislature will make LTCs shall-issue with no restrictions, right? What's he have to say about that?
 
Back
Top Bottom