-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
GOAL Files Emergency Legislation
- Thread starter Revelationechc
- Start date
Heres the problem as I see it:
"The licensing authority shall, within 40 days from the date of application, either approve the application and issue the license or deny the application and notify the applicant of the reason for such denial in writing; provided, however, that no such license shall be issued unless the colonel has certified, in writing, that the information available to him does not indicate that the possession of a firearm or large capacity firearm by the applicant would be in violation of state or federal law."
I hope that GOAL understands that this does not mean that there are 40 days to apply for and receive a license because thats not the case unfortunately. The 40 day provision states that, as the law reads above, the license shall be "approved" within 40 days from date of application. Now I 100% agree that the system is severely flawed but if GOAL's stance is the overall process time, ie. getting an appointment, coming in, etc. is the problem, they should focus on that and not the 40 days because its a losing battle. Approved means that the LO clicks the approve button and it gets sent to the FRB for card printing and mailing. Ive seen that take in excess of 3-4 weeks alone, nevermind getting AFIS checks back from the state in a timely, consistent manner. Just my opinion but I think GOAL is gonna take this one on the chin for going about it the wrong way.
"The licensing authority shall, within 40 days from the date of application, either approve the application and issue the license or deny the application and notify the applicant of the reason for such denial in writing; provided, however, that no such license shall be issued unless the colonel has certified, in writing, that the information available to him does not indicate that the possession of a firearm or large capacity firearm by the applicant would be in violation of state or federal law."
I hope that GOAL understands that this does not mean that there are 40 days to apply for and receive a license because thats not the case unfortunately. The 40 day provision states that, as the law reads above, the license shall be "approved" within 40 days from date of application. Now I 100% agree that the system is severely flawed but if GOAL's stance is the overall process time, ie. getting an appointment, coming in, etc. is the problem, they should focus on that and not the 40 days because its a losing battle. Approved means that the LO clicks the approve button and it gets sent to the FRB for card printing and mailing. Ive seen that take in excess of 3-4 weeks alone, nevermind getting AFIS checks back from the state in a timely, consistent manner. Just my opinion but I think GOAL is gonna take this one on the chin for going about it the wrong way.
Last edited:
Dench,
If you can get the laws changed for our benefit, I will send you a check for $25...
If you can get the laws changed for our benefit, I will send you a check for $25...
I am supporting Comm2A with the hope that the state will be sued into changing law.
As in, they are forced to do it. Not done via MA's "Democracy."
As an added laughable tidbit to MA, I did email my state rep back when GOAL was trying to run some bill. Guess where my representative was? Afghanistan from what i was told. My state rep was ****ing deployed in Afghanistan. How the hell is he doing his job there? That guy needs to pick a friggen career.
Last edited:
What do you expect out of GOAL? Serious question. If your expectations are unrealistic, then you should probably not rejoin, because you will almost certainly be disappointed.
I hear ya. I support comm2a AND Goal. We need both organizations. If goal goes away, I can promise comm2a will have a ton more to do than they already do. I wish goal had more success in getting good bills through, I'm sure goal does too. It's been said already, goal at least keeps things from getting worse. I will support them as long as they support us.
I just realized my last post is a rap. Read it to a bouncy beat. Enjoy.
Short term, I hope that GOAL passes at least one of those bills it is proposing - or gets at least close to passing one of them.
Back when I got into MA shooting politics, GOAL bills used to get me really excited. I used to think "wow, this would be fantastic if this passed." Then the state does what the state does. Good ol' boy back room bullshit in the state house. None of the bills go anywhere and that takes a toll on moral after a while.
Then we had massgunlawreform. That bill pissed me the **** off straight up. If I remember it correctly, it had all sorts of mandatory minimums all over it. I hate mandatory minimums. the minimum issue was literal 100x larger to me than GOAL trying to sneak in some odd ball money into its own pocket. I was embarrassed to be a member of GOAL when that bill was put up. That was the beginning of the end for me.
Then the good old boy shit keeps going on in the state house. Nothing moves anywhere without the blessing of some corrupt piece of shit in Boston.
So last year came out the news that GOAL itself was actually a good old boy club with some weird money connections and some conflict of interest. I didnt really care to much about that, because to me GOAL was already a waste. Comm2A was already out, and my interest focused on suing the state, not trying to pass what i would call gay ass laws with middle of the road BS/Fuddery attached to them. Can't get them to pass the law? Sue them. Lose there? Bring them to the next court till that SOB hits the supreme court if possible. Thats my current goal for MA gun laws.
