G.O.A.L. goals for 2007.

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,231
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
While these seem like worthwhile efforts, my main concern isn't trying to rectify current wrongs or changing existing laws... it's fending off and trying to prevent passage of even more restrictive laws where GOAL is really going to have their work cut-out for them.


GOAL Releases Summaries on Seven Bills to Filed This Coming Session

(Note: Other bills may be filed later.)


AN ACT RELATIVE TO FAIR LICENSING

This is GOAL’s lead bill for the 2007/2008 legislative session. For far too long the state’s licensing laws have been too complex and lacking in accountability. The current laws leave lawful gun owners confused about what the can legally own, how they can carry or transport different firearms, how and why they have restrictions imposed on them and why they can be denied certain licenses for no reason. This bill begins the process of simplifying the licensing laws, adding some much needed accountability and clarifying many pieces to establish a fair licensing standard. The following are some of the things this bill attempts to do:

1. Changes the laws to create solid fair standards thus eliminating the need for “discretionary” licensing.
2. Removes the licensing of pepper spray.
3. Changing the definition of certain disqualifying offenses to clarify that certain convictions that did not include jail time will not used to deny a license.
4. Repealing Section 131 of Chapter 140 in its entirety and placing the majority of the licensing language in one section of law, 129B.
5. Clarifying the language that concerns those who sought help for alcohol or drugs.
6. Provides language to protect sealed records.
7. Clarifies that when authorities are looking at past convictions they may only consider the penalties in place at the time of the conviction.
8. Applicants shall be issued a receipt to cover them for the 90 day grace period.
9. Stating clearly that if an applicant is denied, the licensing authority must place in writing the specific reasons why, not simply state that the applicant has been found to be “unsuitable”.
10. During an appeal for wrongful denial, the justice shall have the authority to order the license be issued. Any authority that refuses to issue under an order will be held in contempt of court.
11. Any authority that is found to have wrongfully denied an applicant will be held financially responsible and be required to reimburse the applicant for all legal fees.
12. Any application shall not require the applicant to furnish letters of reference.
13. Creates an age system within the one license. For example:

A firearm identification card shall be valid for all lawful purposes subject to the following:

(a) A firearm identification card holder aged 15 through 17 shall be entitled to borrow, possess and carry any rifle or shotgun;

(b) A firearm identification card holder aged 18 through 20 shall be entitled to purchase, own, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry any rifle or shotgun;

(c) A firearm identification card holder aged 21 and over shall be entitled to purchase, own, rent, lease, borrow, possess, carry or carry concealed any firearm, rifle or shotgun;





AN ACT RELATIVE TO CERTAIN AMMUNITION

There is currently an exemption in the “Large Capacity Feeding Device” definition in Section 121 of Chapter 140 for tubular magazines found on very common .22 caliber rifles. These firearms are commonly referred to as “plinking rifles”. Since this law was passed, the firearms industry has developed a new small caliber, the .17 rimfire. This bill simply seeks to exempt this new small caliber.



AN ACT RELATIVE TO SPECIAL POLICE OFFICERS

This bill would repeal the laws that allow special interest groups to have their own private police officers.



AN ACT RELATIVE TO TAXING RAFFLES

This bill seeks to change the law governing how licenses raffles are taxed. Currently licensed raffles at taxed a rate of 5% of the “gross” receipts. Meaning if an organization conducts a raffle with a $1,000 worth of prizes but breaks even, the group still has to pay taxes on the entire $1,000. This basically forces an organization to pay taxes on money they don’t have.



AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE

This legislation seeks to strengthen the laws protecting victims of crime who are put in a situation where deadly force is necessary to protect themselves or others. Currently a citizen is protected from civil suits if force is used in their home. This bill would extend that to anywhere they have a right to be. It also clarifies that the use of lawful force is not an offense subject to arrest.



AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE LAWFUL SALE OF AMMUNITION

For as long as anyone can remember, licensed gun owners in the Commonwealth have been able to purchase ammunition and ammunition components through catalog companies outside of the commonwealth. A recent new interpretation of the ammunition sales laws by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office claims that companies outside of our state would have to be licensed in every town they intend to do business in and that sales would have to take place face to face making it impossible for lawful transactions to take place. This bill makes it clear that out of state companies can sell to licensed gun owners provided they keep a copy of the gun purchaser’s license on file and that the materials are shipped via restricted signature.



AN ACT RELATIVE TO AN UNLOADED RIFLE OR SHOTGUN

This bill would repeal the law that fines gun owners up to $1,000 for simply crossing a public way without putting their unloaded rifle or shotgun in a case. Currently if a hunter is traversing a forest or field and finds it necessary to cross a public way, commonly a back road somewhere, he/she must be carrying some sort of case with them or face stiff penalties. There seems to be no practical purpose for this law.

http://www.goal.org/news/billsummaries.htm
 
I think I have herd this one before... It starts with "I have a dream..."

Sorry... sarcasame aside... it looks great... but I fear we will never see this.
 
I think I have herd this one before... It starts with "I have a dream..."

Sorry... sarcasame aside... it looks great... but I fear we will never see this.

Sadly... I agree (at least in part). The "Fair Licensing" and "Ammo Sales" objectives would be a nice surprise, but that's way expecting too much (especially now that the anti-gun forces are gaining even more momentum).

