GOAL Files Bill to Prevent Gun Confiscations During a State of Emergency

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,229
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Hmmm... I'll bet this will have the full backing and support of the MA Chiefs of Police Association....




Not....






GOAL Files Bill to Prevent Gun Confiscations During a State of Emergency

In response to the reckless action taken by government officials during the Katrina aftermath, Gun Owners Action League has recently filed legislation to ensure that the lawfully owned firearms cannot be confiscated during a state of emergency.

Senator Richard T. Moore, a long time friend of the lawful gun owners of Massachusetts, filed the bill on behalf of GOAL. The lead sponsor of the this bill is significant due to the fact that Senator Moore served as the Associate Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during the Clinton administration in 1994 - '95.

The bill entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency” would establish a new law that prevents government officials and/or law enforcement from confiscating lawful property and provides serious penalties for any violations.

“It is unconscionable that our government would even consider taking away our last means of self defense in a time of crisis.” said Jim Wallace GOAL Executive Director, “During a state of emergency, like that of the Katrina disaster, our lawfully owned firearms are our only means of protecting our families, our homes and our neighbors against a criminal element that would likely be running free.”



An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency


Section 1. Chapter 140 of the Massachusetts General Laws shall be amended by adding the following section;

Section 129E. Prohibiting the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms.

No law enforcement officer, person acting as a law enforcement officer, or other public official shall confiscate or attempt to confiscate any lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearm, rifle or shotgun in this state during a declared state of emergency.

Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to a civil fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 for each firearm, rifle or shotgun confiscated or by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than ten years or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years

http://www.goal.org/news/katrinabill.htm

In other developments, GOAL also filed a bill that would punish criminal who use a fake gun or BB gun during the commission of a crime...

GOAL Files Deceptive Device Bill in Response to New Bedford Incident

In response to the shooting incident in New Bedford involving a police officer and a drug addict, Gun Owners Action League has taken a proactive step to assist law enforcement. On January 10, 2007 State Representative John Quinn (9th Bristol) filed, on behalf of GOAL, a bill that would punish criminals who commit crimes with devices that intend to convey the presence of a firearm.

The bill, "An Act Relative to Deceptive Weapon Devices" would provide law enforcement and the courts a tool that would punish those who are committing crimes with fake or look alike guns by allowing the courts to convict them as if they are armed.

"This bill is a proactive measure that will hopefully discourage criminals from pretending to have firearms in an attempt to intimidate victims and cause problems for police in emergency situations." said Jim Wallace GOAL Executive Director, "No police officer should have to make the split second decision as to whether a criminal is holding a real gun or a fake gun. Secondly, no criminal should get away without being charged and convicted as being armed when they certainly intended everyone to believe they were."

As a further note to this case, GOAL understands that the officer involved in the shooting was cleared of any wrong doing.



Bill Language:

SECTION 1. Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting the following definition:-

“Deceptive Weapon Device” Any device or item used in the commission of a crime that is intended to convey the presence of a weapon, as defined in this section, to a potential victim or law enforcement officer. Such devices or items shall include, but not be limited to, common air guns, toy guns, or substances carved or fashioned to resemble a weapon.

SECTION 2. Chapter 265 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting a new section:-

Section 45. Crimes committed with a deceptive weapon device

Any person who is in possession of a deceptive weapon device as defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, during the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws shall be deemed to be armed and shall be punishable by penalties set forth in this Chapter.

Snipped for brevity. A lot more info here...

http://www.goal.org/news/NewBedford.htm
 
Didn't I read that the Feds had already passed something similiar in the way of non-confiscation? [thinking]

Yep, but if I'm reading the law correctly, it only apples to federal officials and agencies and isn't directly applicable to state officials or agencies (states rights).... By directly, I mean there's no legal basis for any state to comply with the law, but if they don't the feds could withhold any funding or support. (IANAL).

SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES.

`(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may--

`(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;

`(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;

`(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or

`(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.

`(b) Limitation- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency.

`(c) Private Rights of Action-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section.

`(2) REMEDIES- In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found.

`(3) ATTORNEY FEES- In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.'.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2006.
 
IANAL, but I don't read it that way at all. The langauge here seems to clearly state that if an agency is receiving federal funds, then it's officers are bound by this law and subject to its penalties. In contrast, some of the other federal legislation with which I'm familiar (primarily in education) state that agencies that don't comply with a particular federal rule can be excluded from participation in some program or grant. For example, 20 USC 1094 specifies that institutions participating in a particular student aid program agree to complete certain federal data collection forms, and that refusal to do so satisfactorily can preclude future participation. The language is quite different from that of 706(a) shown here.

