Nomination papers are available now at the Town Clerk's office for anyone wanting to run for town office in the elections this spring (late April or early May). There will be elections for Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, Library Trustees, Housing Authority, School Committee and Board of Health.
Ellen Harde

I happen to agree with his post no matter who he is. While the information about where to pick up nomination papers is appreciated, the need to clean house is all inclusive in my opinion.

Agreed. And some do not use full names because they are town employees and may fear retaliation by co-workers or bosses.

Hi Cynthia,

The agenda is attached above.

Glad your running! Wish I could be there tonight to meet you. As predicted, this nutty bylaw has deflected time and attention from real issues in the town. I hope you win!

K. Simons
I will say up front I am pro gun if it means that I have the right to own and carry when I feel the need. I have been a resident of Westford for over 32 years now and have seen a lot of changes needless to say. But I can see this articular if it gets to town meeting and even happens to pass would cost this town more money than you could imagine in law suits alone. Between the NRA, GOAL and every other pro gun group out there lining up to sue the town within the first year will be staggering. The two shooting clubs in town will close there is no question about that as most shot guns would be illegal in town if it passes never mind most twenty two's. It's time to be realistic and just enforce the laws we have and not try and right new ones. Do you really think that a town ordnance like this will change how criminal think when they cross the town line????

K. Simons I totaly agree with you. We need to enforce the gun laws we have and also be more diligent in who we let purchase guns. It's not so much the guns that are the problem it's the people that buy them. This town I'm sure has other issues that need to be addressed more importantly then a gun ban.

Can you tell me what channel Westford CAT is on for Verizon?

Jim:
We'll have quite a fight on our hands as Jeffries, despite his activism, is very popular. But wasn't it Burke who said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing?" Not calling, or insinuating Jeffires, "evil," but the point still holds, we have to do something, we have to act, not just complain, or protest, so I'm glad to be on the ballot with you this election. Any help you need, let me know.
Steve

Steve, I agree it won't be easy but I believe folks want change. This year the voters will have a choice, which is half the battle. Looking forward to running with you and meeting you tonight. And if there is anything I can do, please let me know.

A long overdue choice, if you ask me. Thank you to both of you for throwing your hats into the ring.

jmmcgruff, thank you for your support! Sorry to see you go but best of luck to you and good luck on your move.

How about some real data for a change? Is there an "endemic"? Is there evidence that such a ban actually has any effect on violent crime? I have not heard or seen any data that supports the latter. Not from Jefferies, not from anyone. Just emotional rants. If he wanted to get attention, he sure succeeded.

Kate, I disagree. You don't start a "discussion" by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And someone who puts time and energy into backing this by participating in a televised local debate expressing his very clear anti-gun views is NOT interested solely in "discourse". He can spend his own money on hosting a public discussion in some other venue instead of wasting tax dollars sucking up our town counsel's retainer on this issue that is "just a discussion".

Kate I could not disagree with you more, This is NOT about keeping our kids safe in school this is about trying to disarm legal law abiding citizens, don't let them pull on your emotional strings by trying to say it will make our schools safe.... Jefferies put forth an agenda to take away MY RIGHT to protect my life and limit the choices of how I do so based on his beliefs and NOT Facts... If he wanted to start a discussion he should have started a discussion NOT jumped the gun and put an issue such as this to a VOTE! It was unfair and one sided attack on people who happen to feel strong about their 2nd Amendment Right!

I hope your reference to Selectman Jefferies proposed Article was tongue-in-cheek when you are insinuating that it would be start a grass roots discussion? Mr. Jefferies has the right to say and propose as he wishes, but as an elected official of this town it was a disservice to the town. Read the Article carefully, it was cobbled together quickly and has no legal basis to support Federal judicial review. Read Heller and MacDonald and you will find evidence that this would clearly have lost at the Federal level. The end result, would be only a huge legal bill for the town.
As I've stated in a previous post, the genesis of this Article by Mr. Jefferies can be found in a dislike or bias towards firearms. Again, as I stated in my previous post, I believe more contributing causes to these events is the dismal state of mental health services and laws as well as the preponderance and extensiveness of realistic violent movies, tv shows and video games. The 2 Colorado events as well as the West Virginia event can be viewed as caused by individuals with psychotic behavior. Lack of proper recognition and treatment led to these individuals carrying out this horrific acts.
How do we mitigate/lessen this? Start by looking at this rather than using these events as a rallying call to ban firearms.

