The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885

Picton said:
I’d just noncomply even harder, daddy.

The timing of that preamble, plus statements of hers regarding the repeal effort, would all become something to be litigated. “Oh… it wasn’t an emergency the day you signed it, but two weeks later it was? With a repeal effort starting in the interim? Hmm.”
Click to expand...
The ends always justifies the means with progressives. Meanwhile, a lot of conservatives are always looking for the highroad.
 
Picton said:
I’d just noncomply even harder, daddy.

The timing of that preamble, plus statements of hers regarding the repeal effort, would all become something to be litigated. “Oh… it wasn’t an emergency the day you signed it, but two weeks later it was? With a repeal effort starting in the interim? Hmm.”
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's such an emergency that they don't even have the registration system, the roster and the new training course done yet.
 
not new guy said:
These douchebags have a paywall in front of this article, but someone mentions a preamble in it per google.

www.statehousenews.com

Healey "Absolutely" Opposes Suspension Of New Gun Law

Gov. Maura Healey said Monday she would oppose gun owners' potential effort to suspend a new firearm safety law as part of their longer-term strategy to repeal the legislation through
www.statehousenews.com www.statehousenews.com

So it sounds like she can still file the emergency preamble if it looks like the referendum might happen. The preamble will prevent it from being suspended.
Click to expand...

“ [A separate vote shall be taken on the preamble by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be recorded, and unless the preamble is adopted by two-thirds of the members of each house voting thereon, the law shall not be an emergency law; but] if the governor, at any time before the election at which it is to be submitted to the people on referendum,”

This certainly makes it sound like emergency preambles for referendums is for laws potentially being enacted by referendum, not laws up for repeal by referendum.

But, not a lawyer.
 
And Away We Go

Massachusetts Attorney General Seeks Guidance from Chapter 135 Supporters to Determine if the Referendum to Repeal the Law Meets Constitutional Standards!
August 13, 2024​

On August 12, 2024 the ten original signers to initiate a referendum petition to repeal Chapter 135 received an email from the Massachusetts Attorney General. (See Below) The email explained that the Secretary of the Commonwealth had asked the Attorney General to make a ruling on whether the proposed referendum complies with Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. It is a very simple determination that the Attorney General should be capable of discerning in a few minutes. Instead, the Attorney General’s office has sought guidance on the matter from a host of outside sources, many of which likely had a hand in writing the new law.
“It is confusing that the Attorney General would be seeking opinions from the very people that likely wrote Chapter 135. The AGs only job right now is to determine if the petition meets Constitutional standards, which it clearly does,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL and first signer of the referendum. “Why in the world would the AG need the input of anti-civil rights organizations to interpret a Constitution she is supposed to fully understand and protect?”
It would appear that the Attorney General is trying to find an excuse to deny the petition. From her email she is likely looking for support from the anti-civil rights groups to back such a position. Like most of the history of Chapter 135, the bulk of the “process” is questionable at best.
Should the Attorney General deny the petition, we will be seeking legal action.
Other than the original signers of the petition, the AG is seeking opinions from:
· Mass Chiefs
· Fraternal Order of Police
· Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
· Everytown
· Giffords
· Brady United
· Gary Klein Consulting (Former AG staffer who authored the 2016 AW piece.)
· MA Executive Office of Public Safety
Email from the Attorney General Staff (MA):

As you may be aware, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has asked the Attorney General to opine whether the referendum filed on Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 (“An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws”) complies with the constitutional standards set forth for referenda in Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. I will be coordinating the Attorney General’s review of that inquiry with my colleague Phoebe Fischer-Groban. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as a person or entity who may wish to provide input on the question whether Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 is a law that may be the subject of a referendum. Please be advised that the Attorney General’s review is limited to whether the law may be the subject of a referendum under Amendment Article 48, and will not extend to policy or other legal or constitutional considerations. In addition, the Attorney General is charged with preparing a “fair and concise summary” of the law.

Because this matter is time-sensitive, if you wish to provide input on the question whether this law may properly be the subject of a referendum, please do so by email on or before Wednesday, August 14, 2024. We appreciate your confining any input to the narrow legal question before us. We will also solicit input on our draft summary of the law when we are ready to do so; if you wish to submit your own draft summary for our consideration prior to that, please also do so ASAP. If you are aware of any other otherwise interested parties, please let me know so I can include them in this process, or feel free to forward this message to them.

Kindly reply-all with all future correspondence on these petitions, to facilitate an open process where you have the opportunity to respond to the other’s input, to the extent possible within our time constraints. And of course, please reach out with any questions about the process.
 
