Detention in gun cases challenged

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob, most of the posts I see you make are critical of one thing or another... and this is no exception. Why don't you volunteer your services to GOAL so you can be sure that they don't make these mistakes in the future?

If you searched for my posts and did a count, you would find that "most" (as defined by more than half) of my posts are not critical of anything but dealing with the the broad aspects of firearms issues.

I am a GOAL member, and support what they do (ask Jon Green how I've treated him at club events, or what happened when they needed an airsoft gun for their training). I don't think that being a member who respects and admires their work means I am not free to disagree, as I had done on a few occasions. One of my sticky points is "factual integrity", and I took GOAL's statement as an assertion that the law provides for holding persons whose only offense is an expired LTC without bail - a conclusion I disagreed with. Maybe that's not what Jim meant when making that statement, but that's the way I parsed the statement. It may also be the factual reality of sound bit politics that less than precise but simple statements make the point better than accurate explanations.

I'll also be at the show in January representing my gun club, and competitive shooting, and will follow that up by a competition class that also meets the MA licensing requirements. (I generally run two such classes a year).

The bulk of my volunteer work is related to competitive shooting, however, there are a few guns on the lab tested roster, and some on the target roster, because I introduced a MA based attorney to the manufacturer and called in some favors. I spent a considerable amount of time discussing the MA legal issues with Glock's chief legal counsel when he contacted me asking about the MA situation. I gave testimony at the EOPS target roster hearing on behalf of an organized group of competitive shooters and was the only person so testifying who was not a state employee, GOAL rep (Jim Wallace did a great job at that hearing by the way), or representative of a gun manufacturer or wholesaler.

When GOAL arranged to have the "Reason for issuance" change to "Restriction", I contacted a GOAL board member and suggested that such strategic decisions as the ill-fated request to the state for clarification of "reason for issuance" should be made by the board after a risk/benefit analysis. He disagreed, but at least he was willing to take the time to hear my concern.

I may run for the GOAL board some day (as that is the only position where one can really influence policy), however for the foreseeable future, I'll be doing my volunteer work for competitive shooting - a task that typically involves a minimum of four trips per year to various parts of the country, mostly to sit around in hotel conference rooms, and countless evening/weekend hours.

So, despite what you may assume, I am actually out there in the arena getting stuff done.