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

Coyote33 said:
I was specifically referring to, 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.
Click to expand...

I didn't say go around the system. By undermine I meant remove the power the state currently has to issue and revoke permits at will as well as limit the type of firearms you may purchase. It has no business having that power and should be stripped of it.
 
xtry51 said:
I didn't say go around the system. By undermine I meant remove the power the state currently has to issue and revoke permits at will as well as limit the type of firearms you may purchase. It has no business having that power and should be stripped of it.
Click to expand...

Then I guess we are more in agreement than we both originally thought. My misinterpretation, my apologies.

Edited to add: D'oh! It seems Engineer and I were also on the same wavelength, with his post sliding in front of me each time.
 
more irony- "undermine the power of the state" when the govt is (supposedly) about representing the people. Folks show up to express their wishes, and the .gov sees it as an attack on their "authority".

The last few posts say it all wrt to how state govt holds themselves, and how the poeple see them.

Few are willing to look beyond their immediate circumstances these days to consider what's right for the overall good.
 
Friday said:
more irony- "undermine the power of the state" when the govt is (supposedly) about representing the people. Folks show up to express their wishes, and the .gov sees it as an attack on their "authority".

The last few posts say it all wrt to how state govt holds themselves, and how the poeple see them.

Few are willing to look beyond their immediate circumstances these days to consider what's right for the overall good.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the trouble with unlimited democracy. I think the government in Mass does represent the majority of the people fairly well. It's just that the majority here clearly favor a large and active state government that taxes heavily, makes a significant effort to transfer wealth to the poor and favored groups (public unions, for example), that regulates much of private activity for some supposed common good (rental properties, the labor market, environmental codes, etc, etc), supports the exercise of authority in deference to safety over liberty, and takes a dim view of individual reliance (guns and self-defense in particular). The people of Mass want it this way. And, unless some protection of the minority is effected, either constitutionally or otherwise, this is the way it will be.

It's why many of us here see moving to another state as the only ultimate solution. It's not Mass government, in itself, that is hopeless. The people of this state are the real problem. I don't see that changing. People rarely change, and it's not as if net migration in Mass is likely to move things in the right direction. Therefore, expect any aspect of life here controlled by majority to have a solid chance of being objectionable to those of us not in the mainstream.
 
economist said:
Yes, that's the trouble with unlimited democracy. I think the government in Mass does represent the majority of the people fairly well. It's just that the majority here clearly favor a large and active state government that taxes heavily, makes a significant effort to transfer wealth to the poor and favored groups (public unions, for example), that regulates much of private activity for some supposed common good (rental properties, the labor market, environmental codes, etc, etc), supports the exercise of authority in deference to safety over liberty, and takes a dim view of individual reliance (guns and self-defense in particular). The people of Mass want it this way. And, unless some protection of the minority is effected, either constitutionally or otherwise, this is the way it will be.

It's why many of us here see moving to another state as the only ultimate solution. It's not Mass government, in itself, that is hopeless. The people of this state are the real problem. I don't see that changing. People rarely change, and it's not as if net migration in Mass is likely to move things in the right direction. Therefore, expect any aspect of life here controlled by majority to have a solid chance of being objectionable to those of us not in the mainstream.
Click to expand...

There is no case law on this point yet but gun owners could in effect become a "suspect class" (means something other than what it says...) on par with minorities, etc. The majority could not just bowl us over any longer if so. That is so long as a court recognizes this. That last bit is a little iffy as the court has refused to recognize this with political beliefs and affiliations. Regardless at the very least, the activities we engage in are protected (so long as the courts recognize it) even if we are not as a group.
 
One thing that I would like to get across to the anti-gun crowd is that they are offending their own interests with the level of gun control in this state, and more so by harassing us further.

With Mass already one of the most heavily restricted and regulating states with respect to gun control, it's extremely unlikely that more regulation and control could produce any tangible benefit (and here I am charitably accepting the view that there could be a benefit in the first place). More gun control here simply irritates gun owners. That is all. Even if there is a superficial political benefit, where anti-gun politicians use us as a whipping boy to please their constituency, there is a tradeoff.