Kate:

Part1;
I did see Mr. Jeffries 30 minute interview. He made a number of errors. First, he cited that the 2nd Amendment has two parts and that half of it is being ignored, “the maintenance of a well regulated militia.” In his mind, Mr. Jeffries feels that if you want to own a gun you should also be part of a militia. This is a common meme that is disseminated across left wing blogs and on college campuses. But there is equal (if not more) evidence to support individual right to bear arms. For example, George Mason, the co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution in 1788 was quoted as saying, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Part 2:
Whatever side you come down on, one has to understand that this is a highly contested issue and since there is so much ambiguity, there will be lengthy and expensive litigation that will cost the town of Westford precious dollars. But Mr. Jeffries fails to understand that if you want to train firearms owners in marksmanship and training, there is no better place than a gun club. His bylaw would jeopardize the Westford Sportsman Club and expose their 200 acres to development. Once again, Mr. Jeffries is being feckless and irresponsible.

Part 3:
As a libertarian, the worst thing any community can have is an activist who tries to remake the town with his vision. Most people are too busy to tune in to the every day minutiae of the town. They just need the garbage picked up, the potholes filled, the schools safe and excellent, and the taxes as low as possible. They trust that the volunteers that sacrifice their time and energy to give the town a working government will just be as unobtrusive and drama-free as possible. Mr. Jeffries put Westford on the map over his own intellectual theories concerning Constitutional law and civil liberties. Would all of his supporters not be as angry if this was a ban on free speech, or women’s reproductive rights?

Part4;
Lastly, what we need on the board are people who come to serve—not to engineer society to their liking. And when they’ve finished their term, go back to their lives and allow someone else to volunteer to hear the minutes, decide what color to paint the light posts and vote on the budget. Trying to hijack the board to fulfill some pacifist fantasy hurts the town, makes us a laughing stock (the progressives in Concord can sigh of relief as they are finally off the front page), and exposes us to expensive litigation. I intend to fight and defeat any attempt to curtail our liberties if elected to the Board.

Yes I bet most did "pay attention" and to be clear came to the conclusion that Bob Jefferies (the whole BOS) knees jerked first!

Kate, how are we "heading back to something" which has existed since 1791? I have but one question for you: when you see Syrian rebels with guns fighting for against dictatorship for their democracy and rights, what do you think? Do you believe the guns should be taken away by Assad and the Syrian government? Because that is what you are basically proposing for U.S. citizens. Our country is the greatest in the world, with a healthy respect for freedom, rights and tolerance. However, the threat of tyranny has never and will never go away, so that is why our Framers so intelligently added a right, the 2nd Amendment, that allows citizens to own firearms that are as technologically advanced as those owned by the very government that could infringe upon those rights. It does not create a Wild West mentality but should give us peace of mind about democracy and freedom lasting forever. The biggest thing we should actually worry about is citizens like you willing to give up the very rights we fought and died for some 240 years ago.

Kate, I'm in the minority on these comments in that I agree with a lot of what you're saying. However, I don't think this is something that should be done at the local level. Stricter gun legislation is already being discussed at the state and national level. Does anyone know if the town actually paid town counsel to give the opinion that these by-laws will be challenged? Not a good use of taxpayer money IMO and the town has bigger financial concerns to worry about.

Anne: As I understand it, the BoS used up 6 hours of Town Counsel's retainer. They say they "didn't spend any money", but the reality is that a retainer was paid up front and they just dipped into it at some godawful hourly rate to push this agenda, and that's money which now can't be used for things currently in ongoing litigation. That's some pretty expensive ink on paper if you ask me - the rest is just semantics.

