• 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.

GOAL Hires Attorney Stephen Halbrook to Brief GOAL Board on Heller

GOAL

NES Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
541
Likes
1,747
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
On June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a decision that amounted to a crushing defeat of the anti-civil rights groups all across the nation. Read the decision syllabus on page #####. In a 5 -4 decision the court affirmed what we have known all along, that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of the individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms!

While this court ruling is a resounding success, it will certainly not sound the end to our fight here in Massachusetts or around the country. Upon hearing the decision our opposition immediately reversed their long standing position on the individual right and then proceeded to claim that SCOTUS had also cleared the way for unlimited restrictions. Of course while the court did discuss licensing and regulation, it made no such rulings and left those issues for decision at a later date.

Knowing all too well that this was not the end of our fight, but instead a new offensive beginning for our side, GOAL wanted to proceed carefully and with purpose. On Thursday, July 17, 2008 GOAL hired Constitutional expert Attorney Stephen Halbrook of Virginia to attend a special meeting of the Board of Directors. (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com) Attorney Halbrook prepared the friend of the Heller brief (Brief for the Amici Curiae) for the 55 U.S. Senators and 250 U.S. Representatives supporting the individual right interest.

During this special meeting, Mr. Halbrook briefed the Board and staff on the particulars of the case and how it might affect Massachusetts in the future. The meeting lasted several hours with great information being put forth on the facts and myths about the decision. Other than celebrating this great victory, Attorney Halbrook cautioned everyone that this was merely the first step in what will undoubtedly be a long process. He stated several times that all of us must proceed carefully and with great planning and purpose. He did state that perhaps the most important impact over time in Massachusetts will be that the Heller decision has undone the infamous 1976 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court of “Davis”.

This infamous decision by the Commonwealth’s highest court ruled over thirty years ago that no individual right to keep and bear arms existed in Massachusetts. Since that decision, every law and court ruling such as the “Moyer” and “Ruggerio” decisions in the early 1980’s have been based on “Davis”. The “Moyer” and “Ruggerio” rulings stated that since there was no individual right, the burden of proving suitability and need was placed on the citizen seeking a license. The Heller decision should now reverse that over time.

Over the coming months, GOAL will be working with our national and local allies to determine the best course of action. Specific national cases have already been filed to go after clear cut outright bans that will lay the ground work for the future. These specific cases are designed for the next legal step which is to incorporate the individual right into the 14th amendment thus extending the Heller decision to the citizens of the states. GOAL would like to thanks all of our members who have stuck with this fight for so long and remind them that we can all be proud that we were part of history that began the process of restoring yet another CIVIL RIGHT!
 
Goal presently has their 2008 Dog Days Fundraiser going. For a $25.00 donation they will enter you into a drawing with a chance to win a S&W M&P15FT rifle.
If I were more computer savvy I'd provide the link.
 
You mean sponsoring the raffle or entering it?

Entering it; usually no. But "donations" to a non-for profit charitable organization are.
Sponsoring it, probably. It depends on what is happening.

If your the company/person that donates the prize, that is usually a qualifying deduction. Again, that depends on the particular situation.
 
Have you guys set aside funds for this or do we need to do a special fundraiser?

There is no way that GOAL currently has enough funds to support a legal case that would reach to SCOTUS -- I'm sure they don't have several million USD sitting in the bank. They will need to do fund raising in the future, but at the moment they are still determining their strategy.
 
Entering it; usually no. But "donations" to a non-for profit charitable organization are.
Sponsoring it, probably. It depends on what is happening.

GOAL (like many such organizations) has two arms. The GOAL Foundation is a 501c3, so donations to that are deductible. GO-PAC is the political side and donations to that are not tax deductible. It isn't clear to me which side would be used to fund a future legal fight.
 
There is no way that GOAL currently has enough funds to support a legal case that would reach to SCOTUS -- I'm sure they don't have several million USD sitting in the bank. They will need to do fund raising in the future, but at the moment they are still determining their strategy.

Yeah, I know, I was only referring to paying Halbrook for his consultation services. GOAL would also need good (have standing, not criminals, ethnically diverse) plaintiffs for a suit.
 
IN ALL THE WAY! I am gonna start taking all the dough I have been giving to police and fire organizations and putting it where it should be.
 
Yeah, I know, I was only referring to paying Halbrook for his consultation services. GOAL would also need good (have standing, not criminals, ethnically diverse) plaintiffs for a suit.

I assume (and hope) that is the sort of thing they were discussing with Halbrook. Jura did a masterful job of planning the Heller case. GOAL is going to do the same type of planning -- determining which parts of the law they are going to challenge, on what grounds, and with what plaintiffs.
 
I assume (and hope) that is the sort of thing they were discussing with Halbrook. Jura did a masterful job of planning the Heller case. GOAL is going to do the same type of planning -- determining which parts of the law they are going to challenge, on what grounds, and with what plaintiffs.

Honestly, I think we'd be in a better position if another federal circuit incorporated the 2A first. Would make a pretty persuasive precedent (obviously not binding unless the SCOTUS holds it too). Then we could focus in MA on reducing the heavy-handed nature of the current regulations.
 
Honestly, I think we'd be in a better position if another federal circuit incorporated the 2A first. Would make a pretty persuasive precedent (obviously not binding unless the SCOTUS holds it too). Then we could focus in MA on reducing the heavy-handed nature of the current regulations.

Jura, et. al, have filed a case against the Chicago gun ban: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

The purpose of this case is specifically to address the issue of incorporation.
 
Wow, i didnt realize exactly how arbitrary the laws were for chicago. That's ridiculous to re-register each gun every year and then be imposed a tax each time you register. thats so wrong...
 
Jura, et. al, have filed a case against the Chicago gun ban: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

The purpose of this case is specifically to address the issue of incorporation.

Yeah, I've read the stuff on that site (linked it in a prior thread somewhere when it first came out). Gura's done a better job in picking out plaintiffs in Chicago than they did in DC.
 
Back
Top Bottom