Almost exclusively, anti-gun politicians also favor a large, well funded state government. And I'm here as a prime example of how more gun control hurts that cause. I own part of a business here. I pay plenty in taxes, create jobs, lease office space, engage in local commerce, own a home and pay more taxes in my local community, participate in local activities and charitable groups, and do all of the things a productive citizen generally does. Nothing remarkable there, and I'm not special, but as a productive tax-paying citizen with no criminal record I am a net-contributor to the state. Unfortunately for me, I support the sort of government that the anti-gun people want to run. All of us working and/or living here do the same.

But more gun control just irritates me. I will leave one day. And if they squeeze more, that day will be sooner rather than later. That's too bad, because living here has benefits I enjoy. My point, in short, is that more gun control accomplishes nothing with respect to crime, pushes decent gun owners away, and that makes it harder for politicians here to do the other sorts of things they like. Those are all negatives. They only positive, from their point of view, is that poorly informed voters might like the sound of an anti-gun bill.

Mass locals may not know this, and anti-gun politicians likely don't, but Mass is a joke in 45 states of this country when it comes to gun control. Just today someone asked me where I was from at a rifle match and I said Mass. Their reply: "they let you have guns there?".

The level of animosity here toward the second amendment hurts this state economically. A big portion of America believes in gun rights and for that reason alone will avoid Mass when it comes to starting a business, taking a new job, or seeking out other forms of economic activity. More gun control just exacerbates that problem and the only gain is short-term political theater. To the anti-gun politicians, I would simply ask, are you sure it's worth it?
 
Sadly, its not actually the politicians you need to convince for real change - it's the population at large.

They don't care if they look like a horses ass to you or to 45 other states if they get elected and their campaign coffers are full.

It is a chicken or the egg problem in that the lack of guns has created a societal fear of guns that then drives regulation based on irrational fear and phobia...
 
That large sucking sound? it's the smart Mass residents seeking better pastures. This place will drown in its own ineptitude and self-gratification in the end. I have to agree with Economist- it's the majority of the people in this state that think this is what's best: A government that dictates what's best for them, a redistribution of wealth, and a special class of guardians to oversee their lives.

Plato is spinning in his grave somewhere- who will guard the guardians? the moonbats themselves, with their votes.....
 
GOAL C.M. said:
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!
Click to expand...


Mike, sorry for my frustration... I really wanted to be in MA, and if I was, I would have been there. And I feel that I over-indexed it toward GOAL.


I may need to delay my thorough email response by a few days as I am being pulled in a few directions right now.

The long and the short is, I would like to focus on just killing the 351 standards if that is the first and foremost goal if the bill. Adding more right now leaves a lot to be messed up and we will end up with more bad laws if we are not careful..


I will send an email shortly.


Thank you and the folks at GOAL for your hard work..
 
Last edited:
Still no answer THIS IS WHAT SECTION "125" reads.
NOW MY QUESTION IS DOES THIS SECTION "B" mean passed arrests or future arrests. Because if it also means passed arrests the prohibited person count goes way up. Now after reading the hole bill it seems to mean future arrests because they do have the prohibited person definition, in which it does state you need to serve a sentance.

Again any help to this question would be great.

(a) Upon revocation or suspension of a firearm identification card, or of any machine gun license, the person whose card was so revoked or suspended shall without delay deliver or surrender to the local licensing agent, all firearms, machine guns and ammunition which he then possesses.

(b) Unless a person is arrested for a crime or proven guilty of committing a violent crime, no entity shall revoke or suspend a firearm identification card unless the entity has obtained a court order.(c) Upon denial of an application for a firearm identification card, or of any machine gun license, the person whose application was so denied shall without delay deliver or surrender to the local licensing agent, all firearms, machine guns and ammunition which he then possesses."
 
cekim said:
It is a chicken or the egg problem in that the lack of guns has created a societal fear of guns that then drives regulation based on irrational fear and phobia...
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point. For anyone who's ever lived in a free state (such as myself), it's obvious that gun restrictions do not reduce crime. However, how many MA anti's have actually lived outside the state's borders? They have been indoctrinated for such a long time that guns are bad and the root of most all evil.
 
