GOAL Files Emergency Legislation

[OfficerObie59]

Yes and lets get a better spokesperson for that then.

Sent from my mobile device.

I don't want a 2A bombthrower, but I want someone like Chaffetz who called out Bill O'Reilly on his BS, someone that's going to say "No, you are absolutely wrong and here is the law to prove it."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...s_rep_jason_chaffetz_on_gun_control_laws.html

Guys like Rosenthal win with pathos because they're full of shit. We need an intelligent and charismatic fighter for the cause.

 

[EddieCoyle]

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.

You nailed it my friend.

We need a multiracial lesbian in a wheelchair.

 

[Admin]

FIFY

You nailed it my friend.

We need a multiracial lesbian teacher in a wheelchair.

 

[dwarven1]

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.

Again... baby steps and tightly focused bills is what GOAL is trying accomplish.

And someone can re-apply (I grant you it's another C-note to do so, which isn't good) whenever they want; they do NOT have to wait until their LTC expires.

One step at a time. Let's get rid of the expiration date and THEN work on the big one - getting MA to be "shall issue".

 

[cekim]

I don't want a 2A bombthrower, but I want someone like Chaffetz who called out Bill O'Reilly on his BS, someone that's going to say "No, you are absolutely wrong and here is the law to prove it."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...s_rep_jason_chaffetz_on_gun_control_laws.html

Guys like Rosenthal win with pathos because they're full of shit. We need an intelligent and charismatic fighter for the cause.

You really need a broad spectrum of advocates because different people will respond to different persuasions...

One thing we know is there aren't many that simply respond to logic, reason and data.

Putting all of your eggs in one charismatic basket is a bad bet. Cults of personality work, but they are very finicky and difficult to intentionally construct. Much like a popular shoe, fad, song. You can put the known elements of success in a pot, but there's some magic that happens (or more often does not) that no one can really predict.

Rosenthal works because he is a pathological liar. He knows what he is saying is false, but he can say it with a straight face and play on people's emotions. If you are a sociopath of this variety, you can get a long way in politics. The ability to spew bald faced lies and make people believe that you believe what you are saying is a powerful, vile tool.

 

[HTRN]

You really need a broad spectrum of advocates because different people will respond to different persuasions...

One thing we know is there aren't many that simply respond to logic, reason and data.

Putting all of your eggs in one charismatic basket is a bad bet. Cults of personality work, but they are very finicky and difficult to intentionally construct. Much like a popular shoe, fad, song. You can put the known elements of success in a pot, but there's some magic that happens (or more often does not) that no one can really predict.

Rosenthal works because he is a pathological liar. He knows what he is saying is false, but he can say it with a straight face and play on people's emotions. If you are a sociopath of this variety, you can get a long way in politics. The ability to spew bald faced lies and make people believe that you believe what you are saying is a powerful, vile tool.

We need to leverage self affirmation and cultural cognition just as he does.

We just need to couple it with the truth where he couples it with lies.

Sent from my mobile device.

 

[rwl1955]

Rosenthal works because he is a pathological liar. He knows what he is saying is false, but he can say it with a straight face and play on people's emotions. If you are a sociopath of this variety, you can get a long way in politics. The ability to spew bald faced lies and make people believe that you believe what you are saying is a powerful, vile tool.
*******
Rosenthal works because the press/media give him a platform free from critical questioning and the public is brainwashed into believing his lies. He tells the sheeple what they want to hear and no one is allowed to call him on it. Remember when he was on Chronicle w/Wallace and he threatened to sue Wallace if he brought up the phony sting Rosenthal and his buddy Steve Bailey from the Globe tried to pull off in NH?

 

[center442]

I received this request from GOAL today. I'm posting it here in for anyone who may have experienced a delay but might not be a GOAL member. Rep. DeLeo needs some examples he can point to to illustrate the extent and severity of the problem. I don't think that it matters if the person affected is a GOAL member or not, or if they live in DeLeo's district, since it seems to be a widespread problem.

License Renewal Alert - Update
MA House Speaker Robert DeLeo needs YOUR documentation!
Please Send Documentation of Delays!

GOAL Licensing Alert Update - December 5, 2012



As you know, GOAL has been getting hundreds of phone calls and emails regarding licensing delays. Some of you waited weeks just for the appointment to apply, and many of you have waited or are still waiting for months to actually have the FID or LTC in hand.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo has agreed to help us look into this matter.

