-
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's H.1568 An Act Relative to Civil Rights and Public Safety
- Thread starter copterdoctor
- Start date
Thanks for making that clear. I'm certainly not an expert on legislative process.
I will send GOAL (and my rep who is a sponsor) a marked-up version of the bill with my notes as to areas which are issues.
Even with that being said, I'm very concerned about the logic that went into the initial bill construction.
It would be really awkward to have Comm2A suing the state in federal court because of a firearms seizure for an "arrest" authorized under the GOAL bill. I might as well burn my money now and get it over with quickly
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Andy, frankly, if one were picking between the legislative and litigation paths as to which is going to bear fruit (and thus avoid burning your money), the Federal Courts are going to get us further than any MA legislature is willing to even look, much less go.
That said, we need to fight this from every avenue and after the Federal Courts have spanked the MA SJC and legislature, the laws still need to be re-written and you get bet they will try to get away with anything and everything they can. They need to know they are going to run into opposition in doing so.
That said, we need to fight this from every avenue and after the Federal Courts have spanked the MA SJC and legislature, the laws still need to be re-written and you get bet they will try to get away with anything and everything they can. They need to know they are going to run into opposition in doing so.
Bitching on the internet does not count as "doing something." Just saying...
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Exactly
I very much agree and I support both avenues. I hope we can address the current GOAL bill to bring it more inline with a true civil rights approach. It would have been much better to see it come out of the mill as a civil rights bill.
And by the way thanks for all your posts on this and trying to rally folks to the statehouse. It's an uphill fight.
By "burning" money I meant donating to both sides -- GOAL writing a bill which, as it is currently written, Comm2A could very likely end up suing the state for. You have a membership to write and bill and then a membership to undo the bill...
Kinda like supporting the MPAA and the EFF at the same time (I'm kidding, obviously GOAL is NOT LIKE THE MPAA -- but it does articulate the irony of the situation).
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
I am sure the comments have been noticed. But please don't think all one needs to do is argue on the internet and our rights are protected.
You are welcome and that is excellent you did that.
The federal courts are not the end all, be all. The 1st circuit is stacked with judges who cut their teeth in Essex, Middlesex and Suffolk counties.
To whit:
Read
Comm v. Couture http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/407/407mass178.html which is an SJC case
and compare against
Schubert v. Springfield http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5014302152995895899&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&as_vis=1
Which would you take? Surprisingly enough, the state courts may be better some times. It all depends on the topic at hand.
G
GOAL C.M.
We do, I'm up working at 10 pm reading what you guys have to say and will bring it up with Jim tomorrow. We very much value the opinions expressed on NES, otherwise we wouldn't be here, reading and responding. Also, as to the smaller bills, we have a whole bunch of them some are "pull outs" i.e. small segments of H.1568 that were filed for that sole purpose, others like Rep Websters bill go after the AG list, this is also being heard tomorrow, another great reason to attend, who on this board wouldn't want to see that go away? Please take a few minutes to look at our legislation page for more information on the bills.
Exactly. It's time to answer the bell if you want anything changed.
Yes it is Paul, thanks for your input
We did, have been and will continue to do so. Our Executive Director Jim Wallace spent MANY evenings over the last two summers going from club to club to discuss this bill, the staff spent countless hours talking to clubs trying to get them to schedule Jim's seminars, and or get their members to come to them if they did schedule them, sometimes we had a great turnout, sometimes we didn't.
We welcome input from our members and always ask them to call us, write us, email us, stop by, or all of the above.
Respectfully, I think the overall tone has been very constructive, informative, and helpful. I wouldn't characterize any of it as bitching or arguing. I made them general quotes rather then w/sn because I'm not calling anyone out, generally this thread has offered up some pretty specific and constructive ideas/feedback.
I think it should be taken seriously, even if everyone here cannot make it to the meeting or visit GOAL in person. Forums and methods of collective discussion exist to make it easy collaborate and collect opinions. This has taken several hours of my time (and I'm sure others) between reading bills, researching, and posting, I would call that doing something... and I hope GOAL prints out this thread and takes notice, or better yet engages in the discussion.
We need to be united.
