GOAL's H.1568 An Act Relative to Civil Rights and Public Safety

[amb]

They are intimidated by public speaking, afraid of the unknown and whether they want to admit it or not, likely intimidated by the politicians themselves.

As someone who was there, but didn't speak and hadn't ever been to one before (I was planning on last year's version but got derailed): you don't have to speak, and in fact I'm not sure speaking if you're not sure what you want to say helps much. I found it really interesting to just see the legislators (who were a lot more human and approachable in person) and hear the discussion. If you do want to speak, you also don't have to get into arcane technical discussions about the law; the committee seemed interested in hearing from people who just get up to say "hey, this section of law is hugely confusing and problematic".

Just showing up puts another name on the signup sheet with "support" in one column and "1568" in the other column, and it was a fine way to spend a lunch hour.

Also, having gotten a feel for the process, signing up to speak next time is a lot less intimidating.

 

[cekim]

Just showing up puts another name on the signup sheet with "support" in one column and "1568" in the other column, and it was a fine way to spend a lunch hour.

Also, having gotten a feel for the process, signing up to speak next time is a lot less intimidating.

Absolutely, you don't need to say a thing...

 

[wolf223]

Dude, you joined NES in 2005, have 22,725 posts, member of GOAL and ran for a board seat, your a NRA certified instructor, red cap in the apple dumpling gang after all this you've only been to one hearing about 2A issues and you think that gives you the right to lecture the rest of us and shed your own sunshine patriot status? Your participation in this discussion is detrimental to the cause.

 

[Tara]

I do appreciate the effort from you and the others who did show up, but I wouldn't cast judgment so easily on those that couldn't.

This.
We appreciate each and every one of you who showed up. We also realize that people have obligations, such as children/jobs etc, that made it impossible for them to attend. I'm quite sure people wanted to attend, however that's not always an option and we realize that.

Thanks again, everyone.

 

[cekim]

This.
We appreciate each and every one of you who showed up. We also realize that people have obligations, such as children/jobs etc, that made it impossible for them to attend. I'm quite sure people wanted to attend, however that's not always an option and we realize that.

Fair enough, I'm sure I did, but my intent was not to cast judgment, but to make sure people understand what's at stake here and why its worth turning their schedule on its head to get involved with this grotesque, irritating process.

Don't let self doubt, confusion over the process, what you might say (or not), and reliance on "someone else" to do it for you.

 

[economist]

Participation in a corrupt process, with an underlying assumption that the state has the right to take freedom without limit, may or may not be ethical or effective when the ultimate goal is to undermine the power of the state and to protect liberty. Hence, the operating assumptions of many here -- that attendance is necessarily a good thing, that failure to attend is indicative of complacence or even passive complicity, or that the measure of the intensity of one's views is travel and meeting time, all are, at minimum, less than obvious. In simple terms, doing something is not clearly better than doing nothing.

 

[Tara]

Fair enough, I'm sure I did, but my intent was not to cast judgment, but to make sure people understand what's at stake here and why its worth turning their schedule on its head to get involved with this grotesque, irritating process.

Don't let self doubt, confusion over the process, what you might say (or not), and reliance on "someone else" to do it for you.

I didn't mean that towards you, cekim. Sorry if it appeared that way. You went above and beyond yesterday.

 

[MassMark]

Participation in a corrupt process, with an underlying assumption that the state has the right to take freedom without limit, may or may not be ethical or effective when the ultimate goal is to undermine the power of the state and to protect liberty. Hence, the operating assumptions of many here -- that attendance is necessarily a good thing, that failure to attend is indicative of complacence or even passive complicity, or that the measure of the intensity of one's views is travel and meeting time, all are, at minimum, less than obvious. In simple terms, doing something is not clearly better than doing nothing.

Amen brother....

 

[Mike S]

The problem with that is thus;

The "other side" IS doing something, and have been for a long time, very effectively.

Personally, I'm not going to sit and do nothing, waiting for something to happen.

That to me is un-American and not what this country is about.

 

[Coyote33]

Were you the guy with the posters? I was wondering wtf you were doing. But had to bail before I could see your discussion.

