New "Katrina" Bill Filed

GOAL

NES Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
541
Likes
1,748
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
http://www.goal.org/katrinapart2.htm

GOAL Files Amended “Katrina” Bill

During the last legislative session Senator Richard Moore filed, on behalf of GOAL, “An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During the State of Emergency” The legislation was filed as a result of the unlawful confiscation of privately owned firearms during the state of emergency in Louisiana, specifically New Orleans.

GOAL’s bill nearly became law, but was held up at the last moment during informal session by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. While the Association never contacted GOAL with any objections, we were informed that their main concern was that they could not determine what a lawfully owned firearm was. That alone speaks volumes for the need for real reform in Massachusetts.

Another concern about the bill came from the typical officer on the street. They expressed distress over the fact that they would be held accountable for confiscating firearms, but the person who ordered the confiscations would not face any penalties. Thus, GOAL has amended the bill to punish both.

“During the last legislative session this bill represented a litmus test of sorts here in Massachusetts,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “It was a clear test to see if the legislature and law enforcement would accept that they could not unlawfully confiscate private property and further, leave citizens defenseless against marauding gangs of criminals when calling for help wasn’t possible. Sadly, the state failed that test.”

GOAL urges all of its members to contact their legislators and ask them to support this legislation by signing on as a co-sponsor. (The bill has not yet been assigned a number.)

AN ACT prohibiting the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a state of emergency
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 140 of the Massachusetts General Laws shall be amended by adding the following section;

Section 129E. Prohibiting the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms.

No government official or any person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall order the confiscation of, or otherwise cause the confiscation of, any lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition.

No law enforcement officer, person acting as a law enforcement officer, or other public official shall confiscate or attempt to confiscate any lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition.

Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to a civil fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 for each firearm unlawfully confiscated or by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than two and one-half years.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit the confiscation of a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition from any person who;

(a) Has been placed under arrest;

(b) Is the subject of a protection order issued under Chapter 209A;

(c) Has had their Firearm Identification Card or License to Carry revoked or suspended.
 
Not to be a party pooper as I think this is great and is needed, but what is to prevent the Chief from saying, "This is an emergency. All Ltc's are now suspended for the term of the emergency!" ???

Now you're thinking like a Worcester COP.[shocked] Good point, though.
 
Not to be a party pooper as I think this is great and is needed, but what is to prevent the Chief from saying, "This is an emergency. All Ltc's are now suspended for the term of the emergency!" ???

I'm pretty sure they can't just invalidate all LTC's, they have to be done case by case. Not to mention it would only apply to LTC's the CLEO issued.
 
Not to be a party pooper as I think this is great and is needed, but what is to prevent the Chief from saying, "This is an emergency. All Ltc's are now suspended for the term of the emergency!" ???

I would hope that would fall under the "unlawful order" category.
 
Nothing in this section shall prohibit the confiscation of a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition from any person who;

(a) Has been placed under arrest;

not to add to the peeing on the parade... but....

anyone else think this leaves it open for officers simply to place people under arrest to affect a confiscation?

It is great... but... knowing this state... i just see this as a way around for the LEOs... just me being a devils advocate i guess [smile]
 
Thanks GOAL

I'll be calling / emailing mine.


People this is a step forward and we have to think of it as one. Obviously there are always ways for people to skirt laws, that doesn't mean we don't put them in place.
 
anyone else think this leaves it open for officers simply to place people under arrest to affect a confiscation?
On a individual case, yes. On a widespread "here's the list, round em all up" - probably not.
 
anyone else think this leaves it open for officers simply to place people under arrest to affect a confiscation?

No. PC is still needed for any arrest. If it is a false arrest then the subject would have a case for a civil rights violation.
 
Why is it:

“An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During the State of Emergency”

Why "During the State of Emergency"

Shouldn't it be:

“An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms." ?
 
Why is it:

“An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During the State of Emergency”

Why "During the State of Emergency"

Shouldn't it be:

“An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms." ?


As they strive to eliminate fictitious "loopholes" , they also strive to create loopholes for themselves.

A state of emergency is the least likely time I'd give up any firearms.
 
Great work on Goal's part - the tricky part is going to be to get the legislature to pass it in the face of objections from the police organizations (and the objections will be there as long as there is any provision to punish police personally for illegal confiscations).

I'd still like to know which legislators where the ones who succumbed to the police pressure to kill the "all but automatic" informal session passage.
 
Here is the issue w/ this legislation:

Since the chief of police can revoke a LTC for any time and for any reason after he deems you unsuitable, then during a Katrina SHTF scenario, everyone can be determined unsuitable, or more importantly just you.

Good start, but HUGE loophole for the taking.
 
Here is the issue w/ this legislation:

Since the chief of police can revoke a LTC for any time and for any reason after he deems you unsuitable, then during a Katrina SHTF scenario, everyone can be determined unsuitable, or more importantly just you.

Good start, but HUGE loophole for the taking.

Suitability comes into play during the application proses. They would have to suspend or revoke the LTC once you had it.
 
Suitability comes into play during the application proses. They would have to suspend or revoke the LTC once you had it.
True, but there is no separate standard of proof required for a susension of revocation.

LTCs can be revoked if the issuing authority feels the holder is no longer suitable - just ask Godfrey (the character who lost his LTC in Wellesley because he exercised his right to remain silent - a revocation upheld by the courts). Or, you might ask the Ashland police officer who lives in Milford and recently lost his LTC issued by that town (www.metrowestdailynews.com for info).

It would be easy for a "just you" revocation, but quite a bit harder for a chief to revoke all LTCs in a town claiming everyone suddenly became unsuitable.
 
Back
Top Bottom