If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS July Giveaway ***Stoeger STR-9***
With all due respect, Comm2A hs only been in existance for what 12months. Where has GOAL been since 1976? Comm2A I think was created due to the lack of legal support from GOAL. So at this point if both groups were around the same amount of time there might be some validity there. Nothing sayes GOAL or NRA can't throw some money to Comm2A in support of this case.
This is coming from the horse's mouth... please stop using this thread as a forum to spread your anti-NRA/GOAL agenda.This is correct. Because of our charters, we don't "coordinate" or otherwise strategize (more accurately the §501(3)(c) of the 2 shouldn't coordinate with lobbying efforts so we don't) but we enjoy a positive relationship otherwise and I believe we both serve a vital role. It's pretty clear what the issues are that need fixing so strategizing is not really needed either. I should reiterate what I said above that we haven't asked any organization for money on this topic and so no organization has refused to support us.
I appreciate folks personal opinions on any number of topics but can we keep this thread about the OP and discuss the other issues elsewhere.
So, is the issue reall not locking up his powder and/or possessing more than 5,000 primers? 5,000 primers really isn't that much.MGL 148 sec 12 as defined by supporting CMR's
Thanks for the update. If Stan is absolved of the criminal charges, as he should be, he will probably petition his CoP for the return of his LTC. If that is denied, Comm2A will probably need the excess funds to assist him in a court case to restore his 2nd Amendment civil rights.Collecting funds for a specific cause such as this is a little out of scope from our primary mission, but the Comm2A board felt that the implications of a successful prosecution in this instance warranted our support. Additionally, IRS rules greatly restrict the conditions under which we can directly contribute financially to a criminal defense case. We’ve taken great pains to stay within the scope of those rules here. Our role in criminal cases up to this point has largely been advising defense counsel and helping to draft motions beneficial to their clients – something we do pay lawyers for. I’m happy to report that we have had some success in this area and can claim credit for dismissed charges.
+1If no further court action is needed, please feel free to credit any money I donate for Stan toward Comm2A's general operations. If you need this in writing I will be happy to provide it in a letter. That should keep the IRS happy.
The limit on primers without a storage permit is ONE thousand (1,000) not 5,000. The limit with a permit is (generally) up to the recommended limits by (I forget), which is 10,000.So, is the issue reall not locking up his powder and/or possessing more than 5,000 primers? 5,000 primers really isn't that much.
I'm looking at 527 CMR 13.11. Suprisingly the limit for personal use powder is 48 pounds! That seems like a lot of powder. Also seems inconsistent with the small amount of primers one can keep.
Gasoline doesn't normally go into evil looking black things that have things that flip up. This is about harm reduction after all.When you are looking in to the CMRs, please note that multi-family dwellings have a different limit.
Also, it takes almost 100 pounds of powder to equal the combustible energy of 5 gallons of gasoline. How many people have 5 gallons of gasoline in their homes/garages/etc?
Does that apply if the powder is stored in a building separate from the building people live in?
Because we are already off on a tangent here, let me ask this.Yes it does!
Probably not but the law is so broadly written it will take an "interpretation" to work out the answer. It's not clear what constitutes prohibited behavior outside of very average circumstances. Like most MA law, edge cases blow up the law.Len, are you saying that Alice and Bob face different limits on quantities or amounts in each case above?
Questions like this came up years earlier here on NES so I sat down with my Fire Chief to get clear answers (e.g. I have a wooden shed 30' from my house, could I double my storage limits by putting 1/2 my supplies in said shed?). The answer was that the limits were "per property" no matter how many acres/how many out-buildings. I can see them treating the sub-letting of the garage the same as a "multi-family residence" and thus reduce both Bob and Alice's quantities for said location.Because we are already off on a tangent here, let me ask this.
Assume the following. Alice and Bob live in Massachusetts. Alice lives in a multi-unit apartment building. Bob lives in a single family home. Neither have storage permits. Bob owns a detached 3-car garage. Inside the garage is a locked storage cabinet.
Case 1. Bob gets into reloading and decides to store his reloading supplies in the cabinet in the garage.
Case 2. Alice leases a single garage space from Bob. The lease includes sole access to the locked cabinet. Alice stores her reloading supplies in the cabinet. Bob has no reloading supplies, ammunition, etc. stored in the garage.
Len, are you saying that Alice and Bob face different limits on quantities or amounts in each case above?
The right is not per person. And the presence of different multi-family restrictions blows the per property thing out of the water.Questions like this came up years earlier here on NES so I sat down with my Fire Chief to get clear answers (e.g. I have a wooden shed 30' from my house, could I double my storage limits by putting 1/2 my supplies in said shed?). The answer was that the limits were "per property" no matter how many acres/how many out-buildings. I can see them treating the sub-letting of the garage the same as a "multi-family residence" and thus reduce both Bob and Alice's quantities for said location.
Neither the Fire Chief nor I found any wall-hacks that were useful here. Sorry.
Although there are some questions being raised about some of GOAL's financial practices (and with justification) I would hardly say that GOAL is not effective. They are a lobby and have a specific mission. This is also true of the NRA on a national level. I also think it is true, that the NRA doesn't throw a lot of money to Massachusetts because it is like pouring money down a sewer. The reason that these other gun organizations exist is because they fill another gap or need that is not addressed by the NRA.Now I'm starting to understand that while NSSF, GOA, CCRKBA, and other outfits are defending individuals and bringing lawsuits across the country--GOAL and the NRA are MIA. The NRA especially, takes tons of money out of Massachusetts. A few K to help folks like Stan would go a long way for their image of defending gun rights.
Some technical corrections: NSSF is not helping "individuals", they sue on behalf of industry businesses. It's not CCRKBA but SAF doing the suing, CCRKBA is the lobby arm (really, they got WA state CCW permits in the 70s). GOA is working on behalf of individuals.Now I'm starting to understand that while NSSF, GOA, CCRKBA, and other outfits are defending individuals and bringing lawsuits across the country--GOAL and the NRA are MIA. The NRA especially, takes tons of money out of Massachusetts. A few K to help folks like Stan would go a long way for their image of defending gun rights.
This. Any further drifting will get trashed. There are plenty of other GOAL/NRA/etc gripe threads on the board...which people are welcome to find and post in. Let's keep this one on topic.Please let's keep the thread drift to a minimum. If you want to complain about GOAL, that's your right. But, please don't do it in OUR thread about OUR projects.
GOAL is an important player in MA and they deserve continued support. Withholding support from GOAL because another organization is doing something good is just insanely stupid.
Of course now that pay day is here, the link no longer works. I'm assuming this is for reasons mentioned in the above post? I donated anyway as I'm sure you guys have lots of other projects you need funds for as well.At this time donations have exceeded the current requirement and we’re able to offer Stan the level of support we’d hope to provide. Excess funds raised in response to this project are ear marked and will be kept in reserve pending possible future proceedings including appeals and expert witnesses.
No, it is precisely because Stan is easy to prosecute that they are going after him. He falls into the "white middle aged male, decent citizen category" and is such is the perfect candidate for arrest and prosecution. Remember the bottom line is conviction rate, and from the DA's perspective Stan is an easy mark. It is all part of the game known as the "criminal justice system."So the DA and the Lowell PD doesn`t have enough to do? They are wasting taxpayers money prosecuting a law abiding citizen instead of using that money to go after drug dealers and gangbangers. Good job guys. I`m glad you have your priorities straight. MORONS!