That was funny/sad, but good. He was pointing out the sheer volume of stupidity that is the gun laws as well as their failure to satisfy the requirements of the law and make them available (and/or update them as required by the law)....

There were 3 words I wrote:
Right Infringe Wrong

I started with Right, stating that we were discussing a right. Then I flipped to the Infringe side. Then I flipped it over and showed the thousands of words, with the word Wrong on it with a red slash, stating that all those words are infringing on the right.

The committee does seem to love props and hand-outs...

I'll bring hard candy and a stack of paper to make my point next time.

I said that before, and will continue to say it. You also need to DOCUMENT what you want them to note. I submitted wording to add to their legislative package.

As did I, just didn't have time to do the leg work to say the same thing off-the-cuff...

Thank you...

Speaking of which, the whole turkey hunting thing I created as notes on the fly. I was ticked at those two ladies speaking. They were talking about how "nature lovers" go to diners. I view hunters as the ultimate nature lovers, putting their own DINNER on the table!

Paul, as I said previously, I won't presume to tell any one person what their schedule is or ability, on a week's notice to change it might be, I think the broader concern is that people as a whole are cowed (perhaps sheeped?) by this process and the people in political office.

They are intimidated by public speaking (as am I), afraid of the unknown and whether they want to admit it or not, likely intimidated by the politicians themselves.

I am sure there are people who would have to risk being fired to be there, but I am equally sure there are dozens of people on NES who weren't there who made up excuses to deal with the issues I mentioned above.

What will I say?
Will I look stupid?
Will people critique what I say or how I say it?
and so on...

That's what we need to get past.

These people have veto power over your freedom. If we don't hold them in check, they will take it.

Folks, you really REALLY REALLY need to show up. At least we were in the majority this time. If we had 50 people, it would have been better. If we had 100, we would really have their attention. If we had 200, I think we'd see some progress happen. If we had 500, progress might happen THIS WEEK. It is mind share. They judge us by our "presence". We need to set the stage. They are reactionary. Get it yet?

Those are good points though I hope you're incorrect on that assumption. Simply having people be there shows something and that's what I assumed you and Ross were asking for, primarily at least. In some sense, we're probably all cowed to a degree by our daily lives and I tend to think that's the bigger issue with attendance.

As for speaking in a meeting like that, I'd have no problem stating my opinions as I know I'm smarter than the politicians trying to fight pro-2A legislation. Of course, I'm also an a**h***.

I am not a good public speaker. I was nervous. I also was a bit angry at them for diddling around with us from last year, and at the ladies about Sunday hunting, so that helped the words flow. Too bad I forgot to mention my STRONG opposition to the knife laws and also to mention the pepper spray laws. Those have their own hearing next week, in a followup to this meeting.

As someone who was there, but didn't speak and hadn't ever been to one before (I was planning on last year's version but got derailed): you don't have to speak, and in fact I'm not sure speaking if you're not sure what you want to say helps much. I found it really interesting to just see the legislators (who were a lot more human and approachable in person) and hear the discussion. If you do want to speak, you also don't have to get into arcane technical discussions about the law; the committee seemed interested in hearing from people who just get up to say "hey, this section of law is hugely confusing and problematic".

Just showing up puts another name on the signup sheet with "support" in one column and "1568" in the other column, and it was a fine way to spend a lunch hour.

Also, having gotten a feel for the process, signing up to speak next time is a lot less intimidating.

Not speaking made a difference to me, and I wasn't on the panel. I was wondering how I came up so quick in the list to speak, where last time I had to wait many hours. Even if you just read off the bills and say "I support it" or "I oppose it", is enough to show them you are concerned enough to speak and aren't just a tourist dropping to watch "government in action" (inaction).

Absolutely, you don't need to say a thing...

But it helps TREMENDOUSLY if you do. Just keep it short and sweet. That pregnant pause about the gay marriage thing hurt our side, I think.

Participation in a corrupt process, with an underlying assumption that the state has the right to take freedom without limit, may or may not be ethical or effective when the ultimate goal is to undermine the power of the state and to protect liberty. Hence, the operating assumptions of many here -- that attendance is necessarily a good thing, that failure to attend is indicative of complacence or even passive complicity, or that the measure of the intensity of one's views is travel and meeting time, all are, at minimum, less than obvious. In simple terms, doing something is not clearly better than doing nothing.