Harry Christopher said:
And Away We Go

Massachusetts Attorney General Seeks Guidance from Chapter 135 Supporters to Determine if the Referendum to Repeal the Law Meets Constitutional Standards!
August 13, 2024​

On August 12, 2024 the ten original signers to initiate a referendum petition to repeal Chapter 135 received an email from the Massachusetts Attorney General. (See Below) The email explained that the Secretary of the Commonwealth had asked the Attorney General to make a ruling on whether the proposed referendum complies with Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. It is a very simple determination that the Attorney General should be capable of discerning in a few minutes. Instead, the Attorney General’s office has sought guidance on the matter from a host of outside sources, many of which likely had a hand in writing the new law.
“It is confusing that the Attorney General would be seeking opinions from the very people that likely wrote Chapter 135. The AGs only job right now is to determine if the petition meets Constitutional standards, which it clearly does,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL and first signer of the referendum. “Why in the world would the AG need the input of anti-civil rights organizations to interpret a Constitution she is supposed to fully understand and protect?”
It would appear that the Attorney General is trying to find an excuse to deny the petition. From her email she is likely looking for support from the anti-civil rights groups to back such a position. Like most of the history of Chapter 135, the bulk of the “process” is questionable at best.
Should the Attorney General deny the petition, we will be seeking legal action.
Other than the original signers of the petition, the AG is seeking opinions from:
· Mass Chiefs
· Fraternal Order of Police
· Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
· Everytown
· Giffords
· Brady United
· Gary Klein Consulting (Former AG staffer who authored the 2016 AW piece.)
· MA Executive Office of Public Safety
Email from the Attorney General Staff (MA):

As you may be aware, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has asked the Attorney General to opine whether the referendum filed on Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 (“An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws”) complies with the constitutional standards set forth for referenda in Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. I will be coordinating the Attorney General’s review of that inquiry with my colleague Phoebe Fischer-Groban. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as a person or entity who may wish to provide input on the question whether Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 is a law that may be the subject of a referendum. Please be advised that the Attorney General’s review is limited to whether the law may be the subject of a referendum under Amendment Article 48, and will not extend to policy or other legal or constitutional considerations. In addition, the Attorney General is charged with preparing a “fair and concise summary” of the law.

Because this matter is time-sensitive, if you wish to provide input on the question whether this law may properly be the subject of a referendum, please do so by email on or before Wednesday, August 14, 2024. We appreciate your confining any input to the narrow legal question before us. We will also solicit input on our draft summary of the law when we are ready to do so; if you wish to submit your own draft summary for our consideration prior to that, please also do so ASAP. If you are aware of any other otherwise interested parties, please let me know so I can include them in this process, or feel free to forward this message to them.

Kindly reply-all with all future correspondence on these petitions, to facilitate an open process where you have the opportunity to respond to the other’s input, to the extent possible within our time constraints. And of course, please reach out with any questions about the process.
Click to expand...
They are allowing 1 day for input to decide what to do? Now who's panicking!
 
Harry Christopher said:
And Away We Go

Massachusetts Attorney General Seeks Guidance from Chapter 135 Supporters to Determine if the Referendum to Repeal the Law Meets Constitutional Standards!
August 13, 2024​

On August 12, 2024 the ten original signers to initiate a referendum petition to repeal Chapter 135 received an email from the Massachusetts Attorney General. (See Below) The email explained that the Secretary of the Commonwealth had asked the Attorney General to make a ruling on whether the proposed referendum complies with Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. It is a very simple determination that the Attorney General should be capable of discerning in a few minutes. Instead, the Attorney General’s office has sought guidance on the matter from a host of outside sources, many of which likely had a hand in writing the new law.
“It is confusing that the Attorney General would be seeking opinions from the very people that likely wrote Chapter 135. The AGs only job right now is to determine if the petition meets Constitutional standards, which it clearly does,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL and first signer of the referendum. “Why in the world would the AG need the input of anti-civil rights organizations to interpret a Constitution she is supposed to fully understand and protect?”
It would appear that the Attorney General is trying to find an excuse to deny the petition. From her email she is likely looking for support from the anti-civil rights groups to back such a position. Like most of the history of Chapter 135, the bulk of the “process” is questionable at best.
Should the Attorney General deny the petition, we will be seeking legal action.
Other than the original signers of the petition, the AG is seeking opinions from:
· Mass Chiefs
· Fraternal Order of Police
· Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
· Everytown
· Giffords
· Brady United
· Gary Klein Consulting (Former AG staffer who authored the 2016 AW piece.)
· MA Executive Office of Public Safety
Email from the Attorney General Staff (MA):

As you may be aware, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has asked the Attorney General to opine whether the referendum filed on Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 (“An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws”) complies with the constitutional standards set forth for referenda in Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. I will be coordinating the Attorney General’s review of that inquiry with my colleague Phoebe Fischer-Groban. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as a person or entity who may wish to provide input on the question whether Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 is a law that may be the subject of a referendum. Please be advised that the Attorney General’s review is limited to whether the law may be the subject of a referendum under Amendment Article 48, and will not extend to policy or other legal or constitutional considerations. In addition, the Attorney General is charged with preparing a “fair and concise summary” of the law.