Ken
 
The distinction between the behavior of state vs federal officials is important. NH also amended the portion of the RSA's dealing with involuntary taking during a state of emergency to make it a crime in NH to confiscate weapons:

4:46 Taking of Private Property; Compensation and Use. –
(...)
I-a. Under no circumstances shall this section be construed to authorize the taking, confiscation, or seizure of firearms, ammunition, or ammunition components.
(...)
VI. Any person who willfully takes possession of, or attempts to take possession of, property, purporting to act under this section but without authority to so act, whether by false pretense or otherwise, upon conviction, shall be guilty of a class B felony if a natural person, or guilty of a felony if any other person, and 1/2 of any fine imposed shall be paid to the owner of the property and 1/2 to the county.
 
IANAL, but I don't read it that way at all. The langauge here seems to clearly state that if an agency is receiving federal funds, then it's officers are bound by this law and subject to its penalties. In contrast, some of the other federal legislation with which I'm familiar (primarily in education) state that agencies that don't comply with a particular federal rule can be excluded from participation in some program or grant. For example, 20 USC 1094 specifies that institutions participating in a particular student aid program agree to complete certain federal data collection forms, and that refusal to do so satisfactorily can preclude future participation. The language is quite different from that of 706(a) shown here.

Ken

I think we're on the same page, but a paragraph apart. I see what you're getting at though... there are very few (if any), local/state law enforcement agencies that don't receive some sort of federal funding in one way or another and therefore are bound by the stipulations of HR 5013.

However, all an agency would have to do is refuse or remove itself from any federal assistance, training or funding (yeah... right [wink] ), and be exempt from the federal law. But, it boils down to the same thing... comply or we don't pay (except that in this situation there are other penalties involved).

GOAL must have some reason for proposing this legislation.

Either it's to cover that hypothetical scenario/loophole, and/or make it a matter of public record that the legislature supports confiscation of firearms during an "emergency".
 
Last edited:
MA doesn't care about Fed Laws, and most of the judges in this district would let them skate or at worst just slap them on the wrist.

The bill is necessary, but I'd give it less than 0.00005% chance of passage in the MA legislature. And even if it does pass, it's not like the local cities and towns "have to" abide by state law either! Many still do what they want and get away with it.

Color me a skeptic!
 
MA doesn't care about Fed Laws, and most of the judges in this district would let them skate or at worst just slap them on the wrist.

The bill is necessary, but I'd give it less than 0.00005% chance of passage in the MA legislature. And even if it does pass, it's not like the local cities and towns "have to" abide by state law either! Many still do what they want and get away with it.

Color me a skeptic!

If only the British whose asses we kicked in the late 1700's could see Massachusetts today. It would make them feel good to see everything came full-circle, and their souls could rest easy.[rolleyes]
 
Either it's to cover that hypothetical scenario/loophole, and/or make it a matter of public record that the legislature supports confiscation of firearms during an "emergency".

Not having picked though existing federal legislation, I would assume the above is the reasoning.
 
If you're ever heard that sniveling little bitch, Jarrett Barrios on the radio discussing gun issues, he ALWAYS prefaces his anti-gun whining by saying how he respects the rights of the law-abiding gun owners in Massachusetts.

Hello? Brooklyn Bridge Sales Company on line 3!

If he doesn't throw his support being this bill from the get-go, then he'll prove (once again) what a steaming pile of hypocritical dog dump he is.
 
Don't worry, I'll be emailing him as usual, Bruce. It always gives me joy to tell him what a hypocritical phony he is. [laugh]

And you'll do that as a NEW HAMPSHIRE resident? Yeah, that'll really impress him....... [rolleyes]
 
Think the Katrina Bill will get proposed again this year? I don't recall seeing it in GOAL's listing.
 
I thought GOAL worked with them to get their concerns addressed. The trouble was, it was too late in the process to go through the wringer and come out again. I think the language was all there, it just needs to get submitted before the July/August time frame (like NOW!) to get through and pass. No?
 
I thought GOAL worked with them to get their concerns addressed. The trouble was, it was too late in the process to go through the wringer and come out again. I think the language was all there, it just needs to get submitted before the July/August time frame (like NOW!) to get through and pass. No?

Have you talked to any CLEO about the bill? I called the Northboro CLEO and he was dead set against it.
 
I can't see it mattering that much in a real state of emergency anyways? My door will be locked and boarded, and I don't give a _ about your badge. Think they would go battering people's houses in?
 
Back
Top Bottom