Hearing Wednesday in Boston

[FlyFish]

While I wish you all the best, there's a time to stand and fight and a time to cut and run, and in the [lost] case of Massachusetts it's time to run as quickly as you can - it will make both you and the majority of MA residents happier. I spent all but three years of my career living in MA, kept there by a good job, aging parents, and (frankly) my own inertia. I knew one day, as soon as I was able, I was going to escape, most likely to gun-friendly New Hampshire. That blessed day arrived eight years ago and while I may second-guess many decisions I've made in my life, I've never questioned that one for a second. I can only extend my sympathy to those still living behind enemy lines and hope that you'll be able to make a similar transition some day.

That said, I'm afraid that the continual influx of former MA residents who bring their MA attitude with them is going to turn my adopted beloved "Live Free or Die" state into North Massachusetts eventually, but thankfully I won't be around to see it.

 

[mrmike7189]

The odds of fighting this stuff are better the further south and west you go. Well, until you reach the Leftist coast.

My plan is to move out from MA as soon as we are able. Exactly where, I don't know, but I do know where I don't want to move.

me too....thinking NH or Maine

 

[GaryS]

In the movie "Action in the North Atlantic" there is a scene where Alan Hale Sr says that when he retires he's going to put a pair of oars on his shoulder and start walking. When he gets somewhere that someone asks him what they are, that's where he's going to settle.

My plan is to drive south and stop at Home Depots along the way. I'll ask where they keep the snow blower parts. When someone says, "The what?", that's where I'm going settle.

New Hampshire is my last resort move.

me too....thinking NH or Maine

 

[TTSH]

me too....thinking NH or Maine

New Hampshire is my last resort move.

As the anti-2A disease spreads, NH won't be safe much longer. Same with Maine. 5 years behind MA at most. Look what just recently went down in VT.

 

[GaryS]

VT is a very wacky states, I wouldn't move there on a bet. Maine is very odd, as who controls what moves back from election to election. It's one of the more pro 2A states in the northeast. I just don't like the tax structure AND the cold up there.

As the anti-2A disease spreads, NH won't be safe much longer. Same with Maine. 5 years behind MA at most. Look what just recently went down in VT.

 

[stansdds]

People tell me that the Second Amendment was enacted to protect muskets and single shot pistols. I tell them that the First Amendment was enacted to protect quill pens and hand set printing presses. The Fourth was written to protect people from a search of their papers and belongings, not telephone calls or emails.

I still haven't received a reasonable reply yet.

These so-called constitutional experts really should read the Federalist Papers and any other documents written by our founders. Of course, if they did, their arguments would evaporate.

 

[dockmurgw]

VT is a very wacky states, I wouldn't move there on a bet. Maine is very odd, as who controls what moves back from election to election. It's one of the more pro 2A states in the northeast. I just don't like the tax structure AND the cold up there.

Maine and NH each have two distinct and separate regions: each state can be divided in half from East to West, and the southern half of each state should be combined and re-named North Massachusetts. Vermont also has two distinct and separate regions: Chittenden County with most of the states population of Mass refugees, and the rest of the state. This area should be gifted to NY, since the state line separating us runs down the middle of Lake Champlain. As you can clearly see, Mass is ruining everybody...I wish more of them would go to Florida and leave us alone, then Northern New England would be the paradise it used to be.

 

[dockmurgw]

As the anti-2A disease spreads, NH won't be safe much longer. Same with Maine. 5 years behind MA at most. Look what just recently went down in VT.

VT and NH both dodged bullets this year with veto's from the governors. VT a 24 hour waiting period, and NH a 72 hour waiting period and two additional bills. But have to fear, they will all be back for another try.

 

[ladder13]

As my friend Rusty says, to paraphrase, "the Capt has turned off the fasten seatbelt sign, you are free to move about the country".

' Murica.

 

[BC38]

These so-called constitutional experts really should read the Federalist Papers and any other documents written by our founders. Of course, if they did, their arguments would evaporate.

Which is why they can't be bothered. Talking points backed by willful ignorance.

 

[GaryS]

Quick shot of part of the crowd. The Orange hats were our side.

State house State house - Album on Imgur

 

[Watchdog]

Quick shot of part of the crowd. The Orange hats were our side.

Well, I sure hope there were more orange caps and shirts in the part of the room I can't see in the photo. I see six orange caps and a couple of orange looking t-shirts. And they're all huddled at the back of the room. They should've been up front where they could be seen and heard better.

Just my opinion here, but if that's all the support Massachusetts gun owners and GOA can drum up, no wonder the state's in Second Amendment trouble.

 

[TTSH]

Well, I sure hope there were more orange caps and shirts in the part of the room I can't see in the photo. I see six orange caps and a couple of orange looking t-shirts. And they're all huddled at the back of the room. They should've been up front where they could be seen and heard better.

