The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: mortdooley on October 26, 2012, 07:49:11 AM
-
No, I didn't throw my vote away on Gary Johnson but if he had a real chance I would have. It has been a long time since I have seen any Democrat worthy of my vote but that does not mean I vote a strait ticket. Anyone uncontested needs just one vote and I am sure they will vote for themselves so they have already won. The Libertarians were the Judges in the local races, my personal hope is they will try harder to follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights and be more like the Tea Party rather then the Republican insiders who are almost as bad as the Democrats!
I love early voting and I always review my choices before I cast my ballot because some people have reported that the choice for President will change on the voter from Mitt to Berry in rare instances!
-
Never vote for any Democrat.
I have repeatedly posted links to the Dem party platform, no matter how "blue" the dog is he/she would not belong to the party if they did not support the agenda.
They will also be kept in line with party campaign funding.
Every one with an ounce of sense agrees the "O" has to go which leaves no practical choice except Romney.
Any one who votes Romney for President and then votes for a dem Sen or Rep is wasting their time since Romney will not be able to fix anything with out Rep majorities in the House and Senate.
Normally I excoriate those who vote 3rd party because of the above facts, however your case is somewhat different since you did it in the local races where ;
A) it does not handicap Romney/Ryan, and
B) it gives momentum to a candidate who can join a major party if they want higher office.
-
I know what you're going to say, Tom, that I can't take a joke, right? Well I'm trying to figure out which one is the joke. Is it 'don't vote for anyone but Romney for President' or is it 'write in Bogan for President'? We can certainly agree on not voting for any Democrats at any level...national, state or local...because the local levels are what determine the infrastructure to be used for national level campaigns! Don't know if any of this makes a bit of difference here in MD where I have been gerrymandered out of my Republican District (one of only two in this state) into a solidly (2-1) Democrat District with a faggot loving, gun hating, Obama ass kissing, tax increaser Democrat Rep (Chris Van Hollen). And you should have seen how quickly some local businessmen (main cuppers) started kissing Van Hollen's ass after the gerrymander! How's things up in NH?
-
It's not bad in my district, the dems are running all retreads who already got canned once trying to win back seats they lost in 2010.
-
After 8 or more years of trying to get CC passed in Ohio with a Republican Gov., it finally happened but with so many 'poison pills' included it was a hazard...literally. You had to go from concealed to plain sight upon entering a vehicle and the reverse upon exiting.
We voted in a Dem. Gov. and he championed removing all the bad aspects and getting a Castle Doctrine and anti preemptive legislation passed. He did it all. Strengthened all manner of pro gun and hunting laws..
He was voted out (I helped do it) after one term when a decent Republican ran ....felt a bit sorry for him since he did what he promised...but he was still a Democrat.
-
I failed to get a picture of it, but at the range today was a car with a Obama/Biden sticker.
Surely I asked the staff in side the people were joking, right.
-
After 8 or more years of trying to get CC passed in Ohio with a Republican Gov., it finally happened but with so many 'poison pills' included it was a hazard...literally. You had to go from concealed to plain sight upon entering a vehicle and the reverse upon exiting.
We voted in a Dem. Gov. and he championed removing all the bad aspects and getting a Castle Doctrine and anti preemptive legislation passed. He did it all. Strengthened all manner of pro gun and hunting laws..
He was voted out (I helped do it) after one term when a decent Republican ran ....felt a bit sorry for him since he did what he promised...but he was still a Democrat.
Due respect Solus, but that kind of makes you a jerk and an idiot. If you vote the party, not the person, its because you're too busy to think. The old Southern Dems are now republicans, and the white liberals that used to vote GOP are now Dems. The party is just a label. Voting out a good pro-2A guy because he has the wrong party label is not only a dick move, but damn stupid. How eager is the next Dem governor (and sooner or later there will be one) to support gun rights if he knows guys like you are going to stab him in the back? That's just boneheaded and shortsighted man. We have to have support pro 2A folks in both parties, otherwise the 2A is up for grabs every election. Its a matter of which party wins. If both parties support it, it doesn't matter. Sorry for being harsh man, but you should have written the guy a check.