At this time, we ask that you send information about your appointment/licensing delays ONLY (no restriction/denial issues, please) to Andrew Keegan, Speaker DeLeo's legislative aide.

Please keep the emails brief and polite, as their office is on our side!

You may email Andrew at [email protected]

(Mods, and GOAL folks, if this is out of line, let me know and I'll remove it.)

 

[cekim]

We need to leverage self affirmation and cultural cognition just as he does.

We just need to couple it with the truth where he couples it with lies.

Sent from my mobile device.

Truth is often dirty, unpleasant and expensive. A lie, so long as it can be maintained is much more appealing to those not thinking of long term consequences.

I think the biggest barrier to having a sane political system is this asymmetry.

Those of us seeking an honest, limited government are well acquainted with the harsh realities of life so their existence neither surprises nor deters us from seeking long term beneficial outcomes even if it involves short-term pain/cost.

Then there are those who have not grown up and still believe that we can have "perfect" without destroying "good." They don't want to hear about problems and realities, they want to hear about the "good stuff" coming.

This is the single most important part of Reagan's success IMUO, he was able to express what needed to be done "positively" and convince people to accept near term pain for long term gain without negativity. So many of us are looking at what is going on around us and find it hard to get out of the negativity even harder to try to convince others of the "good times to come, if only..."

Pathological liars like Rosenthol and Warren have no trouble putting on a happy face because they know full well that their rainbows and unicorns are bull!@#$, but they don't care. They just like the warm glow of adoration and money flowing their way.

 

[kingfisher]

Again... baby steps and tightly focused bills is what GOAL is trying accomplish.

And someone can re-apply (I grant you it's another C-note to do so, which isn't good) whenever they want; they do NOT have to wait until their LTC expires.

One step at a time. Let's get rid of the expiration date and THEN work on the big one - getting MA to be "shall issue".

I don't believe someone can reapply in the new green town they've moved to in an effort to get LTC restrictions removed "whenever they want," so I think that statement of yours is false.

Here's a thread about a guy who had to get a lawyer involved because the police in the town he moved from would not expire his license (please be sure to read through post #14, at least): Thank-you-Jesse-Cohen!

If the way I understand GOAL's new bill is correct, and if it passes, even hiring a lawyer wouldn't help because it doesn't allow an issuing authority to expire a license. That would leave people stuck with restrictions no matter where they moved in MA!

If I'm wrong about any of this, I hope someone will set me straight. Otherwise, I don't think this bill is a "baby step" in the right direction (unless it's fixed). Maybe all that should be done is add this (in bold) to it, "A license to carry or possess firearms shall be valid unless revoked, expired or suspended." Easy, right?

If by "shall issue" you mean getting rid of police discretion to impose any LTC restrictions at all, then I agree with that part of your post.

 

[jasons]

If the way I understand GOAL's new bill is correct, and if it passes, even hiring a lawyer wouldn't help because it doesn't allow an issuing authority to expire a license. That would leave people stuck with restrictions no matter where they moved in MA!.

The wording is that a license would be valid until suspended or revoked, so a chief ~could~ still revoke a license.

EDIT: At the risk of being pedantic, a local chief can not "expire" a license even now. He can only suspend or revoke it. The chief has no power to alter the expiration date of a license, which is set by statute. The proposed changes here only remove the mandatory expiration wording, the suspension and revocation language remains completely unchanged.

 

[Revelationechc]

The wording is that a license would be valid until suspended or revoked, so a chief ~could~ still revoke a license.

Which you then have to report that revocation on all future license applications in all states which require it be reported...

 

[Len-2A Training]

There is a world of difference between "expired early" and revoked/suspended. The first indicates no wrong-doing by licensee and nobody ever has to explain it to anyone. The latter indicates that the person did (or was accused of) something wrong that led his PD to pull the license and MUST be explained on every future application that I've ever looked at.

I agree with the concerns raised above. Making a change so that if the person moves, the LA CHANGES to the new town would solve that problem. Upon notification of a move, the baton is passed and if the new town chooses to change the restriction it is a simple MIRCS modification resulting in a new LTC being printed with the new info on it (and change of address).

GOAL should give serious consideration to making such a modification to their proposed bill.

 

[jasons]

Which you then have to report that revocation on all future license applications in all states which require it be reported...

True, but you have to do that now anyway. (So nothing changes in that regard.)