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
edit: I was typing this apparently when GOAL CM had replied to thread, so didn't see his reply before posting. Thank you for replying and taking the time to bring our ideas forward.
Want to add, if it hasn't been very clear, I *strongly* would like to see any/all references to punishments/mandatory minimum sentencing removed in every possible way. And you WILL be seeing me at a future meeting when I can get the time off.
Last edited:
G
GOAL C.M.
Respectfully, I think the overall tone has been very constructive, informative, and helpful. I wouldn't characterize any of it as bitching or arguing. I made them general quotes rather then w/sn because I'm not calling anyone out, generally this thread has offered up some pretty specific and constructive ideas/feedback.
I think it should be taken seriously, even if everyone here cannot make it to the meeting or visit GOAL in person. Forums and methods of collective discussion exist to make it easy collaborate and collect opinions. This has taken several hours of my time (and I'm sure others) between reading bills, researching, and posting, I would call that doing something... and I hope GOAL prints out this thread and takes notice, or better yet engages in the discussion.
We need to be united.
Thanks neEEguru, we are reading/listening and working hard to make change happen, trust me there are few that want it more than me, I grew up in a free state and know very well how things should be.
GOAL's office is too far away for me to show up there more than once every few years. And that is the only reason why I've never run for the GOAL BOD . . . if I lived closer I would have done it years ago, but I'm a firm believer that one must participate and not just hold office.
That said, I have spoken to Jim as well as written both Rep. George Peterson and copied Jim with comments about this bill (when I saw the first draft posted by Jim) . . . regrettably it had been filed ~1 day before I sent those comments, but the deadline is tight on legislators submitting bills. Both Jim and Jon's phone numbers (including cell numbers) are on my cell phone, I'm not bashful about talking with them when I feel the need to do so.
Good idea.
I'm sorry to say that my previous post that this bill was positive was incorrect
I just took about 30 minutes to read through the full text of the bill. It's unclear that the individuals who wrote this support gun rights as a civil right.
Having only an arrest, with no burden of proof, qualify for the seizure of firearms is not a tenable position for a gun rights organization. There are other sections which back up the purported right of the commonwealth to seize firearms if you're arrested, and also make you a prohibited person for life (in federal terms) if you don't comply.
The sad part about this is that the antis only want more restriction -- they don't care what form it takes. The lack of alignment shown here is only helping them as we are at our weakest when not unified.
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
I agree with this statement.
I was unaware that George hd "great deal of latitude" in making changes to it. I'll be re-reading it and sifting thru it carefully to submit more comments to George (and copying Jim) on it shortly.
Like others stated, I don't like the minimum mandatories in the bill, bad idea . . . they only get used on good people in MA as judges hate to screw the gangbangers with long sentences.
I won't be able to be there tomorrow but will definitely let my feelings be known to the committee, George and Jim.
Thanks, this is helpful.
Hopefully, some of the suggestions here are incorporated.
This has been a real eye opener for me.
Id like to understand who wrote the text of the bill tho.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
I read through every post yet i still have not seen an answer to the OP's concern.... did i miss it?
I plan on staying up all weekend and checking out a lot of the bills floating around. The language of this one in particular bothers me, but changes can still be made. Time for me to step up and be a little more active. This thread is a wake up call.
I plan on staying up all weekend and checking out a lot of the bills floating around. The language of this one in particular bothers me, but changes can still be made. Time for me to step up and be a little more active. This thread is a wake up call.
Kicker96FS
NES Member
Not all of us have the time, to drive half way across the state to attend a meeting, I for one joined GOAL to have a voice and to keep up with whats going on, not drive all over the state to attend meetings!
This is the forum that seems to be used to convey that information to us members. While I do appreciate the fact that GOAL is up at the state house, I think that this forum could be better used for debate to those of us that can't attend meeting endlessly for various reasons, be it time or money, and have a voice, and get answers.
Speaking of answers, I PM'd GOAL C.M. and never got an answer over 2 months ago, so much for response to members. (of GOAL)
Really? That is my biggest issue with this bill. See comment above, rinse and repeat.
