Last year, the Massachusetts NRA accused me of signing on to a “campaign of intimidation, confusion and fear.”
The pro-gun group was talking about a letter I signed with 18 other mayors in support of Attorney General Maura Healey’s work to enforce the assault weapons ban. A few weeks earlier the same group organized a rally in which Maura was compared to Adolf Hitler and called a tyrant. The Gun Owners Action League, the NRA’s Massachusetts arm, has led an aggressive campaign against Maura and her staff at the Attorney General’s office. They’ve called the public health crisis caused by guns a “false narrative.” They even mocked Hillary Clinton as “Heartless Hillary” because she spoke out against gun violence.
Charlie Baker appointed the man who led the organization that organized this protest to run a state environmental agency
Last week, Gov. Charlie Baker announced his plans to appoint the head of this group, Ronald Amidon, to lead the Department of Fish and Game. Per Governor Baker’s decision, the leader of a pro-gun organization is now in charge of a department which issues firearms-related permits across the Commonwealth.
At a time when the NRA is working to make our country and the Commonwealth less safe, it’s absurd that Charlie Baker would reward one of their leaders with a plum state government job to score political points with his right-wing base.
Baker knows that he won his 2014 race with the slimmest of margins. He also knows that Donald Trump received more votes in Massachusetts than he did. He needs to keep the hard right wing of the Massachusetts GOP in line and this is one of the ways he’s doing it.
This is not the Commonwealth we want to be. We need to be having open, transparent conversations with voters; finding out what outcomes they need. Playing hard politics and making shady appointments isn’t how we ensure no person in the Commonwealth slips through the cracks.
Gun violence is tearing communities apart. We should be focused on making our communities safer, not rewarding the people who think we need more guns on our streets. We must stand up to Baker and the NRA.
It’s certainly possible that this appointment is an effort to court the Gun Owners Action League, but it’s not because the Fish and Game agency has much to do with gun permits. True, that agency does issue hunting licenses, but getting a license to own a gun in the first place, which is way more relevant to the proliferation issue, is mostly up to the Chief of Police in the town where the person applying for a gun license lives.
It seems to me that your accurate observation only makes this appointment more revolting.
Mr. Baker rewards the leader of the Massachusetts NRA with a mostly ceremonial plum?
This is like giving Chris Christy a “Profile in Courage” award for his attempted destruction of pretty much all New Jersey transportation infrastructure.
Sorry, “Chris Christie”.
Maura Healey as Hitler? These are not the kind of folks we should be appointing to office, and frankly, these are not the kind of people who should be armed in the first place.
Why does Faker appease the far right ? I mean, who else would they support for Governor in Massachusetts ? The Democratic nominee ? Not.
I’d have thought he’d want to protect his left leaning Independents but, hey, what do I know.
Thanks, Charlie.
Can we lose the photo, or at least put it below the fold?
There’s the hideous nature of it, for one thing, but it’s also somewhat unfair unless the guy personally made this poster.
More, or less, unfair than calling the issuance of hunting licenses “firearms-related permits”?
Everything I have ever seen with respect to GOAL suggests that they are focused on sporting gun use (target shooting and hunting) rather than “self defense” use, and that they spend a lot of their resources on safety training, like the NRA once did.
This post has some serious spin in it.
I invite you to learn more about GOAL, perhaps starting with their own website.
Consider, for example, the following “AG Healey Attacks Second Amendment” (from that front page). I’m not sure what you mean by “serious spin” — it looks to me as though the thread-starter is pretty much spot-on. Are you suggesting that the rally comparing Ms. Healey to Hitler didn’t happen? Are you speculating that some other group organized it?
Meanwhile, the actual NRA (nraila.org describes itself as “the legislative arm of the NRA) isn’t shy about characterizing Mr. Amidon as a “gun rights advocate”. If the NRA itself trumpets Mr. Amidon as a gun-rights advocate, why shouldn’t the rest of us?
Perhaps you might learn more about Mr. Amidon and GOAL before dismissing Mr. Warren’s complaint — the more I learn, the more I:
1. Applaud Mr. Warren for speaking out
2. Excoriate Mr. Baker for so shamelessly pandering to right-wing extremists here in MA.
When I interned at the State House several years back I got the impression that GOAL was for those who found the NRA too moderate.
I heard something similar a while back, so that must be GOAL’s reputation on the hill. I imagine proximity helps (or hurts).
So, still think there’d be no difference between Coakley and Baker?
I still think this is small potatoes. Yes, it’s awful. Charlie Baker is doing what Republicans do. No, Ms. Coakley would not have done this. He is a Republican, she is a Democrat, and the two are different.
I think that on the more urgent questions of how we fund the state and what we do about wealth and income concentration:
1. The governor is irrelevant (cf Deval Patrick) — Bob DeLeo and the House calls the shots., and
2. Martha Coakley would have been no different from Charlie Baker when it comes these important issues.
There was ZERO evidence during the campaign that Ms. Coakley had any desire for:
1. Raising taxes on the wealthy
2. Raising taxes to fund public rail transportation
3. Raising taxes to avoid further budget cuts
I think the more important question today is whether there is a difference between Charlie Baker and Setti Warren.
To THAT much more relevant question, I give a resounding “YES”.