MA AG Candidate Warren Tolman Waves the Bloody Shirt

TTAG reader JD writes:

Greetings from a regular reader in Massachusetts. Just wanted to call your attention to some sneaky tactics being perpetrated by Warren Tolman, Democratic candidate for Massachusetts Attorney General. Tolman is running 30-second TV ads where he solemnly vows to get tough on gun violence and violence against women. In the ad he makes reference to a 1994 shooting at two Brookline, Massachusetts abortion clinics and his record of helping to pass buffer zone legislation to “protect women exercising their right to choose.” He then goes on to promise that he will require finger print trigger locks on “new guns sold”. See what he’s doing there? Tying the false narrative of rampant gun violence in Massachusetts (and the rest of America) with women’s right to have an abortion! Unfortunately, the low-information and über liberal voters who comprise a vast majority of the population in this State will swallow this bovine excrement hook, line and sinker.


  1. avatar Paco says:

    He’s a shoe in for the AG’s office. Ma residents have no idea.

    1. avatar BR549 says:

      Yep, a definite shoe-in. Yet another self-proclaimed political miracle-worker pontificating more leftard snake oil to the dumbed down panty-wetting masses in Massachusetts.

      …. and this shaved head routine is supposed to, I guess, convey to the lemming Massachusetts public that this clown is some bastion of politico-tactical efficiency?

      1. avatar Paco says:

        its difficult to believe that MA was the cradle of revolution back in the day. What a bunch of tory, establishment teat suckers it is today.

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Yeah, but didn’t they also want to secede from the United States during the war of 1812, because they sided with the British? Or was that Maryland? Either way, Statism has always been very strong in the Northeast.

          Man, I need to brush up on some history.

        2. avatar Craig says:

          @ RockOn – New England wasn’t in favor of the War of 1812 because Britain was an important trading partner. Keep in mind though that the CSA also wanted to get friendly with the British during the Civil War since the CSA’s biggest customer for cotton was Britain until the British took Eygpt.

        3. avatar ChrisB says:

          “…CSA’s biggest customer for cotton was Britain until the British took Egypt”

          and India

  2. avatar Hannibal says:

    Just out of curiosity, would finger-print trigger locks being sold with a gun have prevented those shootings?

    No? Then what’s the point?

    1. avatar foggy says:

      The point is to make gun ownership just a little bit more difficult and unattractive.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        And expensive.

        Class warfare is a component as well.

        1. avatar Scrubula says:

          That 200 dollar tax for NFA items? When the law was first passed the actual amount in today’s money was $3,556. At the onset of the great depression.
          Yeah, the entire NFA was a ban on those items, all without calling it a ban.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The point is to get elected, so you can make lots of money from corruption.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Yup–or, as “McCloud” used to say– There ya’ go!

    2. avatar Paco says:

      I cant believe there are still people out there who don’t understand it has never been about public safety, or reducing crime…..that’s the point.

  3. avatar tdiinva says:

    It not just liberal women but single women, particularly Millennial single women, in general. Terry McAuliffe’s entire campaign consisted of how that nasty Cuccinelli was going to ban abortion and birth control all on his own. They bought it and TMAC won. What’s funny about a Democrat in Massachusetts using the same tactics is that because he has a D after his name he is the automatic winner. He doesn’t even have to campaign.

    1. avatar foggy says:

      As a Massachusetts resident, I aver that compulsory abortion would make the commonwealth a safer and saner place.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Only if applied to any registered Democrat.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      because he has a D after his name he is the automatic winner. He doesn’t even have to campaign.

      Martha Coakley thought the same thing, right up until she was defeated by Scott Brown.

      1. avatar Paco says:

        Yes but how long did Scott brown last?

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        And look who Brown lost to.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          Yep, a total waste of air, that lies through her teeth. Can’t wait to move!

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      The GOP needs to come up with an effective counter. I have no idea what that could be, but it’s too big a voting bloc to cede if they’re ever to have any hope of winning elections. And “people wising up” isn’t a strategy, because well, people.

  4. avatar fuque says:

    He would be run out of town on the rails if he was running here.

  5. avatar The500SWRush says:

    So killing an in born child is ok, but protecting yourself needs to be regulated? I am so confused…

    1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

      Warren Tolman: Keeping you safe on your way to murder somebody since 2014.

    2. avatar DerryM says:

      Great point, The500SWRush! Goes to show the fundamentally craven mindset of Democratic Socialists. If you are a fetus in the womb and cannot defend yourself, it is perfectly okay for someone else, your Mother, to kill you, but if you are a “born” person in the World it is not okay for you to own and use the most effective means of self-defense you can obtain. Declare the unborn defenseless and murder them at will. Deny the born, capable of defending themselves, their natural right to effective self-defense and thereby make it possible to murder them at will. Maybe all those mindless sheep in Massachusetts secretly want to die. They should just legalize self-euthanasia, outlaw abortion, and issue every Massachusetts-born Citizen a cyanide cap at birth and let them decide for themselves. At least that would be fair to the individual.

  6. avatar Static NAT says:

    Did someone ask him the obvious question as to how “trigger locks for new gun purchases” would have prevented the shootings at the abortion clinic?

  7. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Because violence is unacceptable unless it’s perpetrated against the most defenseless in our society.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    That same buffer zone that was ruled unconstitutional?