Eric:
Here's the issue with the bylaw for those people who think as you do and for people who think as I do: the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. Both sides can claim to have known the intent of our Founding Fathers but in the end they (FF) did not specify exactly where a militia begins and an individual right to bear arms ends. Given that, with so much wiggle room for judges to decide, do you want this town to be the Petri dish for a lawsuit? Since this ban will do nothing to make the schools safer, this is obviously not about safety, but Mr. Jeffries' attempt to make Westford ground zero for some sort of grassroots activism, which is fine, but he should just say it,"I want to drag Westford into a lengthy and expensive civil liberties lawsuit to foster a national gun ban." If he'd admit that, we could all vote to go into this, or not go into this, honestly.

If "Gun Free Zones" or Gun Free Towns made kids safe, those killings in Newtown would never have occurred. Because by law ALL schools are already "Gun Free Zones".

Everyone is horrified. There is no logical conclusion that limited magazine capacity would have limited the carnage. It's one of those "but it makes sense" things that fall apart the more you know about it. A six shooter can be reloaded in under 3 seconds, for instance. A mix of some fertilizer and fuel oil can result in a worse nightmare than using firearms. I would think that a much more useful discussion about preventing monsters from carrying out their horror would focus on stopping them, not their choice of instruments.

Eric, it sounds as though you have not read the proposed bylaw, nor fully understand the ramifications of it.

Do you have any data to support your belief that this will increase the safety of the schools? Or is it just "well, it makes sense"? It usually helps to find facts and THEN construct a possible solution. How many laws do you think there are that were passed because "well, it makes sense" only to find that the law has no bearing on the desired outcome? Check this out: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/second-thoughts-about-gun-control.

Eric, with all due respect, it is ignorance that puts us in a more unsafe situation. The 2nd is not that ambiguous. First, a militia are individuals, not any government body like the National Guard (see Heller case for legal ruling). Second, why would a criminal or insane person follow this law? They wouldn't, so there goes the added "safety". Finally, what would you propose someone does under attack by 3 individuals with semi-auto firearms? The 2nd provides my family wanted protection and that is the entire purpose of creating rights which no popular vote should be able to take away.

In the draft warrant on the Town of Westford web site it is listed as being put forth by the Board of Selectmen, not citizen petition.

ARTICLE 30:
Amend Chapter 95 Firearms by Adding a New Section
Board of Selectmen

I believe the current Article 30 is Jeffries own. I was told he knows now that he can be sued personally over this, so he has a duplicate of his article submitted by a citizen's petition 'written' by another town citizen. The citizen who has submitted this believes this is about 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Tonight, Jeffries can open the warrant, remove his Article 30, add the citizen's petition, and allow the focus to go now to the citizen's petition, not him. But the town will still be sued. Just not him.

Sorry for the confusion guys, I learned at the last minute that there was a citizen's petition that is basically the same thing that's not up there on the town website yet. They'll be talking about it more tonight, and we'll have the full story tomorrow. I'm here at Town Hall already, just to make sure I've got a seat for this thing.

CCR: Yeah, someone probably wet his pants when "ultra vires" started getting bandied about. Thus, the current underhanded political maneuvering to present it as a citizen's petition to protect someone's backside, bank account, and house.

It's a much different ballgame when it's your OWN money at risk and not a pool of taxpayer funds, isn't it?

The only good part of Article 30 is that a beast has been awakened in town. Formerly quiet residents will no longer be placated. Vote for freedom and liberty to be brought back to Westford!

No offense taken, Sam. :-)
I'll need all the support I can get if we are to unseat the two incumbents.