Hey guys and gals. It's easy to criticize what others put forth. I think it is important to remember that GOAL is a bunch of PEOPLE who are working hard every day to make gun owners lives better in this state. They may not always get it right immediately but they are always willing to listen and they want to do what is right by us. Understand that any proposed legislation whether to abolish or amend or make new law in this state still has to pass by the state reps, senators and governor. I am sure that all of you who are complaining have written, put forth and had passed into law even a minor piece of legislation so you are probably right to criticize them (as I have in the past). I don't think these things some of you have pointed out is any reason to pull our support from GOAL. I certainly won't. That's kind of liek cutting off your nose to spite your face. If GOAL wasn't willing to get our input they wouldn't blatantly post their proposed legislation on this forum and their website. Let's work WITH trhem and not AGAINST them. That's all the anti's need is for us to be fighting each other instead of us trying to work together to defeat these draconion restrictions placed on our rights.
I wonder how many of you who are complaining will actually make it to the state house today and/or have called your legislators. hmmmm?
I wonder how many of you who are complaining will actually make it to the state house today and/or have called your legislators. hmmmm?
One can be fully appreciative of the effort and dedication of the people behind the scenes and still wholeheartedly disagree with the approach. Once we put conditions on discourse - that in order to disagree, one must meet certain requirements, (attending meetings, running for office, sending e-mail, etc.), we are lost. It's akin to saying that in order to disagree with your city council, mayor, senator, congressman, president, that unless you attend a meeting, or meet other watermarks - you have no voice. Some of us simply cannot drive across the state to attend a meeting, run for the board, go to a cocktail party, or "stop by the office". I have no billable hours - I have a job. At the moment, I get paid by the hour and have no personal, vacation or sick time and gas is $4.00 a gallon. I consider this: 'my electronic meeting' and to suggest that I have no reason to voice myself here because I have not met some requirement to do so, is more than a bit off putting...
As I said, GOAL has used electronic media to pretty effectively spread their message. NES has been unquestionably supportive of GOAL, GOAL's message and the "people" you refer to who tirelessly dedicate themselves to the task. I don't question that, no would I. At the same time, this is a forum and GOAL's participation in this forum should also include the possibility that people may have issues, comments, suggestions, disagreements and opinion about the message and in this case - the method. People who take issue with H1568 as with the prior H2259, should have the right to freely and openly disagree, question and discuss. Anyone who reads this bill and says: "Yeah, that seems like a really constitutional effort", may need to read the bill more carefully. Some of us are weary of the "it's better than what we have now' and in this case, aside from a few minor points, it's a giant concession and a giant leap backward....
I fully support and sponsor GOAL in their efforts here in MA. I also write and call my representatives in regards to these issues. Sadly, I can't attend these legislative sessions. I see NES as a valid sounding board and hope that comments and complaints voiced here will be taken as official feedback from GOAL's supporting members.
I appreciate GOAL's efforts to drum up meeting attendees but, the tone of some of the comments send the message of "If you don't show up, you won't be heard". I truly hope this isn't the case and feedback shared in this thread is just as official as any other form of communication to GOAL.
I appreciate GOAL's efforts to drum up meeting attendees but, the tone of some of the comments send the message of "If you don't show up, you won't be heard". I truly hope this isn't the case and feedback shared in this thread is just as official as any other form of communication to GOAL.
In response to the numerous comments on WHY legislative hearings are held during the work week . . .
The legislature typically only works Mon-Thurs from 9 to 5. They rarely schedule anything in the State House on Fridays and almost never hold hearings in the evening. That is their work week, and thus to attend anything there (for the working class) means taking time off from work to show up. It makes it difficult (and impossible for some or at times) and costly to those that show up on our side, but unavoidable due to the structure of "our system".
My personal belief (after attending hearings for >20 years) is that I THINK it is more effective to write a well-worded letter to the committee than to show my face there and speak to the wall (only a couple of committee members in attendance and no evidence of recording the hearing). I know that GOAL will disagree with this statement and if I didn't have an unavoidable obligation this afternoon, I would have attended this particular hearing.
