GOAL Files Resolution Recognizing SCOTUS Ruling

GOAL

GOAL

NES Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
541
Likes
1,747
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
GOAL Files Resolution Recognizing SCOTUS Ruling

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


State Representative George Peterson has file a joint resolution (House & Senate) on behalf of Gun Owners' Action League to recognize and acknowledge the June 26, 2008 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling on the Second Amendment. (See SCOTUS Heller Case Decision)

"This Resolution is a very important step in beginning to reverse the long history of the persecution and ill-treatment of lawful gun owners in the Commonwealth," said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. "Correcting over three decades of discrimination and abuse won't happen overnight, but at least we seem to be on that path now."

GOAL is urging all of our members to contact their state senators and representatives and ask them to sign onto this resolution. They may do so by contacting Rep. George Peterson's office (617-722-2100) before 5:00 pm Wednesday, July 16, 2008 and request that their name be attached to the resolution.

_________________________________________________________________


Resolution Language​

Whereas, On Thursday, June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual’s civil right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia; and

Whereas, On Thursday, June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual civil right to use arms for traditionally lawful purposes; and

Whereas, On Thursday, June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects the lawful use of arms for self-defense within the home; and

Whereas, On Thursday, June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment is self defense; and

Whereas, The term firearm used in this resolution is a generic term not specific to any class of guns; now therefore be it

Resolved, That the Massachusetts General Court joins in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court and officially recognizes that the Second Amendment to the Constitution and Article XVII Part of the First of the Massachusetts Constitution does protect an individual civil right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and protects an individual civil right to use arms for traditionally lawful purposes and protects the lawful use of arms for self-defense within the home and officially recognizes that the core lawful purpose of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and Article XVII Part of the First of the Massachusetts Constitution is self defense; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted forthwith by the Clerk of the House of Representatives to Gun Owners’ Action League.
 
I like it. Puts feet to the fire. I'll contact mine ASAP.

I have an individual right to keep and bear firearms - not only for for sporting, not just for target and hunting, but for all traditionally lawful purposes including self defense. And that my friends has been denied to me by my community.

I am so glad we have started mobilizing here. Thank you GOAL.
 
Last edited:
If and when this gets rejected, is there a "Plan B"? Is GOAL ready to engage in a full-blown fight on this issue? I mean full-tilt boogie? I have been asking this question in several threads over the months, but have received zero response. I'm weary of the "feelgood" and want a fight - a real fight. I'll join the fight - physically and financially. I can't remember how many threads I've posted something along the lines of the following - loosely quoting myself: "I would gladly double my yearly membership fees if 100% of it went to pay for a full legal battle to overturn the gun laws in this state"

I'm weary of the silence to this query...
 
MassMark said:
If and when this gets rejected, is there a "Plan B"? Is GOAL ready to engage in a full-blown fight on this issue? I mean full-tilt boogie? I have been asking this question in several threads over the months, but have received zero response. I'm weary of the "feelgood" and want a fight - a real fight. I'll join the fight - physically and financially. I can't remember how many threads I've posted something along the lines of the following - loosely quoting myself: "I would gladly double my yearly membership fees if 100% of it went to pay for a full legal battle to overturn the gun laws in this state"

I'm weary of the silence to this query...
Click to expand...

I'd be in on that! I'd double my membership if it went to battling these bozo's in the courts. If they don't pass this bill, they have no respect for human rights. This isn't asking them to do anything but recognize and adhere to the rulings found in the Heller case which grants firearms ownership as a basic right, which I guess is asking a lot.
 
Fax sent to Rep. Geraldo Alicia...Thanks sent via email to Rep. George Peterson.

I will post any replies I receive.

Edit: I agree with MassMark and Fsorrent. Despite my semi-angry PM sent a couple of months back regarding family membership, I would gladly donate a 2nd membership fee if it were going to go to an all-out (legal & public opinion) fight.
 
Last edited:
Sent an e-mail to a couple reps and also Peterson thanking him for his support. It's good to see that some action is happening sooner than I thought. And as the previous posters said I would also be willing to up my membership some more if we could count on an aggressive campaign.
 
Court Case

MassMark said:
If and when this gets rejected, is there a "Plan B"? Is GOAL ready to engage in a full-blown fight on this issue? I mean full-tilt boogie? I have been asking this question in several threads over the months, but have received zero response. I'm weary of the "feelgood" and want a fight - a real fight. I'll join the fight - physically and financially. I can't remember how many threads I've posted something along the lines of the following - loosely quoting myself: "I would gladly double my yearly membership fees if 100% of it went to pay for a full legal battle to overturn the gun laws in this state"

I'm weary of the silence to this query...
Click to expand...
*******
I concur. f*** em, bring it on. I want to see CH.180 challenged.
 
I hope this passes and does what we want. Maybe i wont have to appeal my restricted LTCA that i just got. I will also contact our state reps as drumenigma has.
 
To those toting pitchforks and torches:

The problem right now is that Heller does not apply to any MA laws. It applies to Federal law. So before anything can happen, the 2nd needs to either be incorporated, or the State needs to recognize the decision (which is the point of this resolution, if I have read it correctly).

If we willy-nilly charge into trying to bring lawsuits against the state, there is a extremely good chance of failing. We need to be careful how we do it, beacuse a ruling against us will only hurt us more in the long run. Jim, myself and a few others were discussing this at the 4th shoot in Shirley.

I want to see Chapter 180 and other laws wiped off the books just as much as the rest of you, but it will take time and precision, this is not something that will happen overnight, or perhaps even in the next few years.
 