-
Due respect Solus, but that kind of makes you a jerk and an idiot. If you vote the party, not the person, its because you're too busy to think. The old Southern Dems are now republicans, and the white liberals that used to vote GOP are now Dems. The party is just a label. Voting out a good pro-2A guy because he has the wrong party label is not only a dick move, but damn stupid. How eager is the next Dem governor (and sooner or later there will be one) to support gun rights if he knows guys like you are going to stab him in the back? That's just boneheaded and shortsighted man. We have to have support pro 2A folks in both parties, otherwise the 2A is up for grabs every election. Its a matter of which party wins. If both parties support it, it doesn't matter. Sorry for being harsh man, but you should have written the guy a check.
Did you read what I posted above ?
Do you even know what the dem platform says about guns ?
-
Did you read what I posted above ?
Do you even know what the dem platform says about guns ?
Yep, and as usual I rolled my eyes. ;D We don't live in a world where politicians are bound by the platforms. Those days ended in the Sixties with primaries. The politicians are now entrepreneurs. They have to get their own votes, and the parties know this. Democrats Baucus and Testor are a hell of lot better advocates for the 2A than W. was. And they're miles ahead of a lot of GOP reps and Senators. The GOP platform is anti-choice, but there are plenty of pro-choice Republicans out there, even Mitt, (on even numbered days of the week ;)). And lets talk about a few other things. How about foreign trade, or border control, or defense policy, or the environment. (Gee, which Democratic President started the EPA...) Remember BO's stimulus was essentially an amped up version of the one put into place by Paulson under W. And, OBTW, Bloomberg was a freaking Republican until he wanted to be Mayor of NYC. And how much time has Christie spent trying to get CCW passed in New Jersey, can I have none for a thousand Alex? Are you seriously saying I should vote on a party platform that means virtually nothing if it conflicts with the politics of the district? That's Soviet Commissar type thinking.
-
Due respect Solus, but that kind of makes you a jerk and an idiot. If you vote the party, not the person, its because you're too busy to think. The old Southern Dems are now republicans, and the white liberals that used to vote GOP are now Dems. The party is just a label. Voting out a good pro-2A guy because he has the wrong party label is not only a dick move, but damn stupid. How eager is the next Dem governor (and sooner or later there will be one) to support gun rights if he knows guys like you are going to stab him in the back? That's just boneheaded and shortsighted man. We have to have support pro 2A folks in both parties, otherwise the 2A is up for grabs every election. Its a matter of which party wins. If both parties support it, it doesn't matter. Sorry for being harsh man, but you should have written the guy a check.
In each instance I voted for what the candidate offered, not the party. Just so happened the second time the Republican offered equivalent 2A support and was better aligned with my views on other issues than the Democrat.
Don't judge everyone by yourself.
-
In each instance I voted for what the candidate offered, not the party. Just so happened the second time the Republican offered equivalent 2A support and was better aligned with my views on other issues than the Democrat.
Don't judge everyone by yourself.
Not judging. But I am saying two things. First, in politics, you dance with who brung you. If you want a pol to be loyal to you, you return the favor. Its like being a regular at a diner. Second, we need to vote for pro 2A Dems, Tom's purist nonsense not withstanding, because if it comes down to guns=GOP, then the first time the GOP screws the pooch and gets thrown out of office (and it will happen, it always does), then we're screwed as we'll have no gun friendly Dems. We have to keep our feet in both camps.
Don't believe me? Look at the blacks. The Dems take them for granted and the GOP ignores them. Both parties however, are falling all over themselves to get the latino vote. Why? Because they could go either way depending on the candidate. That's where we need to be.
Sorry if I was too harsh Solus, I just feel strongly about this as I think its key to the long term survival of the 2A.
-
Not judging. But I am saying two things. First, in politics, you dance with who brung you. If you want a pol to be loyal to you, you return the favor. Its like being a regular at a diner. Second, we need to vote for pro 2A Dems, Tom's purist nonsense not withstanding, because if it comes down to guns=GOP, then the first time the GOP screws the pooch and gets thrown out of office (and it will happen, it always does), then we're screwed as we'll have no gun friendly Dems. We have to keep our feet in both camps.