Also, I think that it is divisive for us to show up at the hearing and pick apart a GOAL bill (see what happened this week with a good bill in NH as a reference point). I believe this should be done "in private" via communication (in writing) with GOAL and the sponsors . . . something that I did when the first draft was posted by GOAL early this year. This has been my MO for many years practiced at the state and local levels. I have found it very effective at the local level. While reviewing our Town Meeting Warrant this year, I found two major errors and sent an Email to our Town Manager and Police Chief (both items effected the PD) requesting that they correct them before presenting the motions on the floor of Town Meeting. Last year I had a question about a proposal for restructuring the PD and queried the Police Chief via Email. He surprised me when he suggested that we meet up at the PD even though he was on vacation and we spent 2 hours going over his recommendations and discussing numerous other things (including gun licensing, etc.) . . . and he's not exactly "Officer Friendly"! I received thank yous and over the years have earned the respect of those in town gov't.
YMMV
The legislature typically only works Mon-Thurs from 9 to 5. They rarely schedule anything in the State House on Fridays and almost never hold hearings in the evening. That is their work week, and thus to attend anything there (for the working class) means taking time off from work to show up. It makes it difficult (and impossible for some or at times) and costly to those that show up on our side, but unavoidable due to the structure of "our system".
My personal belief (after attending hearings for >20 years) is that I THINK it is more effective to write a well-worded letter to the committee than to show my face there and speak to the wall (only a couple of committee members in attendance and no evidence of recording the hearing). I know that GOAL will disagree with this statement and if I didn't have an unavoidable obligation this afternoon, I would have attended this particular hearing.
Also, I think that it is divisive for us to show up at the hearing and pick apart a GOAL bill (see what happened this week with a good bill in NH as a reference point). I believe this should be done "in private" via communication (in writing) with GOAL and the sponsors . . . something that I did when the first draft was posted by GOAL early this year. This has been my MO for many years practiced at the state and local levels. I have found it very effective at the local level. While reviewing our Town Meeting Warrant this year, I found two major errors and sent an Email to our Town Manager and Police Chief (both items effected the PD) requesting that they correct them before presenting the motions on the floor of Town Meeting. Last year I had a question about a proposal for restructuring the PD and queried the Police Chief via Email. He surprised me when he suggested that we meet up at the PD even though he was on vacation and we spent 2 hours going over his recommendations and discussing numerous other things (including gun licensing, etc.) . . . and he's not exactly "Officer Friendly"! I received thank yous and over the years have earned the respect of those in town gov't.
YMMV
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Normally I would agree, but it would be surreal and eye opening to the committee to hear that the bill they have in front of them is a compromise of sorts and that we are serious about getting our rights back. One doesn't have to trash goal to show that the bill on the table doesn't go far enough. I think the NH situation is a very different situation.
So for those going, I'd love to meet you in person. Despite my avatar, I don't look like Stewie from Family Guy. Look for a middle age guy with glasses and long hair.
First, I am not horse trading anything. I will go and demand that to which I am entitled.
Second, if you think you have not allowed your 1A rights to be limited, you are mistaken... For just one example of many, there are any number of statements you could make - many of which are in fitting with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution's enumeration of our rights that will fast track you to a free prostate exam by the law enforcement agency of their choice...
We are digging out of a deep hole here. As far as I am concerned, step 1 is to get "shall issue." "May issue" is a very effective bat with which they beat us into submission. Without the threat of suitability a great deal of ills disappear and all future improvement to the situation will be made easier.
Also, choking back the vomit of political pragmatism, future changes to the laws will be much easier when people see that these changes were made and at the very least crime did not increase as a result. At best, we might be able to reduce crime.
This process sucks, but the only alternative sucks more and I assure you will force compromise you cannot live with as well...
If this is the case could someone from goal set everyone straight on how all of this anti-gun owner language ended up in this bill?
wtf is going on with goal?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
G
GOAL C.M.
Once again, the dollar issue is not on this bill, or any other bill that we filed.
HTRN. Please email me your points of contention and I will be glad to bring them up with our E.D. Jim Wallace. As stated earlier this bill is a work in progress and subject to much change between now and when it becomes law. My email is linked to my signature, thanks!
I shall. I should be back in front of a computer this weekend.
Thanks.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Similar threads
