IMPORTANT NOTICE for all gunowners House Bill H2259

I have prepared a letter for tomorrow's mail and gave them my impression of the existing laws from the point of view of someone newly interested in shooting/gun ownership (and feeling like I had to wade thru the entire confusing mess of laws just to be sure I wouldn't be breaking any of them). I've forwarded a link to this thread on to some other folks, encouraging them to write as well.

Glad I joined GOAL ....this is great grassroots organizing!
 
My letter

Land of the Free-

Where we love to talk big about freedom, but we are very guarded- in many cases- when people want to take delivery on that freedom.

Please Support H. 2259, An Act Relative To Civil Rights And Public Safety.

Snail mail in the morning.
 
Last edited:
I gave it a once-over and it looks good. Tell me, is there anything in there about repealing the trigger lock laws or the banned gun list?
 
nephlim said:
I gave it a once-over and it looks good. Tell me, is there anything in there about repealing the trigger lock laws or the banned gun list?
Click to expand...

From the proposed bill:
"Sections one hundred and thirty through one hundred and thirty-one P of chapter one hundred and forty of the General Laws are hereby repealed."​


  • Section 131M currently bans the "sale, transfer or possession" of an assault weapon. It would be repealed.
  • Section 131L currently covers storage. It would be repealed.

Also the current version of section 121 lists definitions, including "assault weapon." HR. 2259 would delete this entire section and replace it with a new set of definitions. "Assault weapon" would no longer even appear in the list of definitions.[rockon]
 
jasons said:
From the proposed bill:
"Sections one hundred and thirty through one hundred and thirty-one P of chapter one hundred and forty of the General Laws are hereby repealed."​


  • Section 131M currently bans the "sale, transfer or possession" of an assault weapon. It would be repealed.
  • Section 131L currently covers storage. It would be repealed.

Also the current version of section 121 lists definitions, including "assault weapon." HR. 2259 would delete this entire section and replace it with a new set of definitions. "Assault weapon" would no longer even appear in the list of definitions.[rockon]
Click to expand...

Oh man, collapsible stocks, PMAG's and KX3's? I would be such a happy guy.[mg]
 
Last edited:
edmorseiii said:
Oh man, collapsible stocks, PMAG's and KX3's? I would be such a happy guy.[mg]
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, that would be nice. I think what would be even nicer is that all of my law-abiding fellow citizens would be able to obtain an LTC without concern for where they happened to live in this state. A 'right' that depends on geography or the philosophy/politics of a government bureaucrat is no right at all.

That doesn't mean I agree that a license should be necessary in the first place, but the present system is unfair beyond belief. I think of this bill as an excellent starting point. Freedom is seldom lost all at once, it happens by increments. Sometimes it has to be regained the same way. [grin]
 
center442 said:
I agree 100%, that would be nice. I think what would be even nicer is that all of my law-abiding fellow citizens would be able to obtain an LTC without concern for where they happened to live in this state. A 'right' that depends on geography or the philosophy/politics of a government bureaucrat is no right at all.

That doesn't mean I agree that a license should be necessary in the first place, but the present system is unfair beyond belief. I think of this bill as an excellent starting point. Freedom is seldom lost all at once, it happens by increments. Sometimes it has to be regained the same way. [grin]
Click to expand...

That's in there too.

From http://www.goal.org/MGLR/Reform.htm:
Here's what our reform would do to enhance individual rights:

  • Make it very clear that there is an individual civil right to keep and bear arms and that the government must operate under that presumption.
  • Reduce the number and types of firearm licenses (currently four) to one.
  • Create understandable and commonsense terminology that is currently used and understood by the firearms owning community.
  • Create a new definition of a "Prohibited Person" and using that term throughout the laws as the means of legitimately denying a citizen a firearm license.
  • Make the rights inherent for the license based on the age of the holder rather than having to acquire a new license at a particular age.
  • Remove the authority of local licensing agents to deny a persons civil rights without due process.
  • Remove the laws regarding the state licensing of retailers already licensed by the federal government.
  • Create clearer language for the judicial review process of a denied license.
  • Remove jail sentences for lawful possession infractions and moving any jailable offenses to the criminal enforcement chapter.
  • Remove restrictive storage laws that have been found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Making laws easier to understand and find by separating into concise short sections those that are unnecessarily long and complicated.
 
I am out at sea right now, but I am writing mine to be mailed when I get back this weekend. I am also writing 4 others with the same statement, just worded slightly different to have my parents, girlfriend, girlfriend's mom sign and send in as well. The more the merrier.[wink]
 
jasons said:
That's in there too.

From http://www.goal.org/MGLR/Reform.htm:
Here's what our reform would do to enhance individual rights:

  • Make it very clear that there is an individual civil right to keep and bear arms and that the government must operate under that presumption.
  • Reduce the number and types of firearm licenses (currently four) to one.
  • Create understandable and commonsense terminology that is currently used and understood by the firearms owning community.
  • Create a new definition of a "Prohibited Person" and using that term throughout the laws as the means of legitimately denying a citizen a firearm license.
  • Make the rights inherent for the license based on the age of the holder rather than having to acquire a new license at a particular age.
  • Remove the authority of local licensing agents to deny a persons civil rights without due process.
  • Remove the laws regarding the state licensing of retailers already licensed by the federal government.
  • Create clearer language for the judicial review process of a denied license.
  • Remove jail sentences for lawful possession infractions and moving any jailable offenses to the criminal enforcement chapter.
  • Remove restrictive storage laws that have been found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Making laws easier to understand and find by separating into concise short sections those that are unnecessarily long and complicated.
Click to expand...