Don't believe me? Look at the blacks. The Dems take them for granted and the GOP ignores them. Both parties however, are falling all over themselves to get the latino vote. Why? Because they could go either way depending on the candidate. That's where we need to be.
Sorry if I was too harsh Solus, I just feel strongly about this as I think its key to the long term survival of the 2A.
Quaker, I generally agree with your comments in this thread. I remember Michael Bane talking about the same thing a few years back.
If the Democrats want to know how to win virtually every election, they just need to go back to the big government/pro 2A party they were 50 - 60 years ago. There are enough socialists in this country who want their guns too, who will vote for a Dem if they espouse their support for the 2A in very tangible ways.
-
Quaker, I generally agree with your comments in this thread. I remember Michael Bane talking about the same thing a few years back.
If the Democrats want to know how to win virtually every election, they just need to go back to the big government/pro 2A party they were 50 - 60 years ago. There are enough socialists in this country who want their guns too, who will vote for a Dem if they espouse their support for the 2A in very tangible ways.
Big Govt is why we have $16 TRILLION in debt. It is also in direct conflict with the founders stated intentions.
Yep, and as usual I rolled my eyes. ;D We don't live in a world where politicians are bound by the platforms. Those days ended in the Sixties with primaries. The politicians are now entrepreneurs. They have to get their own votes, and the parties know this. Democrats Baucus and Testor are a hell of lot better advocates for the 2A than W. was. And they're miles ahead of a lot of GOP reps and Senators. The GOP platform is anti-choice, but there are plenty of pro-choice Republicans out there, even Mitt, (on even numbered days of the week ;)). And lets talk about a few other things. How about foreign trade, or border control, or defense policy, or the environment. (Gee, which Democratic President started the EPA...) Remember BO's stimulus was essentially an amped up version of the one put into place by Paulson under W. And, OBTW, Bloomberg was a freaking Republican until he wanted to be Mayor of NYC. And how much time has Christie spent trying to get CCW passed in New Jersey, can I have none for a thousand Alex? Are you seriously saying I should vote on a party platform that means virtually nothing if it conflicts with the politics of the district? That's Soviet Commissar type thinking.
Pretty much exactly what I expect from some one so poorly informed that he voted for Obama the last time around.
To much "learning" and not enough "thinking".
-
.............
Don't judge everyone by yourself.
Very astute Solus. The proven psychological observation of people gauging the world from the standpoint of their own subculture or individual viewpoint and tendency to think the people they meet or consider are like themselves is proven fact. Invariably, they want their preconceived notions to be correct for multiple reasons...it's easier, they never have to admit they are wrong, etc.
-
Very astute Solus. The proven psychological observation of people gauging the world from the standpoint of their own subculture or individual viewpoint and tendency to think the people they meet or consider are like themselves is proven fact. Invariably, they want their preconceived notions to be correct for multiple reasons...it's easier, they never have to admit they are wrong, etc.
And then there are those so ideologically rigid that they see the world in black and white, and won't listen to those who disagree with them. This is because such disagreement must be heresy, egregious error, or simply evil. Again, its easier then thinking, as thinking means entertaining the notion that they themselves could be wrong. And we can't have that now can we? It would be heretical. ::)
-
Not judging. But I am saying two things. First, in politics, you dance with who brung you. If you want a pol to be loyal to you, you return the favor. Its like being a regular at a diner. Second, we need to vote for pro 2A Dems, Tom's purist nonsense not withstanding, because if it comes down to guns=GOP, then the first time the GOP screws the pooch and gets thrown out of office (and it will happen, it always does), then we're screwed as we'll have no gun friendly Dems. We have to keep our feet in both camps.
Don't believe me? Look at the blacks. The Dems take them for granted and the GOP ignores them. Both parties however, are falling all over themselves to get the latino vote. Why? Because they could go either way depending on the candidate. That's where we need to be.
Sorry if I was too harsh Solus, I just feel strongly about this as I think its key to the long term survival of the 2A.