    “If you vote for me I promise to support more unconstitutional limits on your freedoms that will eventually be overturned thereby wasting copious tax dollars and years.”

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      The sad part is, even if he came out and said that, he would likely still win.

  9. avatar Pascal says:

    Might as well point out that SCOTUS and the MA Supreme court have both smacked down the abortion clinic buffer zones as violating the 1st amendment. So, it is bogus.

  10. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    “He will require finger print trigger locks…..”

    An AG’s job is now-according to him-enacting legislation/ordinances?
    Wow-If the electorate in Massachusetts do not understand the differences in job descriptions
    between the different politicos………they get………

    1. avatar dave says:

      That was my first thought as well… AG’S Now have the power to create laws? Since when, Oh yeah I forgot who the US AG is now.

      Who needs a legislature any more???

      1. avatar Craig says:

        In Mass, the list of approved pistols for sale by dealers in the Commonwealth is made up by the AG’s Office. So basically the AG picks what can and can’t be bought and what safety features are needed on the guns, like a loaded chamber indicator and a heavy trigger pull.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          wow–just wow. Has that ever been challenged?

        2. avatar joseph says:

          The AG in MA has authority to pass regulations on guns pursuant to Mass General Laws ch. 93A, the consumer protection statute, not actual legislative authority. The regulations still must be passed through the State legislature. However, it’s MA so it doesn’t really matter in the end.

        3. avatar Another Robert says:

          And some people here wonder whether the use of the term “slave state” is appropriate…

    2. avatar Rick says:

      Uh, do “finger print trigger locks” even exist?

      Wow. Judicial, Legislative AND Engineering.

      1. avatar DNS Guns says:

        Yes they do. For only $399.95 you can have one too!

    3. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Another Robert (and others),

      Actually, there is a current challenge to the gun roster being led by Comm2A (a pro-rights group in MA).

      I have no idea how successful it will be, but it’s worth a try.

      (In the mean time, I’m lookin’ northward towards NH. Gotta have a plan B.)

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        I just can’t imagine how an executive branch functionary–even an elected one–can unilaterally tell a business which products it can and cannot sell. Something about due process, separation of powers, throw in equal protection –hell, somebody like Ralph or the unnamed prosecutor needs to help me out here. I mean, even an administrative agency created to do that kind of thing has to be authorized by an enabling statute. I dunno, it just boggles my mind.

  11. avatar Steve says:

    Thanks from sunny Rehoboth. I will keep his name on the NOT list.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Why does anyone who cherishes their right to keep and bear arms continue to live in Massachusetts?

    I don’t care how much money you make in Massachusetts. Sell your home, live in a tiny apartment for a couple years, bank your massive income, and then live comfortably (in spite of a 20% pay cut) in a state whose government and fellow citizens respect your right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state.

    If you have family in Massachusetts, then move to nearby state such as Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine. I can assure you that those states will appreciate strengthening their pro Second Amendment voting base.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Working on it. Meanwhile, not all of Massachusetts is Massive Two Sh!ts. I live in a Republican town, my chief LEO is pro-gun, I have an unrestricted carry permit and a safe full of so-called “assault weapons.”

      1. avatar Paco says:

        Ha, must be central MA.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “I live in a Republican town [in Massachusetts] …”

        Hah! I would have to see that to believe it.

        1. avatar Skiballa says:

          It happens, the further you get from Boston the better (IMO) it is, I live in Westfield, MA. I’m willing to bet that anyone dropped into town blindfolded would be really confused by the number of NRA and Bone Collector stickers on trucks paired with MA tags.

  13. avatar fuque says:

    “finger print trigger locks” because the finger pointing isnt working.

  14. avatar DNS Guns says:

    Seriously? He’s going to require a $250 trigger lock that costs more than some of the guns people want to buy? So the price of your $300 pistol is now closer to $600. Yeah that makes perfect sense. What an elitist jackass.

    1. avatar joseph says:

      What will happen is gun manufacturers will simply stop making handguns that are MA compliant because it is cost-prohibitive. Then, there will no longer be any handguns to purchase,ultimately making handgun ownership impossible. He says he “has no interest in taking your guns away,” because its easier to make gun ownership impossible. If there are no longer any handguns to buy…it’s simple, really.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        I guess this would be the Mass. version of NJ’s “smart gun” law….

  15. avatar Bob says:

    MA just defeated some of the most liberalized crappy laws ever put to vote in this crappy state. This boob is trying to ride a collapsed wave, foe Pete’s sake, even the View are talking about how they have firearms.

    Tollman won’t get my vote. Nor will any of those phony conservatives that pander to the liberal idiocrasy that seems to be so abundant here.

  16. avatar Ipe says:

    I’ve been LMAO about this ad every time I see it for weeks.
    “Hi, I’m Warren Tolman. I’m a super-stud because I came up with a law that the USSC found unconstitutional and overturned… but fawk them. I’m just gonna to keep violating your constitutional rights and come up with something even MORE unconstitutional! Vote for me!!!”

    A$$hole will probably be elected in a landslide anyway. I can’t wait until I can say I’m FROM here.

  17. avatar DickG says:

    Anyone who advocates a reduction in violence against women and at the same time does not advocate arming women as the first step in the process, is a charlatan and a fool.


  18. avatar Kyle says:

    This guy is hell-bent on mandating “smart guns.”

    How is it BTW that an attorney general can mandate all this stuff? Isn’t it the legislature that has to make laws?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email