SBR said:
(b) Unless a person is arrested for a crime or proven guilty of committing a violent crime, no entity shall revoke or suspend a firearm identification card unless the entity has obtained a court order.(c) Upon denial of an application for a firearm identification card, or of any machine gun license, the person whose application was so denied shall without delay deliver or surrender to the local licensing agent, all firearms, machine guns and ammunition which he then possesses."
Click to expand...
BTW: GOAL asked to have the "arrested" portion removed in the hearing.

I'd contact Rep Peterson's office as well to express your concerns about this to make sure that it gets corrected.
 
MA_Shooter said:
This is an interesting point. For anyone who's ever lived in a free state (such as myself), it's obvious that gun restrictions do not reduce crime. However, how many MA anti's have actually lived outside the state's borders? They have been indoctrinated for such a long time that guns are bad and the root of most all evil.
Click to expand...

Many of them haven't even been outside of 128, let alone lived anywhere else.
 
economist said:
One thing that I would like to get across to the anti-gun crowd is that they are offending their own interests with the level of gun control in this state, and more so by harassing us further.
<snip>
Click to expand...

This is a really interesting perspective. I'm not sure I've heard it put quite like this before.

You are right though. I moved to MA from a free state because I like New England better than the South. At the time I had no idea how convoluted the gun laws were. (I moved here less than 2 years after the 98 laws took effect.) And there are many things about the Boston area that I really like. But, it's unlikely I'll stay here forever. The gun laws, the high taxes, the high cost of living, the completely f*d political scene, etc., it all makes me sad.

I still hold out hope that MA has the capacity to change.
 
wacky_doug said:
I still hold out hope that MA has the capacity to change.
Click to expand...

I kind of lost that hope in the last election. I really thought the Republicans could take one Congressional seat, especially given the baggage some of these clowns were dragging around. Tierney's wife laundered $8 million in illicit gambling profits for her brother. Tsongas is worse than useless and holds her seat on name recognition alone. Frank had a large hand in making the financial regulations that created the housing crisis. Yet, the Republicans didn't even come close to knocking one off. It's so discouraging, but it seems the electorate in this state just likes getting kicked. Don't know how to explain it. [puke2]
 
Cardinal Ximinez said:
I kind of lost that hope in the last election. I really thought the Republicans could take one Congressional seat, ... Yet, the Republicans didn't even come close to knocking one off. ... Don't know how to explain it. [puke2]
Click to expand...

You forgot McGovern. )-: The thing is that people were told and believe that Democrats are "the people's party". They use unions to continue this.
 
Cardinal Ximinez said:
I kind of lost that hope in the last election. I really thought the Republicans could take one Congressional seat, especially given the baggage some of these clowns were dragging around. Tierney's wife laundered $8 million in illicit gambling profits for her brother. Tsongas is worse than useless and holds her seat on name recognition alone. Frank had a large hand in making the financial regulations that created the housing crisis. Yet, the Republicans didn't even come close to knocking one off. It's so discouraging, but it seems the electorate in this state just likes getting kicked. Don't know how to explain it. [puke2]
Click to expand...

It's simple really - sad but simple. Following the American Revolution, the citizens of Massachusetts traded one form of tyranny for another. The spirit of those who rose up to stand for, sacrifice their families for, shed their blood for liberty, freedom and justice, is all but a well-faded memory.... We collectively traded liberty, independence, self-determination, for the cuddly blankie of big government wrapped tightly around us. So tightly we cannot feel it smother. The majority in this state - regardless of affiliation, are more consumed with flat screens, keeping up with the Jones' and color swatches for Susies' room, than they are in freedom...