Position on the 2A is my primary concern when evaluating candidates...I figure if we are armed, we have the means to fix the worst mistakes we can make.
And while the 2A is most important, I am not quite a one issue voter.
If the person I came to the dance with keeps trying to pick my pocket, I'll dump them as soon as I can find another ride.
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I pay dues to the Libertarian party and have done so for around 20 years...
If we had the usual crappy Democrat and Republican candidates I'd be voting for Johnson. Instead we have what is probably the greatest threat to our country I'll ever experience running for President on the Democratic ticket and the usual crap on the Republican ticket. I've chosen the usual crap as it has the best chance to defeat BO.
If a Libertarian was running for Governor, I'd have voted for them in every election, assuming they hadn't proven to be a LINO (which would give them no advantage, so it isn't likely), since they would match my views on more issues than any other party.
Since no Libertarian was running, I picked the best of what was offered and felt no obligation to support what I saw as a lesser candidate the next time around of of some type of loyalty.
As for Ted Strickland not 'belonging' to the Democratic party program, here are some links that might show more.... I have not watched them since I know what he was about...so I'll not 'filter' what I post here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw9Y7b8kvK0
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/ted-strickland-sets-crowd-on-fire-with-anti-romney-jeremiad.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/ted-strickland-speech-text_n_1853071.html
-
My apologies Solus. I came off a lot harsher than I meant too. (I might have mistook you for Tom, it was late at night ;D). I just really believe that allowing guns to become a partisan issue is a recipe for disaster.
-
My apologies Solus. I came off a lot harsher than I meant too. (I might have mistook you for Tom, it was late at night ;D). I just really believe that allowing guns to become a partisan issue is a recipe for disaster.
Wake up and smell the Hoppe's dude.
Guns have been a partisan issue for decades, it's not our choice.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation
What part of "Shall not be infringed do they not get ?
Chuck Shumer D
Carolyn McCarthy D
Bill Clinton D (AWB )
Hillary Clinton D (UN small arms treaty)
http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill
I could go on but I've made my point.
-
Ronald Reagan (R) allowed a ban on F/A fire arms made post '86. Its why you'll pay $15 K for a crappy M-16 A2 rather than the $1000 it should cost.
George W. Bush (R) was going to extend the AWB until his own party, and Dems like Baucus, threatened him into reversing his position.
A party label doesn't make you pro-2A. Its the person, not the party. And if you think Mitt (who I'm voting for) won't flip flop and sell us out in a heart beat on the 2A if he thinks it will work for him, you're delusional.
FQ
-
Ronald Reagan (R) allowed a ban on F/A fire arms made post '86. Its why you'll pay $15 K for a crappy M-16 A2 rather than the $1000 it should cost.
George W. Bush (R) was going to extend the AWB until his own party, and Dems like Baucus, threatened him into reversing his position.
A party label doesn't make you pro-2A. Its the person, not the party. And if you think Mitt (who I'm voting for) won't flip flop and sell us out in a heart beat on the 2A if he thinks it will work for him, you're delusional.
FQ
And the idiot that YOU helped vote into office went on record in the last debate of going after gun rights! So now it is time to quit living in the past and move on!
-
Ronald Reagan (R) allowed a ban on F/A fire arms made post '86. Its why you'll pay $15 K for a crappy M-16 A2 rather than the $1000 it should cost.
George W. Bush (R) was going to extend the AWB until his own party, and Dems like Baucus, threatened him into reversing his position.
A party label doesn't make you pro-2A. Its the person, not the party. And if you think Mitt (who I'm voting for) won't flip flop and sell us out in a heart beat on the 2A if he thinks it will work for him, you're delusional.
FQ
As much as I love the Gipper, the unconstitutional ban on new F/A weapons signed into law by him is a blemish on his record. And you forgot to mention that George H.W. Bush put in place the silly regulations about imports of foreign military style weapons and he appointed David Souter (one of the dissenting votes in Heller) to SCOTUS. And Richard Nixon appointed John Paul Stevens, another dissenting vote in Heller to SCOTUS.