Just my opinion here, but if that's all the support Massachusetts gun owners and GOA can drum up, no wonder the state's in Second Amendment trouble.

Don't just go by the orange hat count you see. In fact, some of the direction we got was to not wear them after the hearing got underway. And orange tee shirts are the other side (anti-2A). We didn't need any more of them. The yellow shirts were folks on our side.

Our (pro-2A) side was reasonably well-represented for a workday 10AM to 3PM hearing... not that it couldn't have been a whole lot better. It was standing room only and the hearing room was full. But the anti's are well-organized for this sort of thing and get there early to get the seats. It's a social event for them... a party... a get-together. Most of the seated folks were anti's and most of the standing folks were pro-2A.

I've been to so many of these things that I'm jaded. They all go the same way. Nobody really wins at these hearings. The real action takes place out of the sight of the public. I don't even know why I bother at my age. I showed the flag, but did it accomplish anything? Hard to know.

 

[GaryS]

All those people standing in front of the guys with the Orange hats were pro 2A. So were the people standing behind me that I didn't get a picture of. Actually, I might have more pictures, but have to download them from my phone and resize them for the forum.

By my rough count the ratio was 3:1 pro to anti.

Also, it was hot in that room and the orange hats didn't breath at all because they were made of foam.

The crowd was so large that they had to open the divider between the two rooms to accommodate everyone. Not only were all of the seats taken, but there wasn't an inch of floor space left either.

I don't know who told TTSH not to wear his cap, because GOAL picked the orange hats specifically to mess with the anti gun people. Most of whom were wearing red T shirts with stickers that said "Wear Orange for gun safety" or something similarly silly.

After the GOAL lobbyist spoke, the room exploded with applause from the pro 2A side. The chairman of the committee wasn't happy about that, but he refrained from commenting.

I think it went as well as it could in this state. I was pleasantly surprised to see how many Pro 2A people showed up.

Well, I sure hope there were more orange caps and shirts in the part of the room I can't see in the photo. I see six orange caps and a couple of orange looking t-shirts. And they're all huddled at the back of the room. They should've been up front where they could be seen and heard better.

Just my opinion here, but if that's all the support Massachusetts gun owners and GOA can drum up, no wonder the state's in Second Amendment trouble.

 

[GaryS]

I was there around 9:15AM for the 10:00AM start. No one was let in until just before 10:00AM and the other side didn't get in early at all.

It's always important to go to these things. While it's mostly political theater, it shows that we care about the issue. Unlike in 1998, when no one showed up at the hearings and we got our, uh, heads handed to us.

One thing politicians are good at is counting votes. Even though next year is a Presidential election year and turnout will be large, they don't want to risk losing their cushy jobs.

I don't know where you were, but all of the A1 side of the room was pro 2A, both seating and standing. I was way down the other end from where the speakers were, so my view came from the TV monitors, but again I'd say it was 3:1 pro:anti. It certainly was out in the hall before we went in.

Don't just go by the orange hat count you see. In fact, some of the direction we got was to not wear them after the hearing got underway. And orange tee shirts are the other side (anti-2A). We didn't need any more of them. The yellow shirts were folks on our side.

Our (pro-2A) side was reasonably well-represented for a workday 10AM to 3PM hearing... not that it couldn't have been a whole lot better. It was standing room only and the hearing room was full. But the anti's are well-organized for this sort of thing and get there early to get the seats. It's a social event for them... a party... a get-together. Most of the seated folks were anti's and most of the standing folks were pro-2A.

I've been to so many of these things that I'm jaded. They all go the same way. Nobody really wins at these hearings. The real action takes place out of the sight of the public. I don't even know why I bother at my age. I showed the flag, but did it accomplish anything? Hard to know.

 

[TTSH]

I was there around 9:15AM for the 10:00AM start. No one was let in until just before 10:00AM and the other side didn't get in early at all.

It's always important to go to these things. While it's mostly political theater, it shows that we care about the issue. Unlike in 1998, when no one showed up at the hearings and we got our, uh, heads handed to us.

One thing politicians are good at is counting votes. Even though next year is a Presidential election year and turnout will be large, they don't want to risk losing their cushy jobs.

I don't know where you were, but all of the A1 side of the room was pro 2A, both seating and standing. I was way down the other end from where the speakers were, so my view came from the TV monitors, but again I'd say it was 3:1 pro:anti. It certainly was out in the hall before we went in.

Well, I was in with the enemy on the A2 side... and I did wear my orange hat for the whole 3+ hours I was there despite the heat and despite what I had heard beforehand. Since I wasn't scheduled to talk, I wanted to make darn sure that the pols knew where I stood just by looking at me.

 

[TTSH]

I think it went as well as it could in this state.