Yep. I was merely making the observation that, while I like all parts of the proposal, I consider some parts of far more importance than others. [grin] I am fortunate that I live in a green town, but that is small comfort to folks who happen to live in a restrictive city or town. They are just as 'suitable' as I am to be licensed, but they get screwed over only because of where their home happens to be located. I have never understood (or agreed with) that practice. It's a good example of what happens when a right is treated as a privilege. [frown]

I wonder how our elected legislators would feel if their legislative 'rights' were determined by the city or town that elected them. [wink]
 
Mike,

Just so I'm clear on what I need to do, I should write the letter to the 2 Senators you listed who are on the Committee and send it to GOAL for presentation. Then change the addressee and send those to my own personal Rep and State Senator.

Is that correct?
 
I wrote Senator Timilty and Rep. John Rogers about this back in February or March and received a reply from Timilty dated March 2. He says he is on board with this as a co-sponsor and supporter and if it comes before his Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security he will work to get the support of his committee members.

I am still waiting for any acknowledgement from Rogers.
 
center442 said:
Yep. I was merely making the observation that, while I like all parts of the proposal, I consider some parts of far more importance than others. [grin]
Click to expand...

Ahh, sorry - I misunderstood. I agree - it would be great if we could get it all but I would be thrilled if we get any of it. Even an inch is forward progress. [grin]



EDIT: And yes - somewhere I remember reading something about "equal protection under the law."[thinking]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Seems like the "Chief gets to decide" provision in the current version of the law is flat-out unconstitutional, but of course I am not a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Just dropped mine in the mail. Mike, thanks for your help. I really hope GOAL gets deluged with letters. This bill is the best thing going for us right now.
 
ochmude said:
Just dropped mine in the mail. Mike, thanks for your help. I really hope GOAL gets deluged with letters. This bill is the best thing going for us right now.
Click to expand...

Actually, another good thing may be this thread. He is not specific about what he is looking for but it shows that they think the courts may start behaving now there is something to work from in heller.
 
jasons said:
Ahh, sorry - I misunderstood. I agree - it would be great if we could get it all but I would be thrilled if we get any of it. Even an inch is forward progress. [grin]



EDIT: And yes - somewhere I remember reading something about "equal protection under the law."[thinking]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Seems like the "Chief gets to decide" provision in the current version of the law is flat-out unconstitutional, but of course I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Jason, if the Heller decision is incorporated so that it applies to all the states, this may get some traction. However I can easily envision a state like Massachusetts saying, "Okay, in keeping with the Heller decision, all applicants for a Firearms License will be issued a Class A License restricted to possession for self-defense in home or business." That would totally violate the spirit of the decision while still honoring the technicality.

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic about Massachusetts and places like it, but that kind of action wouldn't surprise me. Just one of the reasons why I think Massachusetts is totally FUBAR. [sad]
 
center442 said:
Jason, if the Heller decision is incorporated so that it applies to all the states, this may get some traction. However I can easily envision a state like Massachusetts saying, "Okay, in keeping with the Heller decision, all applicants for a Firearms License will be issued a Class A License restricted to possession for self-defense in home or business." That would totally violate the spirit of the decision while still honoring the technicality.

Maybe I'm just too pessimistic about Massachusetts and places like it, but that kind of action wouldn't surprise me. Just one of the reasons why I think Massachusetts is totally FUBAR. [sad]
Click to expand...


I wouldn't put it past them, and MA is most definitely uber-FUBAR. Still I don't think BS like that would fly even here in MA. Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think (hope?) the pendulum is starting to swing in the right direction.
 
I think center442 makes a number of very good points. This bill is not exactly what we would want but is a big step in the right direction. My letter goes in the mail today!

Mike
 
Here's mine. It will go out Monday:

Mr. Michael XXX
XXX
XXX, MA XXX


September 24, 2009


The Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Senator James Timilty and Representative Michael Costello
Room 167 State House
Boston, MA 02133


Chairman Timilty and Chairman Costello:

I am writing to ask you to support H 2259 “An Act Relative to Civil Rights and Public Safety”.

In 1998, Massachusetts legislators and Governor Paul Cellucci passed legislation that was billed as the one of the toughest gun control laws in the country. The act's sponsor, Senator Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham) asserted, “This legislation will give Massachusetts the toughest gun control law in the country.” However since the law was passed, firearm-related crime has increased dramatically. According to the Massachusetts-based Gun Owner’s Action League, firearm-related deaths have increased by 68% and firearm-related assault injuries have increased by 72%. Emergency room visits as a result of firearm-related assaults have surged by an incredible 222%. Predictably, the number of peaceable, law-abiding citizens that call Massachusetts home has plummeted.

Needless to say, the Gun Control Act of 1998 has been a miserable failure.

In view of this, the answer clearly isn’t enacting more laws to hamstring the peaceable gun owners of Massachusetts. Our legislative efforts ought to be focused on enacting laws that protect the citizens’ right to own firearms and punish violent and dangerous criminal offenders.

As an active voter and GOAL member, I encourage you to support H 2259.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,




Mr. Michael XXX
(XXX, MA)
Click to expand...
 
I just finished 6 letters that will go in the mail on Monday. Just one for you Jim, the rest are going to my elected officials and people of other importance.

Great job GOAL, for those who have already sent letters but aren't goal members, take a look at it. Your membership helps pay for people who come up with bills such as this one. YMNM
 
Hey Everyone, I just wanted to let you know, we just got back from the post office and there was about a 2 inch high stack of letters!

Great start, thank you to everyone that took the time to write!

Please keep them coming, the more we have, the louder our voice, the stronger we are.
 

Similar threads

3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
33
Views
685
40 Creedmoor fan
4
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
111
Reptile
Reptile
Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Shooting At Northborough House Party Leaves One 16 Y/O Dead
2 3
Replies
75
Views
2K
walter62
walter62
Back
Top Bottom