This has been my BIG warning about Romney. He is not a solid lock on pro-gun issues based upon his past statements and record. Just because he paid $1000 to become a life member of the NRA, means nothing. He could drop that much on the ground and never miss it. Should he win, I believe we will have to be even more vigilant because the temptation for him to "reach across the aisle" and work with Dems on some other issue he believes is more important. Our rights could become collateral damage in the process.
-
if you think Mitt (who I'm voting for) won't flip flop and sell us out in a heart beat on the 2A if he thinks it will work for him, you're delusional.
FQ
This has been my BIG warning about Romney. He is not a solid lock on pro-gun issues based upon his past statements and record.
Neither of you know what you are talking about.
GOAL is the Ma. State gun rights organization, they support Romney wholeheartedly.
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
The Romney Record
A Look at Governor Mitt Romney's Record as Governor of Massachusetts as it Relates to the Gun Owners and Sportsmen of Our State
Prepared by: Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) - February 2007
Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts from January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007
General Comments
In the first months of the Romney administration the Governor isolated himself to all but a handful of close advisors most of whom came from the business community. This caused the Governor to make some rather serious political missteps that could have been avoided through better communications. However, relations dramatically improved and in the end, GOAL had more access to this administration than any other since the days of Governor Ed King in 1979.
The two major events that eventually led to this improved relationship were the raid on the Inland Fisheries & Game Fund in 2003 and a botched press conference/bill signing in 2004. Both situations are outlined in this report.
While at the time these events greatly angered GOAL members, the result was much improved access to the Governor’s office and his staff. During the following years, senior level Romney staffers met on a monthly basis with GOAL’s Executive Director to discuss and work on any issues relevant to GOAL’s members. This should not be taken as an indication that GOAL “controlled” the corner office, but rather that a very good working relationship was developed that benefited both parties.
Legislation: During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk.
Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows.
Budgetary: In the Governor’s first year, he made a political error when he submitted a budget that did away with the Inland Fisheries & Game Fund. (More of this is explained below.) Fortunately, after this matter was resolved, GOAL was able to establish better communications with the Governor’s office. In working with the legislature and the Governor we were able to restore the Fund and increase the money released from it to better manage the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Over the next three years, GOAL was also successful in getting some “capital revenue” released to acquire land for the Division.
Regulations: During his administration, the Executive Office of Public Safety passed a new regulation providing free replacement of firearm licenses to those who had them stolen or lost. (A resident license fee in Massachusetts at that time was $100 every 6 years.) Prior to this new regulation a citizen would have to repeat the entire application process and pay the whole fee to acquire a replacement license.
Policy: His administration conducted a review of the state’s Environmental Police agency (Game Wardens). One major concern was to keep in place the hiring requirement that officers needed to have some environmental education background not strictly law enforcement. This was a policy that GOAL worked to support.
Fees: In 2003 Governor Romney filed budgetary language to raise firearm license fees from $25 to $75. That year the legislature actually raised them to $100 in the General Appropriations bill (Section 34 of Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2003). At that time a resident license was good for 4 years. In 2004 a law was passed increasing the license term to 6 years.
In 2005, Governor Romney waived the administrative fees for the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Fund. The state currently charges these fees that were as much as 36% a year. Gun Owners’ Action League worked with environmental organizations to urge the Governor to temporarily waive the fees until permanent legislation could be passed to do away with the fees all together.
Appointments: One of the agencies that GOAL watches very closely is the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. This agency is run by a strong seven-person board. The appointments to this board are spread out over several years so that drastic changes cannot be made to it in any given year. During his administration, Governor Romney made five appointments to this board. All of the individuals appointed to the board were supported by GOAL.
Proclamations: During his administration, Governor Romney issued a proclamation declaring May 7, 2005 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day”. The proclamation was issued on this date to coincide with GOAL’s Annual Banquet.
* It should be noted for readers of this report that are not familiar with Massachusetts politics that the titles of the legislation do not always reflect the intent. For instance the bill entitled “An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons” was actually a pro-Second Amendment bill that began the process of reforming the state’s gun laws.