Um, WTF? If nobody comes, they think we're all fine with what is there, not that we want to get rid of any laws. You are wrong.

The problem with that is thus;

The "other side" IS doing something, and have been for a long time, very effectively.

Personally, I'm not going to sit and do nothing, waiting for something to happen.

That to me is un-American and not what this country is about.

Correctomundo!

 

[wacky_doug]

Participation in a corrupt process, with an underlying assumption that the state has the right to take freedom without limit, may or may not be ethical or effective when the ultimate goal is to undermine the power of the state and to protect liberty. Hence, the operating assumptions of many here -- that attendance is necessarily a good thing, that failure to attend is indicative of complacence or even passive complicity, or that the measure of the intensity of one's views is travel and meeting time, all are, at minimum, less than obvious. In simple terms, doing something is not clearly better than doing nothing.

I had this exact thought sitting in the hearing room. "I can't believe we have to sit here and beg our government to give us our rights back".

 

[cekim]

Participation in a corrupt process...

I'll be the first to point out the corruption in the MA system, but here's the thing that might not be quite so obvious until you show up and start engaging these people:

The system is corrupt - no argument...

There are vile dirtbags really gaming the system, few of them every really get caught and forced to pay the price...

Then there is the rest of them.

They are surprisingly ignorant on gun issues (what we face, what the law is, what the Constitution says, what SCOTUS has said, what the statistics say, etc...)

There are vile dirtbag gun grabbers among them who know more than "the rest," but the vast majority simply have no frame of factual reference to counter the BS they get from the vile dirtbag side.

Someone has to be there to counter the lies, or they are taken as fact. Bureaucracies are brutal in this regard, because a motivated individuals who "know the system" and have no ethical/moral constraint steer the system to genocide with few if any of the remainder of those in the system realizing what's going on.

This is why we balance and limit power - the process itself is predisposed to abuse and a requirement of competing power stopping the accumulation of absolute power at all times...

It's reasonable enough to debate how much of an impact we can have in the positive, but I can say for certain that nothing we do in showing up and refuting their lies lends credibility to their process that they don't already have or need form the "majority."

 

[cekim]

I had this exact thought sitting in the hearing room. "I can't believe we have to sit here and beg our government to give us our rights back".

Who was begging?

 

[economist]

The problem with that is thus;

The "other side" IS doing something, and have been for a long time, very effectively.

Personally, I'm not going to sit and do nothing, waiting for something to happen.

That to me is un-American and not what this country is about.

I understand that, and I don't at all question the intent or effectiveness of folks who chose to attend. However, there is more than a little questioning of intent and effectiveness from some here directed at those who did not attend. My simple point is that someone of good faith might find non-attendance to be the optimal approach. I don't know the best answer, but I'm not criticizing people either way. And, the criticism that has been offered by some here struck me as based on the faulty assumption that action necessarily was the best course.

 

[MA_Shooter]

I understand that, and I don't at all question the intent or effectiveness of folks who chose to attend. However, there is more than a little questioning of intent and effectiveness from some here directed at those who did not attend. My simple point is that someone of good faith might find non-attendance to be the optimal approach. I don't know the best answer, but I'm not criticizing people either way. And, the criticism that has been offered by some here struck me as based on the faulty assumption that action necessarily was the best course.

I agree that the process is corrupt and the odds long that we can change things for the better. However, the other side is diligently working to further curtail our rights and have been pretty successful. I don't see how inactivity can be used to counter those actively working against us. There are different ways to participate although one is left wondering how effective any of these methods really are when many bills never make it out of committee. It appears any change will be painfully slow and at times almost imperceptible.

 

[wacky_doug]

Who was begging?

Yeah, I know. We were not. It's just the principle that bothers me. We're starting from a position of having a right taken away.

I do agree completely with your comment above about educating the ignorant. We do that all the time, with folks all around us, not just legislators.