I honestly think GOAL at this point of time means well, but is a massive failure. I would love to see all the money that GOAL gets thrown into Comm2A's coffers so we can relentlessly sue the shit out of the state. Most of MA's gun laws are infact illegal, and most of MA's residents don't give a shit about that. Thats why we will lose in the state house and our only bet in my mind is to bring it to court.
Also, while I'm thinking of all this, I was mega bummed out by Jim Wallace and Rosenthol on that interview last summer. Rosenthol was there making all sorts of shit up. Jim is to nice of a guy, he lets it slide and isnt nearly aggressive enough to debate these people. We need a person that will go into an interview, who is an intimidating presence, looks sharp and can talk the talk big time. Rosenthol is a penis boy through and through, but so many people dont like guns that no one fact checks his shit. We need a person up there that will go alpha male on that clown and shut him down every time he makes up some stupid number, or calls a magazine a clip. The guy cant even get the basic vocabulary down, yet he still wins, or appears to win debates on tv.
I dont even know what to expect from GOAL. I dont expect much to be honest. I dont think any of those bills will get even close to passing. I would love them to, but I dont think they would.
I think GOAL's goals are noble, but that fight (the state house) is so beyond lost, its a massive waste of resources in my eyes. 98' and 04' plus the AG regs all go on, and there are zero signs that any of that will ever change in our state house.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
I'm hardly enthusiastic about the status of 2A rights in MA or what our little petri dish means for the rest of the country, but maybe I'm a sucker for lost causes. If there's ANY chance of winning then we need as many resources as we can working toward the same ends. GOAL's role in this regard is analogous to little Hans Brinkler with his finger in the Dyke, but it's still a pivotal role and one worthy of my support.
It's not a waste because any new bullshit law the GOAL can stop or delay is one less bullshit law that Comm2A has to litigate. (Or in the worst case one that they have more time to prepare for.)
Since you seem to (rightly) respect Comm2A's contributions, why not ask them what they think of the current GOAL?
Last edited:
inerlogic
NES Member
If you think that'll fix Martha's issues.... I'll take one for the team....
Sorry.... I know you meant "dike."
Sent from my EVO 4G LTE using Forum Runner
Last edited:
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
I think we're missing that GOAL often has to play a lot of defense to STOP laws from being passed, and that takes away from it's political capital to go on the offensive trying to get pet legislation passed.
Sometimes we have to realize that much of GOAL's time and money just has to go into maintaining what little 2A rights we do have left--otherwise, we'd have a one-gun-a-month law, mandatory insurance, and home alarm requirements, too. Call this attitude defeatist if you like, but it ain't wrong.
I'm glad you brought this up. This isn't a Mass thing, and it's been going on forever. This was happening when guys were writing laws with quill pens. The Constitution was ratified because of backroom deals with slave states. Back room deals got us The Bill Of Rights. It's called 'politics'. You don't have to like or condone it, but you have to accept that it exists.
GOAL is our only 'in' to the back rooms and hallways of the state house. Jim Wallace is a lobbyist. What a lobbyist does is build relationships with legislators, and ensure - at the very minimum - that our voices are heard. As we all know, Mass is very anti-gun. Jim is there to remind the legislators that we exist.
GOAL can't go on the floor of the state house and argue for the passage of bills. Only legislators can do that. You all know how much misinformation exists about guns and gun laws (just look at this forum - we're all gun owners and presumably pro-gun, and we can't even agree all the time). GOAL (through Jim) helps the pro-gun legislators get their facts straight so they can intelligently argue on our behalf.
Like others have said, without GOAL's presence on 'the hill', we'd probably have a California style AWB, a one-gun-a-month law, and a micro-stamping or 'smart gun' requirement. We would definitely have a CMR in place that would eliminate training and public events at gun clubs. Unfortunately, it's very hard to prove a negative, but I truly believe that GOAL is the reason that we don't have these laws on the books. I became a life member because of this.
For every bill that GOAL supports, there's a new anti-gun bill that's introduced. An important part of what GOAL does is to keep these bills from passing. As we've seen, it's easier to keep a bill from passing than it is to get one through. We can't just give up, pull out of the statehouse, and throw all of our support behind battling the laws in the courts. We need to participate in the legislative process to try to change the laws that exist, and to keep new more onerous laws from passing.