One of the more interesting (to me) questions came from a female pol on the committee who asked about the "duty to flee" as she put it. In her defense, she openly admitted that she was completely clueless about guns and gun law (but will be voting on all the newly proposed laws).

For starters, here is a quick summary of MA law:

MA is a "duty to retreat" state, which means that you cannot use deadly force, even in self-defense, if you can reasonably avoid harm by retreating (such as running away). If, however, you are cornered, or otherwise unable to retreat, you are legally allowed to use deadly force if your life is threatened.

Although MA is a duty to retreat state, that duty does not apply to home intruders. Due to a MA statute called Castle Doctrine, there is no duty to retreat when the intruder is in your home.

Her awkwardly worded question (to a pro-2A trainer who was testifying) was: "How do you train your students to both flee a deadly assault (in accordance with MA law) and manage to avoid getting assaulted from behind while fleeing (stabbed, shot, bludgeoned, etc.) at the same time?

Damn good question!!!

Put another way: Is there training to help you decide... while you are fleeing in accordance with the law... when it will be okay for you to turn around and use deadly force?

I'm not sure what proposed new law that question was in regard to or if was just pulled by her out of thin air. The person testifying made some very good points in response, but the real answer (not given) was: No, we don't train our basic training for LTC students how to see and shoot behind them while fleeing in accordance with MA law.

 

[GaryS]

It's a dumb question. Since it's legally "duty to retreat" the law doesn't allow throwing random shots over your shoulder as you run away.

It's likely a bad idea to turn your back on a threat under just about any circumstances.

It really demonstrates the abject cluelessness about firearms that the people that make the laws have.

One of the more interesting (to me) questions came from a female pol on the committee who asked about the "duty to flee" as she put it. In her defense, she openly admitted that she was completely clueless about guns and gun law (but will be voting on all the newly proposed laws).

For starters, here is a quick summary of MA law:



Her awkwardly worded question (to a pro-2A trainer who was testifying) was: "How do you train your students to both flee a deadly assault (in accordance with MA law) and manage to avoid getting assaulted from behind while fleeing (stabbed, shot, bludgeoned, etc.) at the same time?

Damn good question!!!

Put another way: Is there training to help you decide... while you are fleeing in accordance with the law... when it will be okay for you to turn around and use deadly force?

I'm not sure what proposed new law that question was in regard to or if was just pulled by her out of thin air. The person testifying made some very good points in response, but the real answer (not given) was: No, we don't train our basic training for LTC students how to see and shoot behind them while fleeing in accordance with MA law.

 

[TTSH]

It's a dumb question. Since it's legally "duty to retreat" the law doesn't allow throwing random shots over your shoulder as you run away.

It's likely a bad idea to turn your back on a threat under just about any circumstances.

It really demonstrates the abject cluelessness about firearms that the people that make the laws have.

Yep. Her openness and honesty about knowing absolutely nothing about guns or gun law was refreshing... but she is going to be deciding on all those newly proposed highly-restrictive and oppressive laws... and cluelessness is not exactly what I want in my lawmakers.

 

[Wise_A]

I don't see how they're feasibly going to inspect everyone's firearms annually. And I'm sure that the good people of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory are currently laughing themselves silly at the logistics of photographing and test-firing every firearm sold in the state.

Requiring "liability insurance" for gun owners has been floated in various places. I don't know of any company that offers an insurance product akin to what the various legislatures have talked about. In NY, it was much laughed-at--while Gov Cuomo was busy lambasting the NRA Carry Guard program as "murder insurance", he was busy demanding that all gun owners get liability insurance.

How these people keep getting reelected is ridiculous.

Like many states, Massachusetts is torn between urban centers and rural countryside. This is what I keep warning posters on here bragging about their "free" states--check your census data. There might only be a couple percent difference between you and Massachusetts.

Here in NY, the vast majority of the state is extremely pro-gun. Unfortunately, we're at a slight numerical disadvantage, both in terms of popular vote and legislative count, against the urban centers of Buffalo, Albany, and NYC (with its accompanying bedroom communities in the southern tier and Long Island).

If you go to Massachusetts, you'll find the same thing. Ditto for Colorado, California, the Virginias, the Carolinas, and so on. Texas is built much the same way--Dallas, Fort Worth, and Austin vs Everybody Else.

With the exception of extremely rural states and parts of the country where even urban counties are pro-gun, this pattern is the same for every state in the union. Exacerbating the situation is the decline of industry in the United States. Simply put, if your small town isn't extremely convenient to a major employment center, it's likely in decline.

We're reaching a point of self-correction from the 1950s suburban migration with political ramifications the 2A community can ill afford to ignore. More resources need to be devoted to reaching urban communities and younger folk--demographics traditionally ignored by our lobbying organizations.