Sue:
You have created a strawman argument. The quote "guns don't kill people" does not mean that a gun "can't" kill. Of course a gun "can" kill. That's what they are primarily designed for, but the quote in its entirety reads, "...people kill people." The problem with statistics is that they can be cherry picked to bolster an argument. We do have too many shootings in America but they mostly occur in the inner cities with the strictest gun laws. In the rural areas where gun ownership ratio is higher per person, they have the lowest gun crime/murders. We don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem.

Well said, Steve! I would also like to add that Westford doesn't have an assault weapons problem. Westford has a revenue problem. Maybe it's easier for Mr. Jefferies to rally the Selectmen around restricting our freedoms than it is to find solutions to the many challenges that face our town. As your next Selectman, I will work hard and oppose any effort to further infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners - that's a promise!

JJ: "Westford has a revenue problem"

really? does that mean you will lead the charge for a 2.5 override?

Vincent, as a procurement professional for almost 20 years, I am not confident the board has done all they can do to ensure we are running government as efficiently as possible. First thing I would do is propose a financial review by the MA DOR. For over 25 years, the Department of Revenue's Division of Local Services (DLS) has been a significant resource for local officials on matters of municipal finance, technology and government structure. This is a free service provided by the DOR and at the end of the review, the BoS will get a report with recommendations on how we can operate more efficiently and effectively, improve budget and capital planning procedures and analyze school finance just to name a few. I think this is a great first step in ensuring we are spending wisely. So no, I am not in favor of a 2.5 override and will oppose any effort to throw this on the backs of the taxpayer.

Steven, one correction: You said, "We do have too many shootings in America but they mostly occur in the inner cities with the strictest gun laws. In the rural areas where gun ownership ratio is higher per person, they have the lowest gun crime/murders."

That's just flat wrong, and is only remotely true if you skew the raw numbers to ignore the fact that there are fewer people in rural areas, so of course there would be fewer deaths. In reality, gun deaths per capita are actually higher in states with fewer gun laws, many of them in the south and midwest. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

While there are definite murder hotspots, Chicago being a prime example, you're still more likely to die from a gun in rural Louisiana than in Boston.

Mike:
As a mathematics major I have to disagree with your statistical analysis. There are more gun deaths in Chicago, Boston, L.A. et. al. than rural areas. This cannot be refuted and these places have the strictest gun laws, which also cannot be refuted. So what is a pro-gun restriction person to do when faced with this dilemma? Well, one way is to dissect the statistics per capita to make the argument that one has a better chance of getting shot in backwater Mississippi than the corner of 4th and Main. The problem with this skew is that it can be inverted to defeat the initial argument. In other words, not everyone in the city owns a gun. In fact when you subtract law enforcement/security, very few people own guns. So now your sample REALLY becomes contaminated. Conversely, one person in a rural area may own several guns, maybe even a whole safe full! So if you want to play the per capita game, you can, but it is a weak argument since it does not account for the aggregate number of guns per household in relation to the population and crime stats. In other words, if you have 2 people in your house, and 1 person went to the hospital last year, 50% of your population is accident-prone! What is that line…there are liars, damned liars and statistics?

Steven, you're confounding correlation and causation. Most of the cities you mention have tougher gun laws because they have more crime, not the other way around. Inverting the relationship is a fairly common -- and discredited -- NRA-pushed talking point. (And totally ignores that New York City's tough gun laws have helped contribute to a steady decrease in violent gun-related crime...)

But there have been multiple studies that demonstrate that in states and regions where there is more gun ownership -- even controlling for urbanization and poverty -- there are more gun deaths. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/

States with higher levels of household gun ownership -- many of them the places with the gun-filled safes you mention -- had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975

These studies were conducted by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center -- http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/ -- before the NRA lobbied successfully to defund research to the center, as well as to the CDC's Injury Prevention Center.

All that said....Westford doesn't need a NYC-style law; nor does it need a measure that goes above and beyond proposed state or federal laws. I like to shoot, and enjoy shooting ARs, but there are some sensible measures that can be taken that don't involve outright bans.