We are so far gone that we can look at a bill like this and somehow think that it keeps with and honors the spirit of the Constitution of the United States of America and those who sacrificed so much. If it looks good - it is good I suppose...
 
Hey guys, I kinda stirred the pot a little then vanished from thread, I have to be out of town for lengths of time for work often so these things take back seats sometimes.

The thread kinda went everywhere, and I didn't see much feedback from my high annoyance that this bill is trying to add new penalties and even worse mandatory minimums (huge ones 20yrs+) which I am VERY much against.

Regardless of how many people show up to the meetings etc. I really think this bill is doomed as it is too far reaching, adds new penalties, and tries to do too much.

As a quote from a NH legislature on why a NH amendment didn't go anywhere..... "This amendment was considered and rejected by the committee, in part because it was too extensive, proposed new gun control measures, instituted new criminal penalties, and added NICS checks on licenses. "

Yes, I know this is a MA bill...

And again, I am very against adding ANY new penalties to a gun RIGHTS bill and especially mandatory minimums.
 
Re post from this thread.

Everyone, we would really like to make a concentrated effort on H.1567, this bill is a "pull out" bill. Simply put it is the "licensing" portion of our larger "Civil Rights and Public Safety Act"

H.1567 does not address fines, punishment, or any other C.269 related issue, it simply re-writes C140 s131

Here is info on it from our website.

GOAL’s Right to Carry Bill

Another piece of legislation that GOAL is trying to push this legislative session is our Right to Carry bill. H.1567 An Act Relative to the Right to Carry Firearms filed by Rep. George Peterson. This relatively small piece of legislation seeks to completely rewrite Section 131 of Chapter 140. Section 131 is the section of law that deals with the resident License to Carry (LTC).

Massachusetts gun owners know all too well about the abuses of the LTC application and issuing process around the Commonwealth. Many of these problems have been outlined on the “Facts” page at www.MassGunLawReform.com. With these abuses so well documented, it is well past time for some meaningful reform of this section of law.

The bill would amend Section 131 to do the following:

Makes it shall issue – The so-called authority for local licensing officials to virtually make up their own rules when it comes to issuing an LTC has been a long standing problem. These officials are given “discretion” authority by the state in a supposed attempt to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. This discretion has been obscenely abused by many licensing authorities in a simple effort to keep lawful citizens from obtaining a license.

All lawful purposes – Part of the existing section of law has been interpreted by the courts as allowing officials to issue licenses for whatever purpose they deem appropriate. In many cases that has meant placing arbitrary restrictions on citizens’ right to carry. In nearly every case those restrictions are not defined or clarified leaving the license holder in a quandary about what they can and can’t do with a firearm. Another problem is that other officers may interpret the restrictions differently. GOAL’s proposal would undo this and make every LTC issued good for all lawful purposes.

Eliminates “Classes” of a License to Carry – Massachusetts law has been interpreted by many to allow the local officials to issue either a Class A or B regardless of the class actually applied for. The greatest difference in the classes is the ability to “carry” a firearm or own a large capacity firearm, both are prohibited under a class B. The different classes often cause further confusion about the restrictions placed on a citizen. GOAL’s bill would simply make one category of LTC

Reforms the Judicial Review Process – Under the current system, the courts have ruled for several decades that the burden of proving ourselves to be “suitable” was upon the citizen if we were denied an LTC. This view is the complete opposite of entire system of justice being that we are always supposed to be innocent unless the government proves us guilty. GOAL’s language would ensure that the courts and the licensing officials understand this basic Constitutional mainstay. Our bill would force the government to make its case against us by a “finding of the facts”.

Another problem is that even when citizens have won their case before a court the authorities still refuse to issue. This bill would hold them in contempt of court if they did so. The language would also prevent the local officials from appealing if they lost. This tactic is used by some officials to wear out the applicant in hopes they run out of resources to continue the case.