The remainder of the proposed legislative agenda are trivial matters. Sure it would be fine by me if they passed, but if they did or didn't I wouldn't be turning cartwheels or ripping my hair out over it. The legislature just might throw us a few crumbs on those ones.

Realizing that this all part of the political process game... we lay out all our cards on the table, the other side lays out all theirs, maybe a bit of negotiation an/or trade-offs, the deck is really stacked against us more so than usual this year.

Other than the "one gun a month" plan and further restricting private sales, we really don't know at this time just what the other side is holding up their sleeves (I'd be shocked if a Kali style AWB isn't in the works).

I'd like to be optimistic about the coming year, however... we could easily be looking at 1998 all over again. [sad2]
 
Christ!!

Why don't they just make LTCs "Shall Issue" before taking up all these other lofty ideas.

It will be easier to get that after a few others, such as the ones listed, have been passed and in effect without any bad things happening afterwards. While I'd love to see them go for ALP and Shall Issue, it's not going to happen in the 07/08 session.
 
Been there, done that. We'll see. Enough what? Isn't it easier to put a link rather than tell them to go find it? Happy New Year.
 
I see on the web page at http://goal.org/news/billsummaries.htm


"AN ACT RELATIVE TO CERTAIN AMMUNITION

There is currently an exemption in the “Large Capacity Feeding Device” definition in Section 121 of Chapter 140 for tubular magazines found on very common .22 caliber rifles. These firearms are commonly referred to as “plinking rifles”. Since this law was passed, the firearms industry has developed a new small caliber, the .17 rimfire. This bill simply seeks to exempt this new small caliber."


Shouldn't this be changed to the plural calibers since there are now two .17 rimfire rounds? Also, maybe it could be even more open-ended than this because what happens if a new .19 or .20 or other caliber rimfire comes out?

I say this whole one just gets tossed and go for repealing the 10 round ban in its entirety.
 
Last edited:
A firearm identification card shall be valid for all lawful purposes subject to the following:

(a) A firearm identification card holder aged 15 through 17 shall be entitled to borrow, possess and carry any rifle or shotgun;

(b) A firearm identification card holder aged 18 through 20 shall be entitled to purchase, own, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry any rifle or shotgun;

(c) A firearm identification card holder aged 21 and over shall be entitled to purchase, own, rent, lease, borrow, possess, carry or carry concealed any firearm, rifle or shotgun;

Forgive my ignorance but was this intended to eliminate the Class A/B LTCs?
 
In another thread, Scriv posted this when asked "What specific clearly defined goals would you propose?" :

The complete nullification of the AG's regs by adoption of:

1. The CPSC standards for firearms: That they are an open and obviously dangerous instrumentality wholly OUTSIDE the need for and scope of "consumer protection;" and

2. The adoption of a statutory definition of "point of sale" (already inferred by the adoption of part of the UCC in the MGL) to nullify the AG's unilateral edict that internet and mail-order sales of ammo and components somehow constitute as sale WITHIN the state.

Note that this could be done while still requiring that such sales require proof of the purchaser's being duly licensed. Simply require the provision of a photocopy of the buyer's FID or LTC w/the order.

Non-existent crisis resolved.



IF point #1 above could be writtten to include the nullification of the EOPS list AND the AG regs, and #2 would eliminate the mail-order/internet sales nonsense, then it seems to me that this is EXACTLY what we and GOAL should be pursuing for 2008.

To me, those 2 things along with moving to shall issue would have the largest positive impact to Mass gun owners.

Thoughts?
 
I may have seen this posted before - but I haven't seen it brought up lately.

And I am just throwing this out as an idea - however far fetched it may be.

Why doesn't somebody (GOAL?) push for mandatory "gun safety training" as part of the graduation requirements for high school - or maybe get it added as a requirement for graduation from MA state colleges?

Since we have mandatory sex ed, mandatory phys ed (in some cases) - and all of the liberals are all up in arms about gun safety - why not push the issue towards the "people are untrained around firearms - that is why they injure themselves" side of the road - instead of the "firearms are dangerous we should ban them" side of the road.

It seems to me that the old ways are not going to work - and we need to start thinking outside the box somehow.

If a serious campaign was mounted to say that we as MA gun owners want our children to know how to be safe around firearms - and we are requesting that they be trained - and now the legislature is forbidding it - a legitimate case could be made that the liberal legislature - and our governor - is against keeping our children safe.

You just have to spin it correctly.
 
I may have seen this posted before - but I haven't seen it brought up lately.

And I am just throwing this out as an idea - however far fetched it may be.

Why doesn't somebody (GOAL?) push for mandatory "gun safety training" as part of the graduation requirements for high school - or maybe get it added as a requirement for graduation from MA state colleges?

You just have to spin it correctly.

How about this? EVERY STATE except for Massachusetts has a gun section in their 4-H programs. Why not go after UMASS and make them offer the gun program. The Agricultural school at UMASS has a rifle team. Why doesn't 4-H? They're trying to brainwash the kids at 4-18 outside of school.

I should also point out that Malden, Braintree and Weymouth used to have high school rifle teams.

Bill
 
Back
Top Bottom