Mike:
I’m not conflating causation with correlation. I know the crime came before the bans not visa versa, but the statement holds that the places with the strictest laws have the highest murder rates with guns. The only way you can make your argument work is to employ per capita ratios, but common sense illuminates the fact that I’d rather raise my family in rural Pennsylvania vs. Philadelphia despite your cherry picked statistics.
Secondly, the reason why these studies are so flawed is because many guns are illegally owned and therefore not registered for an accurate count, they don’t take into account the number of officers in their sample, the number of deaths via police shooting suspects, the amount of deaths by suicide, handgun vs. rifle vs. other, and number of guns per household. This is why drug studies are also very sketchy and off.
Last, you seem to have a vendetta against the NRA, which is clouding your arguments on this issue. Like I posted earlier, the NRA is not involved in the shenanigans in Westford.

Steven, my "vendetta" against the NRA is more of a reaction to the ridiculous rhetoric that gets passed through the right-wing megaphones as fact. Case in point: the argument that strict gun laws are ineffective against urban gun crime, an argument that you echoed in your previous post. The places with the highest gun murder rates enacted the strictest gun laws, just as you acknowledged, and NYC is a place where those tough laws have been shown to be effective.

But back to the studies: Both those studies posted, as well as others on the site, use gun registrations and survey data from gun owners to get actual data on numbers and types of guns in the home. They factor out suicides, but yes, they combine all firearm homicides into one category. The effect from the factors you mention would be negligible.

All that said, I think we both agree that the proposed Westford article is a legislative over-reach that shouldn't pass, likely won't pass, and couldn't be enforced even if it managed to squeak through.

Mike:
I can't agree with several statements you've made. 1. I don't assume it won't pass. The election will be on the 30th and the Dems in the town will go to polls and vote for Markey and will vote for Jefferies too. 1a, just because 150-200 gun owners showed up last night, does not mean they outnumber the amount of progressives who hate guns and will vote for the ban. 2. If you score a 30 on a test and then score a 60 you've shown drastic improvement, but you're still barely passing. I'm from NY so I can tell you NYC has come a long way, but it has also become very unaffordable and many have moved to NJ, so the statistics---once again---are "massaged"to say the least. 3. Gun surveys and registrations only count legal guns and the surveyed. When dealing with a black market (drugs,immigrants, prostitution) it is extremely difficult to find reliable data points. One has to almost forget the data stream and just use one's own eyes. Where would you rather live (in terms of safety)? In DC or ND?

Me too, Hugh! 1st Cav

Thanks, Hugh! Really appreciate the support.

Erik, you're right on a couple of counts. Tthe chart shows all deaths by firearm, including suicides and accidental shootings -- often kids and unsecured guns. Both categories are higher in areas with loose gun laws. And you're right about the number of deaths from rifles; I've posted the 2011 FBI UCR numbers here before that show the focus on scary-looking ARs is wildly misplaced. About 72 percent of firearm homicides are actually from handguns, not so-called "assault weapons."

That's just another reason why the proposed ordinance is off the mark.

Big assumption. "human nature" is really human behavior, isn't it? It varies greatly even in our country.

You cannot just assume it won't pass. I've seen some strange things happen at TM by special interest groups stacking the meeting by calling and texting all their friends just before the article in question is coming up for discussion. Assuming it won't pass for any reason is a dangerous thing. If this articl passes, the next step is enforcement. If the "jack-booted thugs" do not intend to rumage around my dresser drawers (cold day in hades, BTW) how else would it be enforced? It can't be done without a house to house search for banned weapons.

Exactly. But the knee jerk types like Jefferies apparently haven't thought that part through. Should this pass, Jefferies house should be the first one searched. Maybe he is comfortable putting that kind of authority in the hands of police officers but I would never allow it in my house whether I own such LOCALY BANNED weaponry or not.

Well done! Did they pay town counsel for an opinion on this "conversation" already? heck the folks here clearly pointed out points 1 and 2 (in the findings) were an issue, maybe we can get town counsel to cut the fee to 1/3? and send it to BJ :O