GOAL does that, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Last edited:
I can't say that I disagree with you, but Jim shouldn't be that guy. The 'alpha male' personality that you describe is anathema to what makes somebody a good lobbyist for a minority group in a hostile environment. You can't be an intimidating dick and expect any success at the state house.
Support who you want, I'm calling you on your claim that they're ineffective by pointing out laws they STOPPED from happening. So what if all the bills they're filing don't pass. If only one does that's 1 more for the good guys. You have an issue with GOAL, fine I get that. Don't support them but if you distort facts someone is going to call you on it.
dixidawg
NES Member
This.
I saw "Lincoln" this past weekend. I have no idea how much of it was true and how much was Spielberg's imagination. However, it really brought home how laws are and always will be made. And how important it is to win every little battle.
Would GOAL be willing to have one of it's members become that debate guy on some basis?
If we hired someone like Scriv to play that role for GOAL?
Just throwing ideas out here.
Sent from my mobile device.
Mike S
NES Member
Serious question and I'm not trying to bust chops.
What do you hope to accomplish - what would be the end result of having a guy from our side shout down Rosenthal on Fox 25 for 2.5 minutes?
Let's say I went on and completely owned Rosenthal without shouting, with just facts.
How would that be received by the viewers who for the most part are not on our side, or if they are, don't consider it a strong enough issue to get worked up about? Do you think the viewers would believe my facts or his?
*Personally* I think we need to figure out how to weaponize the 2A issue just as the liberals have weaponized abortion. When we do that, we'll be getting somewhere.
Scriv would be a good person for that. From what I understand he is invovled in all sorts of 2A issues in MA. A person like him, who is a very strong presence in debates or explainin 2A issues (from when ive heard him on the radio and other speaches) would be a good idea. God know what he would charge for his time, though.
Okay, but then lets not do the interview at all if we aren't going to put the best guy up there.
Then we just look pwned.
Sent from my mobile device.
I honestly think that the viewers would fall asleep if a GOAL rep beat Rosenthal on facts in a debate.
The public wants to "feel" (Rosenthal is good at meeting that objective), they aren't interested in facts/statistics!
Sad but true.
You would need a poster child. A woman who was assaulted Nd takes the position that had she been able to defend herself blah blah. Needs to be a woman or a gay man who was beaten on and used a weapon to defend himself. It has to be someone who would normally be considered part of the anti demographic.
Hi Bob,
We have recieved many calls in our office and I am concerned about unneccesary fines being charged to our residents. I hope we can resolve this problem with this legislation.
Regards,
Jennifer L. Flanagan
State Senator
Worcester & Middlesex District
*******
Jen
Since there is no grace period on firearms licenses a permit holder could be arrested and have his firearms confiscated by Law Enforcement. This is unacceptable but SOP for this anti-gun State. Thanks for your help and I would appreciate any updates on the life of this bill. I`m sure GOAL will be watching this bill also.
Bob
*********
Hi Bob,
GOAL has also been in contact with my office regarding the bill. I will be sure to keep you updated if I hear any news.
Thanks,
Jennifer L. Flanagan
State Senator
Worcester & Middlesex District
We have recieved many calls in our office and I am concerned about unneccesary fines being charged to our residents. I hope we can resolve this problem with this legislation.
Regards,
Jennifer L. Flanagan
State Senator
Worcester & Middlesex District
*******
Jen
Since there is no grace period on firearms licenses a permit holder could be arrested and have his firearms confiscated by Law Enforcement. This is unacceptable but SOP for this anti-gun State. Thanks for your help and I would appreciate any updates on the life of this bill. I`m sure GOAL will be watching this bill also.
Bob
*********
Hi Bob,
GOAL has also been in contact with my office regarding the bill. I will be sure to keep you updated if I hear any news.
Thanks,
Jennifer L. Flanagan
State Senator
Worcester & Middlesex District
kingfisher
NES Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,631
- Likes
- 2,470
I support GOAL, but I can't get behind this bill unless this issue is fixed.
I've read the entire thread, and the same language is on GOAL's website. I don't see where this issue has been adequately addressed.
Just to be clear, as some people may not have had to deal with this... a restricted license needs to be "expired" when someone moves from a red town before the CLEO in a green town can issue an unrestricted license. This bill doesn't seem to account for that.
Last edited:
Mike S
NES Member
Ah, you see, therein lies the problem..
You don't want to give them the pulpit do you? Let them ramble on unchallenged?
Same with filing legislation, if we give the antis the pulpit via letting them do whatever they want and it goes without challenge, what's going to happen?
This is exactly why GOAL is needed.
Similar threads