I'll be at future hearings, and I will continue to write letters. I do hope that if we get the licensing fixed, that we don't create a new shall issue license just for CCW. Jim said something about addressing concerns of police chiefs during his testimony, and I'm not sure what he was talking about.

 

[Coyote33]

Yeah, I know. We were not. It's just the principle that bothers me. We're starting from a position of having a right taken away.

I do agree completely with your comment above about educating the ignorant. We do that all the time, with folks all around us, not just legislators.

I'll be at future hearings, and I will continue to write letters. I do hope that if we get the licensing fixed, that we don't create a new shall issue license just for CCW. Jim said something about addressing concerns of police chiefs during his testimony, and I'm not sure what he was talking about.

You were there, right? I didn't hear you mention one iota of this at the hearing.

 

[wacky_doug]

Yes I was there. I can't remember the exact words, but Jim mentioned the chiefs being uncomfortable with something in the licensing bill. We'll have to talk to GOAL to figure out what it was. But the way it was said, I assumed the worst.

I don't want to spread misinformation though. Perhaps GOAL can comment.

 

[Engineer]

Participation in a corrupt process, with an underlying assumption that the state has the right to take freedom without limit, may or may not be ethical or effective when the ultimate goal is to undermine the power of the state and to protect liberty.

OK - I'm late to the party. I have been out of town for a couple weeks and didn't pick up on this until now, was actually in town on Friday but didn't attend, etc. I'll take my 30 lashes or whatever shaming I deserve then in my defense add that I live in George Peterson's district and vocally supported him in the last election.

Still, after reading through all the posts here, I have to quarrel with the above statement on a couple points:
1 - The "Ultimate Goal" is NOT to "undermine the power of the state" but to use the mechanisms of our government to achieve a just result.
2 - It is not "The Process" which is corrupt but rather some (Many ?) of the participants. Our government is woefully imperfect but the mechanisms of public hearings, debates, discussions when writing a new bill, and public vote on that bill by elected officials before it becomes Law, is probably the best 'process' available to anyone, in any state or country. We should use it to our advantage as we can.
3 - Finally, the "Underlying Assumption" is not that the state has a right to take freedoms but recognition that is already has and a concern that left un-checked it might continue to do so. This concern is exacerbated by the additional concern that our Judicial Branch which is designed as a check to the legislature's taking of freedoms, doesn't recognize the Right to Bare Arms as a Right and won't perform their duty.
My apologies to 'economist' if I've over interpreted his post in making my points above.

In the end, we each participate in the ways that we can but perhaps the most impactfull is to visibly and vocally attend the meetings where bills are written, re-written and prepared for voting. It is one thing to sit in a nearly empty room (hyperbole) when George Peterson or the Goal Representative Says that several thousand citizens support or want to strengthen this bill it is quite another to see the room overflowing with people.

I too would like to see GOAL host Open House meetings either at their offices or at various Gun Clubs to gather this sort of input to the bill's final language and to rally support for attendance at committee meetings, affecting Writing/eMail campaigns, etc This is what progressives are Very Good at and it has an effect. While it may not win the day for a bill we want to support, it certainly won't hurt.

Finally - some postings left me feeling that there was the perception of an either/or choice to be made between Legislation vs. Judicial Challenge to MA's restrictions on RKBA. I hope everyone will see this as false dilemma and support both efforts.
Cheers,

 

[Coyote33]

...I too would like to see GOAL host Open House meetings either at their offices or at various Gun Clubs to gather this sort of input to the bill's final language and to rally support for attendance at committee meetings, affecting Writing/eMail campaigns, etc This is what progressives are Very Good at and it has an effect. While it may not win the day for a bill we want to support, it certainly won't hurt...,

GOAL should hold regional meetings, taking input from members to create and amend the bills on the fly. They should take each gripe, and address it in a new bill. The sponsors are there, and we just need to involve them. This could even be a part of the various banquets held, where there are breakout sessions on different parts of the law, and how to fix them. They could divide the room into which laws are being discussed, and people could then sit around a table and hammer out the corrected language. GOAL does not need to think they are in this alone. They need to learn how to reach out to the folks who support them and see that we are here to help.