Chapter 101 of the Acts of 2003: An Act Relative to the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund
In Mitt Romney’s first budget as governor in 2003 he proposed that the state do away with all of the “minor funds” within the state’s accounting system. At the time there were around 80 or so minor funds dealing with all sorts of government programs. The Massachusetts House and Senate followed suit.
As a result of this the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund, considered a "minor fund", was done away with and all the money was diverted into the General Fund in an attempt to balance the state budget. The Inland Fisheries and Game Fund is where all of the sporting license fees (hunting, fishing, trapping, etc.) are deposited. Unknowingly the Governor had touched what is referred to as a “Third Rail” in politics.
The Inland Fisheries and Game Fund is considered to be sacred among sportsmen, conservationists and environmentalist in Massachusetts. The Fund, which was created by sportsmen, accounts for over 90% of the review that our Fish & Wildlife Agency operates on. The dedicated Fund was also necessary under federal law if the state wanted to take advantage of matching money from the federal government.
As a result of the action, a coalition of sportsmen, conservationists and environmentalist formed the Massachusetts Conservation Alliance (MCA) to rescue the fund. After several months of lobbying the legislature and the Governor’s office, the MCA was successful in the re-instatement of the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund. The Governor signed the re-instatement legislation into law in October of 2003.
Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004: An Act Further Regulating Certain Weapons
This is a perfect example of don’t believe in titles. The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the “assault weapon” ban that had sunset at the federal level. They could not have been more wrong. Unfortunately for the Governor, someone had also wrongly briefed him about the bill. As a result the Lt. Governor and the Governor made statements at the bill signing ceremony that angered GOAL members. The following is what the bill actually did:
1. Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.
For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.
2. Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.
3. Extended the term of the state’s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.
4. Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.
In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.
5. Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.
6. Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.
7. Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.
8. Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driver’s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3” x 4”.
9. Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.
Chapter 137 of the Acts of 2005: An Act Relative to a Loaded Shotgun or Rifle
Prior to this bill passing there were two different laws on the books in Massachusetts that defined what a loaded muzzle loader was. This bill corrected the language in the laws so that now both provide that if the priming device is removed, the muzzle loader is considered unloaded. Although this bill sounds like a “no brainer” it took nearly 5 years to pass.
Chapter 137 of the Acts of 2006: An Act Removing Automatic Qualifications for Certain Licenses
The Hunter Education bill, S.469, was signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney on July 6, 2006.
The new law will require that all first time hunters complete a hunter education course prior to being issued a hunting or sporting license. This was already the law prior to very confusing language that was passed in SECTION 7 of Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998. GOAL successfully had an amendment included to amend the bill to “grandfather” anyone who has been issued a license prior to January 1, 2007.
Chapter 177 of the Acts of 2006: An Act Further Regulating the Use of Target Shooting Weapons
As part of the 1998 law the Massachusetts legislature passed severe restrictions on the sale of handguns in Massachusetts by creating an absurd list of testing requirements that all handguns must be subjected to before being eligible for sale in the state. At the same time, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office fraudulently used the consumer protection laws of the state to do the same thing. Because of these actions, high grade target pistols could not be sold in Massachusetts. This bill addressed that issue.
This is what the new law does:
Provides that any firearm lawfully owned or possessed under a license issued under this chapter on or before October 21, 1998 would be exempt from the testing criteria. This language was passed into law in Section 79 of the Acts of 1998, but was never actually placed into the statutes. This law now established this exemption in Chapter 140.
Instructs the Executive Office of Public Safety, with the advice of the Gun Control Advisory Board, to create a list of formal target shooting firearms that shall be exempt from the testing criteria. This process will be similar to how the approved roster works.
EOPS passed 501 CMR 9.00 a regulation to provide free replacement licenses.
During his administration, the Executive Office of Public Safety approved a new regulation providing free replacement firearm licenses to those who had them stolen or lost. (A resident license fee in Massachusetts at that time was $100 every 6 years.) Prior to this regulation being created a citizen would have to repeat the entire application process and pay the entire fee to acquire a replacement license.
Chapter 48 of the Acts of 2006: An Act Reducing Gang Violence (Section 6 – committing or concealing a crime)
Although this particular legislation was not a GOAL bill, we list it here because there were several anti-Second Amendment sections in the original draft. The legislative sponsors of the bill, GOAL, and the Romney administration all worked together to remove any bad sections. We were successful in doing so and actually came up with some new language that more effectively went after the criminal element.