Because this matter is time-sensitive, if you wish to provide input on the question whether this law may properly be the subject of a referendum, please do so by email on or before Wednesday, August 14, 2024. We appreciate your confining any input to the narrow legal question before us. We will also solicit input on our draft summary of the law when we are ready to do so; if you wish to submit your own draft summary for our consideration prior to that, please also do so ASAP. If you are aware of any other otherwise interested parties, please let me know so I can include them in this process, or feel free to forward this message to them.

Kindly reply-all with all future correspondence on these petitions, to facilitate an open process where you have the opportunity to respond to the other’s input, to the extent possible within our time constraints. And of course, please reach out with any questions about the process.
Click to expand...
Hey Dimples, does the bill meet constitutional standards? Specifically Article 17 of the Massachusetts Constitution, you f***ing window licker.
 
Harry Christopher said:
And Away We Go

Massachusetts Attorney General Seeks Guidance from Chapter 135 Supporters to Determine if the Referendum to Repeal the Law Meets Constitutional Standards!
August 13, 2024​

On August 12, 2024 the ten original signers to initiate a referendum petition to repeal Chapter 135 received an email from the Massachusetts Attorney General. (See Below) The email explained that the Secretary of the Commonwealth had asked the Attorney General to make a ruling on whether the proposed referendum complies with Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. It is a very simple determination that the Attorney General should be capable of discerning in a few minutes. Instead, the Attorney General’s office has sought guidance on the matter from a host of outside sources, many of which likely had a hand in writing the new law.
“It is confusing that the Attorney General would be seeking opinions from the very people that likely wrote Chapter 135. The AGs only job right now is to determine if the petition meets Constitutional standards, which it clearly does,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL and first signer of the referendum. “Why in the world would the AG need the input of anti-civil rights organizations to interpret a Constitution she is supposed to fully understand and protect?”
It would appear that the Attorney General is trying to find an excuse to deny the petition. From her email she is likely looking for support from the anti-civil rights groups to back such a position. Like most of the history of Chapter 135, the bulk of the “process” is questionable at best.
Should the Attorney General deny the petition, we will be seeking legal action.
Other than the original signers of the petition, the AG is seeking opinions from:
· Mass Chiefs
· Fraternal Order of Police
· Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
· Everytown
· Giffords
· Brady United
· Gary Klein Consulting (Former AG staffer who authored the 2016 AW piece.)
· MA Executive Office of Public Safety
Email from the Attorney General Staff (MA):

As you may be aware, the Secretary of the Commonwealth has asked the Attorney General to opine whether the referendum filed on Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 (“An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws”) complies with the constitutional standards set forth for referenda in Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. I will be coordinating the Attorney General’s review of that inquiry with my colleague Phoebe Fischer-Groban. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as a person or entity who may wish to provide input on the question whether Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 is a law that may be the subject of a referendum. Please be advised that the Attorney General’s review is limited to whether the law may be the subject of a referendum under Amendment Article 48, and will not extend to policy or other legal or constitutional considerations. In addition, the Attorney General is charged with preparing a “fair and concise summary” of the law.

Because this matter is time-sensitive, if you wish to provide input on the question whether this law may properly be the subject of a referendum, please do so by email on or before Wednesday, August 14, 2024. We appreciate your confining any input to the narrow legal question before us. We will also solicit input on our draft summary of the law when we are ready to do so; if you wish to submit your own draft summary for our consideration prior to that, please also do so ASAP. If you are aware of any other otherwise interested parties, please let me know so I can include them in this process, or feel free to forward this message to them.

Kindly reply-all with all future correspondence on these petitions, to facilitate an open process where you have the opportunity to respond to the other’s input, to the extent possible within our time constraints. And of course, please reach out with any questions about the process.
Click to expand...
It’s a freaking clown show and we are the butt of the “joke”.

