Massachusetts voters will soon have a bright-line moment to assess the quality of their sworn representatives. On one side: anti-terrorism legislators who want to reduce the chance of a San Bernardino-style terrorist attack in the Commonwealth and support HD 4331 filed by Rep. Lori Ehrlich and discussed here recently (when will she run for the Senate?). The measure would make it illegal for terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to fly on airplanes (after our lesson on 9/11) to buy guns in the Commonwealth. A total of 42 legislators have signed on as co-sponsors with more possible before tomorrow night’s deadline.
These are the anti-terrorism advocates who oppose the mass murder of innocent Massachusetts residents: Lori A. Ehrlich, David M. Rogers, David Paul Linsky, Cory Atkins, Ruth B. Balser, Christine P. Barber, Garrett J. Bradley, Michael D. Brady, Paul Brodeur, Antonio F. D. Cabral, Evandro Carvalho, James M. Cantwell, Gailanne M. Cariddi, Cynthia S. Creem, Michael S. Day, Marjorie C. Decker, Sal N. DiDomenico, Kenneth J. Donnelly, Michelle M. DuBois, Tricia Farley-Bouvier, Carole A. Fiola, Linda Dorcena Forry, Carmine L. Gentile, Kenneth I. Gordon, Daniel J. Hunt, Brian A. Joyce, Kay Khan, Peter V. Kocot, Jason M. Lewis, Jay D. Livingstone, Sarah K. Peake, Alice Hanlon Peisch, Denise Provost, Richard J. Ross, Jeffrey N. Roy, Dan Ryan, Alan Silvia, Frank I. Smizik, Ellen Story, Paul Tucker, Steven Ultrino, Chris Walsh. If your Rep. is not on that list, they deserve a call.
On the other side are legislators who want persons identified in advance as capable of committing mass murder armed with lethal weapons and set loose on the state. These individuals, who will be flushed into the open when a vote takes place on the legislation, helped to enable the terrorist attack last week in California, the mass murder of first graders and their teachers three years ago next Monday in nearby Connecticut, and every one of the daily mass shootings that take place nationwide by following a fanatic ideology that puts gun sales ahead of public safety and national security. A clue as to their possible identities is offered by the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts House of Representatives Rating Page.
Terror suspects deemed too dangerous to get on an airplane should not be allowed to buy guns in Massachusetts.
and ask them to support HD 4331 ” No Guns for Terror Suspects in MA” law sponsored by Rep. Lori Ehrlich.
House (617) 722-2000 Senate (617) 722-1455
I am proud to report that at least two members of my district delegation support this legislation : Senator Jason Lewis and Representative Paul Brodeur. I have yet to hear back from Rep.Donald Wong.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I think we should tie a lot of things to various different lists. Here are some suggestions.
* No drivers licenses for people on the suspected terror list.
* No welfare for people on the suspected terror list.
* No public school for the children of people on the suspected terror list.
Let’s also create lists for people who the police believe are drug dealers or gang members. Let’s not employ them, house them, or give them social services.
And the most important part is that we can not tell anyone how someone is put on these lists, because that might warn people.
/s
what new list is being created?
Not only is the terror watch list not new, there is some chance that putting a “protected class” on that list (gun owners) might significantly increase the likelihood that either the quality of the list will be improved or the list itself will be eliminated or significantly shrunk.
Since improving the quality of the list requires an even larger expansion of already out-of-control mass surveillance, and since the protected class will very much be a part of that expansion, perhaps Second Amendment fetishists who are also concerned about the Fourth Amendment might find some backbone to counter the NRA.
This reminds me of another list from the Vietnam era — the list of those eligible for compulsory military service in combat. It was astonishing how quickly the draft laws changed when the rich and powerful suddenly faced the prospect of THEIR sons (it was restricted to men only then) being forced into service as cannon-fodder.
in the beginning there we odd ball stories of people being on the terror watch list, I haven’t heard of any recent stories of such issues. It does seem that over time the criteria is better. So yes, Republicans who likely had more the merrier attitude toward the watch list would have some incentive for it to be used properly.
…can you change the first sentence in paragraph two before the colon? Someone might actually take it literally if this is cut and pasted somewhere…aren’t you being appropriately sarcastic and therefore shouldn’t it say “support” instead of “oppose”? thx
oops never mind…