-
Oh for the simple life here in MD. The NRA graded all MD Democrats running for office this year with an "F", except for one and she refused to return her questionaire so she got a "?". Let us not forget that whoever wins the Presidential Election that he will more than likely get to select at least one and probably two Supreme Court Justices. That could completely reverse the Court's 5-4 pro 2A ratio. As I have stated in the past, it's the 2A that protects 1A, 3A, 4A...10A (the one reserves power to the states). If 2A goes, then this republic is over.
I have watched my Democrat Senators and all the Democrat Representatives for this state vote 100% for Obama's agenda and expect them to follow that agenda and the party line forever. I and countless others have emailed, called, tweeted and facebooked them on 2A matters and they completely ignore us. So, where I stand definitely depends on where I sit and right now I sit in MD. I'm with Tom on this issue.
-
Tom,
I read the GOAL item before and went back to read it again to see if I missed something. It seems in MA they have European style firearms regulations, which is completely alien to me here in FL. For instance, the idea I have to have license to purchase a firearm is absolutely ridiculous.
I understand the people at GOAL are proud of their accomplishments given the political climate in that state. But from my perspective it's like bragging that you went from the inner most ring of Hell to just one level up - you are still in Hell! For Mitt Romney to go around the country and use that as reassurance to me, as a gun owner, is not comforting.
Mitt Romney is a deal maker. He has been one all of his professional career and he is very good at it. I think he's a slicker version of John McCain and Lindsay Graham. He really is our version of "Slick Willy" Clinton. We'll have to see if he acts like him once he is in office. I don't foresee any Lewinsky tales either, so let me get that straight...
I have to say this again, when you place your faith on the party label to assure yourself of your 2A rights, you are really playing the percentages. I would say you have better odds with the Republicans, but as history has shown, it is not absolute. Just remind yourself of David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and John Roberts - all appointed by Republican presidents. All three voted in cases before them to undermine our constitution in different ways.
If Romney wins, don't go to sleep and think you can relax.
-
You are totally missing the point.
He did that stuff despite having an anti gun dem majority legislature. (Think lots of Barney Franks and Ted Kennedy wanna be's )
-
So, if I write in Tom and TT in 2012 am I voting Obama? Just askin'. ;D
-
Do you think TT and I have a realistic chance to beat Obama and Romney both ?
If not then yes you are helping Obama by depriving Romney of a vote.
To be honest I should have deleted that after the convention since we were not nominated.
-
And the idiot that YOU helped vote into office went on record in the last debate of going after gun rights! So now it is time to quit living in the past and move on!
Not that there is anything wrong in this instance, but you wonder why some in this nation persist to support democrats by refusing to support obvious truth; I don't know, it could be denial. There's a good link to that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial)
One of the really interesting defensive aspects of denial is that allows one to not be responsible. There's an epidemic of that going on here in the USA these days. Could it be support for liberals could be called the Chris Matthews Syndrome?
-
I read the GOAL item before and went back to read it again to see if I missed something. It seems in MA they have European style firearms regulations, which is completely alien to me here in FL. For instance, the idea I have to have license to purchase a firearm is absolutely ridiculous.
It's much the same in CT these days. You must have a "permit" to purchase a handgun in CT too!
I've been supporting Willard from pretty much the beginning and I voted for him for governor as well! The licensing in MA was adopted well before Romney was elected, he managed to convince the communists in the state house to extend the length of time the license was valid, allow a grace period for renewal and several others already covered in Tom's post from GOAL.
Believe it or not, there are several states that have more restrictive laws than MA! Consider MD, NY, NJ, IL, WI, CA for example! Hell, even CT considers a shot gun with a pistol grip or extended mag tube a "dangerous" weapon and have outlawed them! Most of you have them! Are they any more dangerous leaning in the corner than my American Walnut 870 Wingmaster? I think not...
Will I rest with Willard in the White House?
NOT A FUGGING CHANCE!