Adds Penalties for Failing to Issue – As in many instances in law, government is mandated to do certain things, but there are seldom any penalties for those officials who do not comply. GOAL’s proposal would provide stiff penalties to those who fail to issue an LTC in accordance with the law. Government officials need to keep in mind that the Second Amendment is a civil right, not a privilege. Citizens of this country should never have to have a license to exercise any right. However, the requirement still exists for the citizens of Massachusetts and as a result we should hold government accountable when it unlawfully stands in our way of obtaining a license.

Establishes “Prohibited Person” – One of the most difficult “gray areas” that exists in the current Massachusetts gun laws is who is “eligible” to receive an LTC. Since the courts and the legislature have given authorities virtually endless discriminatory powers there are no set rules. Of course the main problem with this part of the system is that it shouldn’t be who is “eligible”, but rather who isn’t. Getting back to our system of justice again, it is supposed to be people who are not eligible to exercise a civil right that should be the topic of law. In GOAL’s language we intend to set a standard of a prohibited person. While we are sure there will be some great debates as to what that standard should be, it will do away with the gray areas and clearly outline who should NOT be able to exercise this particular civil right.

GOAL urges all of our members to contact their state legislators and ask them to support H.1567 An Act Relative to the Right to Carry Firearms.
 
I quickly skimmed, but H.1567 An Act Relative to the Right to Carry Firearms looks like a winner and something that could be passable. I will research further.

Thanks Mike for getting the word out here and keeping up with the discussion.
 
1567 is a winner and we all need to get behind it. Take the time to contact your Reps and Senators. My Senator' staff , Barry Finegold (D), called me at home the other day in responce to me email on H1576. After reading the Bill the Senator is going to make contact, in favor, even though he is no involved yet.

It works and it's good to get a repoire with these guys and gals.

Now get on the stick out there. Waddya say!
 
So, in light of the two new Supreme Court cases about the Second Amendment, how come there isn't just a massive lawsuit against the state licensing and charging for a right?
 
Coyote33 said:
So, in light of the two new Supreme Court cases about the Second Amendment, how come there isn't just a massive lawsuit against the state licensing and charging for a right?
Click to expand...
There are multiple challenges, at many levels around the nation including against MA for "suitability," and many other aspects of licensing. There are national challenges on licensing at all, but MA simply is not a good place to make that particular challenge and a win at the Federal level will do what needs to be done here...

I know this process is frustrating, but believe me there are people doing what needs to be done in the courts...

What is missing is what needs to be done on the legislative side - it hasn't hurt for a very long time to trample on the Constitution, we need to change that and it isn't going be easy as its not just the legislators, but rather the people and unions who elect them.
 
Coyote33 said:
I knew about that, but I guess I am wondering why even bother with this stuff if the lawsuit will make it all null and void.
Click to expand...
What terraformer said and realize that the courts generally don't like to make big decisions. They prefer death by a thousand pin-pricks rather than rational, logical thinking that creates a big shift in legal thinking (even if they know damn well it's right).

This is why I was saying that regardless of what SCOTUS thought about POI it didn't want to open that can along side the 2A issue... Any significant decision on that issue shuts and/or opens a lot of doors all at once depending on where they come down.

Just look at "incorporation" itself - there's no ambiguity in the amendment that even hints of this absurd idea of piecemeal incorporation, but here we are 100+ years down the road of doing just that...
 

Similar threads

SWAT team responding to Arkansas shopping mall, police ask public to avoid the area: Officials called it “an incident that is active"
Replies
5
Views
228
TJ4
T
CT: HB-5448 An Act Concerning Security of Certain Election Workers and Election-Related Locations (2024)
Replies
10
Views
403
sbhaven
S
CT: HB-5467 An Act Concerning Firearms Background Checks (2024)
Replies
2
Views
227
sbhaven
S
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
212
Coyote33
Coyote33
CT: HB 5114 An Act Establishing an Excise Tax on Ammunition
Replies
6
Views
481
556USER
556USER
Back
Top Bottom