 

[That Guy]

To all those who don't support GOAL's push for this bill because it doesn't address enough of the problems, you have to remember that it's all about chipping away and getting a foot in the door. Isn't that what we always say when it comes to opposing even small, seemingly insignificant anti-gun laws? I know that's the way I feel about it. Very rarely does change come with one sweeping bill - it took the antis time to build all these laws in Massachusetts and it will take us time to dismantle them. If you sit around and wait for the perfect bill that addresses everything you want addressed, a) it's never going to happen and b) even if it did, it wouldn't pass.

RE: Getting restrictions lifted after moving from one town to another language? Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have to wait until re-application time to get restrictions lifted - that is just the convenient time frame chiefs in red towns tend to use. They say, "When you re-apply in six years we'll talk about lifting the restrictions," because it gets you out of their hair for six years.

 

[neEEGuru]

FIFY

You nailed it my friend.

We need a multiracial lesbian in a wheelchair.

That got assaulted in a Cambridge Whole Foods parking lot, and a Harvard professor with a CCP saved her life while on their way to bringing a bag of recyclables and compost to whole foods on their BIKE.

 

[dwarven1]

To all those who don't support GOAL's push for this bill because it doesn't address enough of the problems, you have to remember that it's all about chipping away and getting a foot in the door.

I seem to recall that in NH last year, the NRA opposed the new law about constitutional carry because it didn't have everything that they wanted in it... and got a HUGE ration of crap because the law didn't pass.

How is this case different?

I'm not sure how hard it is to change a bill once it's been submitted. If it's easy, I recommend you contact Jim Wallace directly - his contact info is on the GOAL page. Or you can come to the GOAL Christmas party on Friday.

 

[GunGrey]

Like most during these times money is tight. I spend my money on things that are important, GOAL isn't high on my list. If and when I choose to donate it gets based on productivity and how my money is spent. Right now I would rather have my money spent on court cases rather than legislation. After HR2259 I kinda gave up on the idea that we can change MA through legislation. When Com2A came along it gave a lot more hope that things might change. I'd rather not work with moonbats I'd rather jam court cases down their throats and watch them choke on it.

 

[kingfisher]

The wording is that a license would be valid until suspended or revoked, so a chief ~could~ still revoke a license.

EDIT: At the risk of being pedantic, a local chief can not "expire" a license even now. He can only suspend or revoke it. The chief has no power to alter the expiration date of a license, which is set by statute. The proposed changes here only remove the mandatory expiration wording, the suspension and revocation language remains completely unchanged.

I don't know if you read the link in my post that you quoted, but to make it easy here is post #14 from that thread:

New development...and I'm EXTREMELY agitated. Went into the Westfield PD to renew my license early. The woman was extremely helpful and processed the application. After processing she offered to call the FRB for me to make sure everything was in order, so I had her make the phone call. Low and behold it turns out ALL licenses are marked for renewal because they're all marked that way unless they've been suspended, revoked, or expired early. Mine needs to be expired early for the renewal to work...so it turns out Carlisle NEVER sent the required letter even after Jesse and the Mass Chief's Association were on their case about it. I am now out another $100, and until Carlisle does their part my renewal won't mean jack!

Does that clear things up?

There is a world of difference between "expired early" and revoked/suspended. The first indicates no wrong-doing by licensee and nobody ever has to explain it to anyone. The latter indicates that the person did (or was accused of) something wrong that led his PD to pull the license and MUST be explained on every future application that I've ever looked at.

I agree with the concerns raised above. Making a change so that if the person moves, the LA CHANGES to the new town would solve that problem. Upon notification of a move, the baton is passed and if the new town chooses to change the restriction it is a simple MIRCS modification resulting in a new LTC being printed with the new info on it (and change of address).

GOAL should give serious consideration to making such a modification to their proposed bill.

Thank you, Len!

Parts of this bill may be very desirable, but if it locks people into a restricted LTC (the grossest and most unfair violation of the 2nd Amendment in MA), then it looks like a step backwards to me. No legislation that our side proposes should intentionally do that.

I'm proud to be a GOAL member, but I don't understand why people seem to be ignoring this major "defect" in the bill. Is it because it's too late to fix it (by adding a comma and one word as suggested in post #314 or by doing what LenS suggested)?

 

[Cerfur]

So on a totally different note... my licence is up April 1st anyone think there's a chance I won't have to renew? I don't...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is a world of difference between "expired early" and revoked/suspended. The first indicates no wrong-doing by licensee and nobody ever has to explain it to anyone. The latter indicates that the person did (or was accused of) something wrong that led his PD to pull the license and MUST be explained on every future application that I've ever looked at.