IMG_3180.jpeg
 
I assume an emergency preamble wouldn’t impact the clauses that have specific dates. It’s only the things that come into effect based on the 90 day rule.
 
MAJoe said:
I assume an emergency preamble wouldn’t impact the clauses that have specific dates. It’s only the things that come into effect based on the 90 day rule.
Click to expand...
IANL and others better versed please correct me. But I guess the current possible outcomes are:

AG is reviewing if they believe the referendum is meets MA constitution standards, so this is yes/no. No the referendum dies before it really gets going. Yes, it continues on for signatures.

If the AG doesn't stop it there then the referendum would continue, it can go on the ballot with enough sigs, but the Gov can decide weather to enact an emergency preamble on the referendum at any point. And it's not that a preamble in this circumstance enacts the law ASAP as if she had done so in July when signing the bill but rather prevents the referendum from suspending the Oct. "go live" of the law.

Does all that sound correct?
 
Last edited:
Yummy_SPAM said:
Please remember change.org petitions mostly mean nothing, dont confuse this with the actual signatures that will be needed to move forward the referendum.
Click to expand...

THIS!!!!

People will sign the change.org thing and think it's the real petition. It's not. I hate that it's out there.
 
Yummy_SPAM said:
Please remember change.org petitions mostly mean nothing, dont confuse this with the actual signatures that will be needed to move forward the referendum
Click to expand...

Yummy_SPAM said:
Please remember change.org petitions mostly mean nothing, dont confuse this with the actual signatures that will be needed to move forward the referendum.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification!
 
Yummy_SPAM said:
IANL and others better versed please correct me. But I guess the current possible outcomes are:

AG is reviewing if they believe the referendum is meets MA constitution standards, so this is yes/no. No the referendum dies before it really gets going. Yes, it continues on for signatures.

If the AG doesn't stop it there then the referendum would continue, it can go on the ballot with enough sigs, but the Gov can decide weather to enact an emergency preamble on the referendum at any point. And it's not that a preamble in this circumstance enacts the law ASAP as if she had done so in July when signing the bill but rather prevents the referendum from suspending the Oct. "go live" of the law.

Does all that sound correct?
Click to expand...
Thanks. I’ve done no research on this yet to know what it would mean. It’s a good lesson that this fight will not be straight forward.
 
If healy issues an emergency preamble now, that's just another nail in the coffin.
We the people have a right under the Mass constitution to so as we are doing.
The state is acting to prevent the use of a constitutional protected referendum vote by enacting an emergency preamble AFTER the required number of signatures to start the process.

The issue is the the courts will see guns and go blind to justice.
 
pastera said:
If healy issues an emergency preamble now, that's just another nail in the coffin.
We the people have a right under the Mass constitution to so as we are doing.
The state is acting to prevent the use of a constitutional protected referendum vote by enacting an emergency preamble AFTER the required number of signatures to start the process.

The issue is the the courts will see guns and go blind to justice.
Click to expand...
So, this preamble being brought up today would be in retaliation to the referendum gaining enough sigs. and pausing implementing in Oct and not to implement the law ASAP? If so, I would assume that GOAL would have thought this through as a possibility especially with the legislature and Gov. that we have.

So let's say the signatures are there, submitted and she issues her preamble. What's the next steps after that? Further suing the state or it's left to hoping the population would actually vote to repeal?
 
Yummy_SPAM said:
So, this preamble being brought up today would be in retaliation to the referendum gaining enough sigs. to pausing implementing in Oct and not to implement the law ASAP? If so, I would assume that GOAL would have thought this through as a possibility especially with the legislature and Gov. that we have.

So let's say the signatures are there, submitted and she issues her preamble. What's the next steps after that? Further suing the state or it's left to hoping the population would actually vote to repeal?
Click to expand...

IANAL, but I assume it'd be a separate lawsuit, though a state one and not a federal one. I would be surprised if this particular kind of question has ever come before the state SJC before; it's a pretty unlikely scenario overall. They might even enjoy ruling against the Governor on constitutional grounds, for precedent's sake, despite Gunz.

The population is 99.9999% unlikely to support repeal. Nobody on our side is hoping for that outcome. Our goal is delay.
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
39
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Fox News has gone woke?
Replies
11
Views
378
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The H&K P7 M13 is Coming Back? The P7 Pro at SHOT Show 2025!
2
Replies
59
Views
591
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Cam Edward's wife has passed away
Replies
3
Views
287
Reptile
Reptile
Holiday Deals Day 9: The Deals are STILL HERE — Don't Miss Out!
Replies
0
Views
56
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Back
Top Bottom