 

[cekim]

GOAL should hold regional meetings, taking input from members to create and amend the bills on the fly. They should take each gripe, and address it in a new bill. The sponsors are there, and we just need to involve them. This could even be a part of the various banquets held, where there are breakout sessions on different parts of the law, and how to fix them. They could divide the room into which laws are being discussed, and people could then sit around a table and hammer out the corrected language. GOAL does not need to think they are in this alone. They need to learn how to reach out to the folks who support them and see that we are here to help.

Do recognize that this is not a kumbayah process - there will be rancor amongst us (i.e. not a pleasant thing to do at a banquet).

There's a reason they call legislation "sausage making." It ain't pretty...

I think step one is for people to get more involved, write/email GOAL. There are avenues available now that are not being taken, so creating new ones seems redundant and a waste of effort. Collaboration on documents sounds cool in a Microsoft commercial, but any more than one person and it will require moderation and someone will leave unhappy - just ask wikipedia...

 

[Coyote33]

1 )... there will be rancor amongst us (i.e. not a pleasant thing to do at a banquet).

2) There's a reason they call legislation "sausage making." It ain't pretty...

3) I think step one is for people to get more involved, write/email GOAL. There are avenues available now that are not being taken, so creating new ones seems redundant and a waste of effort. Collaboration on documents sounds cool in a Microsoft commercial, but any more than one person and it will require moderation and someone will leave unhappy - just ask wikipedia...

1) Nothing wrong with "rancor". Out of that comes a decision. We haven't had that yet internally, to present to the legislature.

2) We're not talking legislation. This is what happens before we propose it to the legislature.

3) The first part is happening, and working. What avenues? Collaboration does work. Maybe something like Wikipedia would be a good thing. Put up each section of the gun laws, then let each person provide edits, and then compare them all, then take a vote and send the winners to GOAL.

 

[xtry51]

1 - The "Ultimate Goal" is NOT to "undermine the power of the state"

Uh, yes it is

2 - It is not "The Process" which is corrupt but rather some (Many ?) of the participants. Our government is woefully imperfect but the mechanisms of public hearings, debates, discussions when writing a new bill, and public vote on that bill by elected officials before it becomes Law, is probably the best 'process' available to anyone, in any state or country. We should use it to our advantage as we can.

When most of the participants are corrupt so is the process. You cannot have a constitutionally sound process when the process is run by people who clearly don't care about following the constitution.

3 - Finally, the "Underlying Assumption" is not that the state has a right to take freedoms but recognition that is already has and a concern that left un-checked it might continue to do so. This concern is exacerbated by the additional concern that our Judicial Branch which is designed as a check to the legislature's taking of freedoms, doesn't recognize the Right to Bare Arms as a Right and won't perform their duty.

They WILL continue to do so, and the courts clearly are not helping since I don't see them throwing out cases and demanding people's unconstitutionally seized guns be returned.



The bill presented does little if anything to address the blindingly clear violation of your natural rights, and any proposed bill that doesn't strike directly at getting your rights back is IMO a complete waste of people's time and money. I'd rather you propose real legislation to strike down all gun laws/licensing and get that bill killed, then watch this train wreck of a bill get pushed out there even though we all know it's most likely going to get killed anyway, and even if it doesn't and by some miracle gets passed it's very likely it could do more harm then good.

This whole bill that's barely understandable to many people here with high level degrees clearly is full of fail. Write a simple bill that a 10 year old can read and understand, that actually lets you own, carry and use your firearms without the gestapo taking you away. .

 

[Coyote33]

Oooh, boldface print! Xtry51, I don't recall anyone even mentioning any of those things last Thursday. For someone with such strong feelings, it seems you are fairly alone in this thinking, or at least in a definite minority. Not a whole lot of people, even here on NES, are going along with that. Good luck with it, and all that.

 

[economist]

1 - The "Ultimate Goal" is NOT to "undermine the power of the state" but to use the mechanisms of our government to achieve a just result.

Uh, yes it is

When most of the participants are corrupt so is the process. You cannot have a constitutionally sound process when the process is run by people who clearly don't care about following the constitution.