Another big difference. If it's "expired", the holder remains inncoulated against criminal charges if carrying (the penalty is civil), unless denied a renewal or ineligible for an LTC. That protection is lost if the LTC is revoked for any reason other than failure to file a change of address.

One easy "point solution" law GOAL could propose: "The Firearms Record Bureau shall expire a license to carry or FID upon a written notarized request from the license holder.". I don't see how even the most anti-gun legislator could take a stand against that one.

 

[Gidge]

Like most during these times money is tight. I spend my money on things that are important, GOAL isn't high on my list. If and when I choose to donate it gets based on productivity and how my money is spent. Right now I would rather have my money spent on court cases rather than legislation. After HR2259 I kinda gave up on the idea that we can change MA through legislation. When Com2A came along it gave a lot more hope that things might change. I'd rather not work with moonbats I'd rather jam court cases down their throats and watch them choke on it.

QFT

 

[jasons]

Does that clear things up?

No. Despite what was in your link, the LAW precludes a chief from expiring a license. According to the statute they can only suspend or revoke, that's it.

I agree with other poster that this law leaves something to be desired, but it says what it says.

Perhaps another "micro bill" that gives the license holder the right to voluntarily give up their license might be a solution? That way it's out of the issuing chief's hands and it doesn't have to be reported as a revocation on future applications. Call it "a bill to reduce the number of carry permits in MA" and maybe the moonbats will support it.

License expiration is set VERY specifically in the law:

A license to carry or possess firearms shall be valid, unless revoked or suspended, for a period of not more than 6 years from the date of issue and shall expire on the anniversary of the licensee's date of birth occurring not less than 5 years but not more than 6 years from the date of issue....

The same section lists the circumstances under which a license must and may be revoked or suspended. Nothing in there about "upon request from the licensee." One could make the argument that under the current law the chief can not legally revoke a license solely based on a request from the licensee even if he wanted to.

A license issued under this section shall be revoked or suspended by the licensing authority, or his designee, upon the occurrence of any event that would have disqualified the holder from being issued such license or from having such license renewed. A license may be revoked or suspended by the licensing authority if it appears that the holder is no longer a suitable person to possess such license.

This would seem to be an oversight worthy of being addressed.

EDIT: I see Rob had the same idea.

 

[jasons]

So on a totally different note... my licence is up April 1st anyone think there's a chance I won't have to renew? I don't...

Not a chance.

 

[gearjunky13]

I hate having to have a license but I doubt that will change, but not having to renew it would be bad ass but I think that this is a pipe dream,

ma is license crazy and always want at some point for you to have to be evaluated and renew,

I would like to see from this if anything is that if your license expires its still valid to any firearms you own. Only need to renew if your going to by anything new

 

[rwl1955]

Like most during these times money is tight. I spend my money on things that are important, GOAL isn't high on my list. If and when I choose to donate it gets based on productivity and how my money is spent. Right now I would rather have my money spent on court cases rather than legislation. After HR2259 I kinda gave up on the idea that we can change MA through legislation. When Com2A came along it gave a lot more hope that things might change. I'd rather not work with moonbats I'd rather jam court cases down their throats and watch them choke on it.

******
I recently renewed w/GOAL but I also do not believe we can change the gun laws in this State thru legislative action. I would rather see us sue the State, AG, etc. in court to force them to respect our rights. The NRA has failed us on this level because they have the means(our dues) to take on the State.

 

[Coyote33]

******
I recently renewed w/GOAL but I also do not believe we can change the gun laws in this State thru legislative action. I would rather see us sue the State, AG, etc. in court to force them to respect our rights. The NRA has failed us on this level because they have the means(our dues) to take on the State.

But, we're told GOAL is the NRA's arm in Massachusetts! Is it or is it not?

 

[bill o]

But, we're told GOAL is the NRA's arm in Massachusetts! Is it or is it not?

Told by whom?

 

[jar]

******
I recently renewed w/GOAL but I also do not believe we can change the gun laws in this State thru legislative action. I would rather see us sue the State, AG, etc. in court to force them to respect our rights. The NRA has failed us on this level because they have the means(our dues) to take on the State.

Jarvis v Village Vault, Comm2A's bonded warehouse lawsuit was partially funded by the NRA-CRDF.

 

[Coyote33]

Told by whom?

I thought GOAL and the NRA. That is what I'm trying to clear up.