After all, he's a lawyer and a politician...
-
Not that there is anything wrong in this instance, but you wonder why some in this nation persist to support democrats by refusing to support obvious truth; I don't know, it could be denial. There's a good link to that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial)
One of the really interesting defensive aspects of denial is that allows one to not be responsible. There's an epidemic of that going on here in the USA these days. Could it be support for liberals could be called the Chris Matthews Syndrome?
Very good points, but in this case and with this person I lean toward "deflection."
When a person does something with unintended consequences and they are not mature enough to admit their participation in the consequences they deflect attacks aimed at them or their action. The more a person does this the better they get at aiming these deflections and turning them into attacks on their accusers:
A person votes for BHO for President of the United States of America, and when Pres. BHO begins attacking our Constitutionally protected Rights there is the denial you point out. However, when those that recognize the consequences begin to point out the error the offender, FQ in my post, begins to deflect those attacks toward areas treasured by many citizens and the attackers specifically.
The danger in this battle is that the time and energy wasted in defending the denial and fighting with and against the deflections fragments those who should be allies. This thread, like everyone on this topic in the past, has lead to attacking our former supporters for their errors, in my opinion, and the admission of lost hope in our system.
These events should bring us together and galvanize us - coat us with experience gone good and gone bad to provide a hard shell that protects what we truly stand for. Instead it strengthens us all as we split into fragments that rather than work together, we fight each other. The next step is the ideological third party vote that puts Pres. BHO back in office.
As I said in a previous post, it is time to quit living in the past and start moving forward. We need to remember the past so we don't relive it. But, we need to quit using it as ammunition to deflect items thrown at us.
-
M58.
I agree on the working toghther part. I too will vote for Mitt as Fl. Is very much in play. But deflection? Which one of us here is ignoring that their team did some bad stuff? You act like it never happened and its heresy to point it out. Thats just BS my friend. The point of my post is that just because someone has an R after their name doesn't mean they're pro-gun and that there are plenty of pro-gun Dems. You need to lay off the Koolaid and get that.
-
Not that there is anything wrong in this instance, but you wonder why some in this nation persist to support democrats by refusing to support obvious truth; I don't know, it could be denial. There's a good link to that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial)
One of the really interesting defensive aspects of denial is that allows one to not be responsible. There's an epidemic of that going on here in the USA these days. Could it be support for liberals could be called the Chris Matthews Syndrome?
Damn.
And here I thought it was just a river in Egypt .
M58.
I agree on the working toghther part. I too will vote for Mitt as Fl. Is very much in play. But deflection? Which one of us here is ignoring that their team did some bad stuff? You act like it never happened and its heresy to point it out. Thats just BS my friend. The point of my post is that just because someone has an R after their name doesn't mean they're pro-gun and that there are plenty of pro-gun Dems. You need to lay off the Koolaid and get that.
By "unintended consequences do you mean like Reagan shipping all those arms to Afghanistan that are now being used against us ?
Oops, that was an under the radar operation by Charlie Wilson.
A DemocRAT .
-
Here's my take, not that it matters much.
If they outlaw guns, I'll be an outlaw because I'm not giving mine up...
I don't believe in the fundamental foundation of the DNC and their infatuation for big government! I've voted for one Democrat in my entire lifetime as I recall and he left the party recently. I'll never, ever, ever, ever vote for another even if he's related to me and handing out handguns at his rally's!
The US Constitution is what matters, not just the 2nd Amendment but all 27 of them!
-
Here's my take, not that it matters much.
If they outlaw guns, I'll be an outlaw because I'm not giving mine up...
I don't believe in the fundamental foundation of the DNC and their infatuation for big government! I've voted for one Democrat in my entire lifetime as I recall and he left the party recently. I'll never, ever, ever, ever vote for another even if he's related to me and handing out handguns at his rally's!
The US Constitution is what matters, not just the 2nd Amendment but all 27 of them!
-
Shall I paraphrase Ben Franklin:
Democracy is two Democrats and one Republican voting on the 2A.
Liberty is an armed Republican contesting the vote!
There's your choice. For me, I'd rather be the Armed Republican.