That's exactly what I meant. And, it's why working within the system is so unappealing to me. I want government to shrink dramatically. I don't have much interest in playing around the edges. Now if other folks find it a fruitful and appealing process, that's their business and I'm not criticizing it. My whole motivation for even getting involved in this discussion was to note that that there are people out here who are just as interested in liberty, yet see little point coming from playing the game as it exists.

That is not at all a disparagement of those who are trying. It's just another opinion, as is my view that working for a bill that would be derided as ridiculously anti-gun in 40-45 states in America is not something that seems interesting, even if it may be a marginal improvement here. But, again, that's just my opinion. I don't pretend to right about everything. But some here sure seem to know what I should be doing, and I was a little irked by the implicit assumption of superiority that was being tossed around. As always, I'll mind my business and everyone else can take care of theirs.

 

[Admin]

Oooh, boldface print! Xtry51, I don't recall anyone even mentioning any of those things last Thursday. For someone with such strong feelings, it seems you are fairly alone in this thinking, or at least in a definite minority. Not a whole lot of people, even here on NES, are going along with that. Good luck with it, and all that.

Alone? Really... Maybe you're the one who's alone.

 

[MassMark]

For someone with such strong feelings, it seems you are fairly alone in this thinking, or at least in a definite minority. Not a whole lot of people, even here on NES, are going along with that. Good luck with it, and all that.

I'm going to make a wager that he's far, far from alone - here, or elsewhere. Takers?

 

[Engineer]

Thanks for considering the points I've made - We don't disagree about the inadequate content in some portions of this bill. On other things we may well not agree.

Originally Posted by Engineer
1 - The "Ultimate Goal" is NOT to "undermine the power of the state"
Posted by xtry51: "Uh, yes it is"

Perhaps we use "Undermine" differently. Undermine = Erode the foundation of... Undermining the power of the state leads to anarchy. That is not my goal, nor can I imagine that is the goal for many here. We do want most fervently to stop the illegitimate use of that power. We Can use the process to do so. So unless it truly is "Go Time" - I think we are benefited by trying to work within the process available to us.

When most of the participants are corrupt so is the process. You cannot have a constitutionally sound process when the process is run by people who clearly don't care about following the constitution.

I can't argue too much here - it is often hard to distinguish between process and participant... especially when the corrupt participants can manipulate the process to fit their needs. Still - we only strengthen our case by working with that process when we can. And perhaps expose the folly of those more corrupt practitioners in the process. Since using the legislative process doesn't prevent also using the judicial process, then we've little to loose by advancing bills aligned with our Constitutionally protected RKBA.

They WILL continue to do so, and the courts clearly are not helping since I don't see them throwing out cases and demanding people's unconstitutionally seized guns be returned.

Here - we clearly agree! So why not push forward on work with those who would sponsor bills supporting RKBA ? We have a couple good folks in the State House - not many but George Peterson is definitely one of them. I write this only to encourage NES'rs to work with them and help them work for us.

I think it would be much easier to re-write the worst elements of this bill than to find someone to sponsor a different, better written one. I would love for GOAL to facilitate a series of discussions to than end. And I would imagine many local clubs would be willing to host 'Town Hall' type session to do some of this work.

If not us, then who?

 

[Coyote33]

Alone? Really... Maybe you're the one who's alone.

I'm going to make a wager that he's far, far from alone - here, or elsewhere. Takers?

I was specifically referring to

"1 - The "Ultimate Goal" is NOT to "undermine the power of the state" "

, not the rest of his comments. I guess I should have been more clear. I agree that a lot of things need to change, I just think we have the ability to change using the system we have, not to go around it; if that is what he meant by "undermine" it.

 

[xtry51]

Oooh, boldface print! Xtry51, I don't recall anyone even mentioning any of those things last Thursday. For someone with such strong feelings, it seems you are fairly alone in this thinking, or at least in a definite minority. Not a whole lot of people, even here on NES, are going along with that. Good luck with it, and all that.

The bold was to delineate my responses to the quotes from my main addition to the direct discussion on the bill below it.

And if you're not for owning firearms without a permit, what exactly is your plan here?