Whoa....what is it really saying, and how does that effect our current gun laws? It's all fine and well that the General Court of the Commonwealth (state legislature) resolves that it recognizes the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual one....and? There are "feel good" resolutions passed with regularity that don't mean squat in substance.

We are some years and many battles away from improving the situation here.

Mark L.
 
Last edited:
And yet another resolution has been filed [smile].

Lets see how many of our esteemed representatives in DC will cast an "aye" vote for this one...

From http://thomas.loc.gov

Commending the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller for upholding the right of the individual to keep and bear arms under the... (Introduced in House)

HRES 1330 IH

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 1330

Commending the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller for upholding the right of the individual to keep and bear arms under the second amendment of the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2008

Mr. SALI (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. CHABOT, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SHULER, Mr. BUYER, and Mr. CALVERT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Commending the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller for upholding the right of the individual to keep and bear arms under the second amendment of the Constitution.

Whereas the second amendment of the Constitution states, `A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.';

Whereas James Madison stated, `The right of the people to keep and bear . . . arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. . . .';

Whereas Samuel Adams once stated, `[T]he said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. . . .';

Whereas the right to keep and bear arms is now an indisputable individual right;

Whereas Congress must be vigilant to safeguard the second amendment, which is as valuable today as it was at the birth of the Nation;

Whereas the Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller reflects the view of our Founding Fathers that law-abiding citizens have the right as individuals to defend their lives, families, and property; and

Whereas no laws shall infringe on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives commends the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller for upholding the right of the individual to keep and bear arms under the second amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Sign the pledge:
Full Page Ad in the New York Times

Full Page Ad in the New York Times

July 9, 2008: Today’s New York Times features a full page ad (pg. 9) announcing the launch of our Recapture the Flag campaign. Pick up a copy and check it out! Click here to visit our new site...Click here to see the ad...
Click to expand...



Common Cause is a non-partisan citizen's organization whose goal is to ensure open, honest, accountable and effective government at the federal, state, and local levels.

Common Cause seeks by sustained and focused lobbying campaigns and other efforts:


  • To strengthen public participation and public faith in our institutions of self-government;
  • To ensure that government and the political process serve the general interest, rather than special interests;
  • To curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections;
  • To promote fair and honest elections and high ethical standards for government officials; and
  • To protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans.

Please join us in revitalizing our democracy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I would donate a LOT of money to GOAL if they would hire a tax attorney(or whoever would handle interstate commerce laws) and challenge the mail order ammo bullshit.Are the MA gun shop owners holding this up or what ? They are the ONLY people who benefit (financially benefit that is) from this insane "law", and I would think the only group of people who would like to see this "law" stay in place.

A resolution is good though,right ?
 
An interesting tactic in an election year. I don't know MA procedures, but if the resolution can be driven to a roll-call vote, a Nay vote might be useful to an opposing pro-gun candidate (should there actually be a pro-gun candidate opposing the Nay sayer).
 
"I would donate a LOT of money to GOAL if they would hire a tax attorney(or whoever would handle interstate commerce laws) and challenge the mail order ammo bullshit. Are the MA gun shop owners holding this up or what ? They are the ONLY people who benefit (financially benefit that is) from this insane "law", and I would think the only group of people who would like to see this "law" stay in place."

+1. GOAL needs a separate foundation or legal fund. Perhaps once enough funds were raised they could approach the Cato Institute or similar org and ask for legal help to fight the apparent interstate commerce restrictions in Mass.
 
Wait a minute! What, exactly, is the purpose of having the General Court adopt a "resolution" (which has no legal effect), when, if it wanted to, the General Court could cure all of the ills in Chapter 140 by just amending the statute? Isn't this akin to the usual politicians way of appearing to do something while doing nothing?

I had the same thought about the amicus brief filed by a majory of Reps and Senators in Heller. If they really wanted to do something about the D.C. ordinance, they could have overruled it by statute.

Sorry; unimpressed.
 
RKG said:
Wait a minute! What, exactly, is the purpose of having the General Court adopt a "resolution" (which has no legal effect), when, if it wanted to, the General Court could cure all of the ills in Chapter 140 by just amending the statute? Isn't this akin to the usual politicians way of appearing to do something while doing nothing?

I had the same thought about the amicus brief filed by a majory of Reps and Senators in Heller. If they really wanted to do something about the D.C. ordinance, they could have overruled it by statute.

Sorry; unimpressed.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken and from a practical perspective I agree.

However, there is something good about the resolution in that it delineates the principles found in Heller. It then asks each member of the Legislature to acknowledge and accept them as legitimate principles supporting the Law of the Land.

If a legislator affirms it, whether or not he personally agrees it, then he identifies himself as someone who supports the constitution. If he refuses, then he is a renegade piece of shit who thinks he knows better than the Supreme Court, and needs to be voted out.

Additionally, a person who affirms the principles of the Heller decision would be hard pressed to vote against a future bill that is based on those principles.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Status of Pistol brace ruling?
Replies
0
Views
126
TomMalthus
T
Ninth Circuit Panel Grants Stay: Ammo Controls Enforceable While California Appeals Earlier Ruling
Replies
2
Views
284
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Early New Year's Resolution. Take one newbie kid to the range.
Replies
2
Views
175
cams
cams
California law barring guns from most public spaces set to go into effect after appeals court ruling
Replies
16
Views
795
Fritz the Cat
Fritz the Cat
GOAL ALERT – Legislative Hearing
Replies
9
Views
904
MainelyFree
MainelyFree
Back
Top Bottom