"Further, an act of lawful defense under this section shall not be cause for the revocation of a license issued under sections, 122, 123, 129B or 131 of Chapter 140."
This, too!
This, too!
-
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***
[UPDATE POST113]S.661 Self Defense Bill
- Thread starter yanici
- Start date
jcetto0351
NES Member
terms like common sense and fair should be disregarded to those who love liberty... they leave room for interpretation from people who want to legislate FOR you. Some people believe it is "common sense" to ban all guns and to destroy them all
I would choose the phrase "unquestionable right to defend my life" or something to that effect.
I wish this was a bit better publicized. I'm not a GOAL member due to the current "flux" status with them, and I would have brought my suit. Oh well, I guess a polo will have to do...
...the state Joint Committee on the Judiciary is scheduled to hear important self-defense legislation at 1:00 p.m. in room B-1 of the State House. Senate Bill 661, Castle Doctrine legislation introduced by state Senator Stephen Brewer, would provide essential protections for law-abiding citizens who defend themselves and their families from a criminal looking to do them harm.
Same here, come as you are...
blindndead
NES Member
Something's Gotta Give!!
Not critical to the effect of the bill, but I don't favor its title.
The phrase "the common defense" in our article #17 is often argued to mean the opposite of individual.
I say that #1's words (now #106) cover the individual right, and #17 extended the right to being armed in a group (the militia).
Our crappy SJC case law (Commonwealth v. Davis) used "common defense" (along with other arguments) to dismiss the RKBA in Massachusetts.
--jcr
Didn't you see the final episode of Seinfeld?
They could, should but haven't chosen to on this hearing.
FAQ: http://www.malegislature.gov/Site/FAQ Last question on the link.
Not on this hearing; "underway"
http://www.malegislature.gov/Events
Matt
Last edited:
G
GOAL C.M.
GOAL Exec Director Jim Wallace just checked in from today's Joint Committee hearing.
He reports that the hearing is "packed" and that most of the discussion is revolving around DNA legislation that is not 2A related.
I will update if he has time to send me additional updates.
He reports that the hearing is "packed" and that most of the discussion is revolving around DNA legislation that is not 2A related.
I will update if he has time to send me additional updates.
blindndead
NES Member
Thank You for the update.
+1 thanks Mike!
I had to leave at around 2:45. as above, it was packed and most of the discussion was about DNA, drug treatment plans, mental health and lost puppies (I kid you not).
I did get a chance to speak despite Jim's warnings to the contrary.
As expected, I got less attention from the committee than the lost puppies...
I did get a chance to speak despite Jim's warnings to the contrary.
As expected, I got less attention from the committee than the lost puppies...
blindndead
NES Member
Your telling us that it is just another Massachusetts horn party?
Sadly, it was pretty tame compared to some...
There was a contingent of junkies there to testify for free drugs, er, treatment not sentences...
He warned that typically the judiciary hears so many bills and it is such a circus that they rarely get to the 2A related bills. I was there early and there was a break-down in their usual sign-up process, so I may have gotten in faster than usual.
They generally take the Bacon Hill folks first and as they arrive throughout the session. Then they do the "panels" and then they do the "citizens."
They also sometimes go through organized by bill to keep the testimony on one subject at a time, but this time they just did everything above and pulled names from the list somewhat round-robin amidst the panels and special people.
Just to be clear, the "warning" was about how difficult it can be to testify. Of course GOAL submits written testimony regardless.
G
GOAL C.M.
Just got off the phone with Jim.
As stated above the room was packed and most of the discussion centered on legislation other than S.661. There was no opposition to the bill, and nobody testified against it that Jim saw.
We hope for a favorable report from the committee, it could be anytime from tomorrow to mid March before the bill is assigned, we will update as soon as we have more information.
Thanks to all who attended today in support of this legislation.
As stated above the room was packed and most of the discussion centered on legislation other than S.661. There was no opposition to the bill, and nobody testified against it that Jim saw.
We hope for a favorable report from the committee, it could be anytime from tomorrow to mid March before the bill is assigned, we will update as soon as we have more information.
Thanks to all who attended today in support of this legislation.
I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised.
G
GOAL C.M.
We await the committee report.
If the report on the bill is "study" it will basically stay in committee and wilt on the vine.
If it gets assigned somewhere that's progress, we repeat the process, call, and write our reps, wait until the next hearing and begin anew with the intention of bumping it yard by yard to the goal line.
(no pun intended)
If the report on the bill is "study" it will basically stay in committee and wilt on the vine.
If it gets assigned somewhere that's progress, we repeat the process, call, and write our reps, wait until the next hearing and begin anew with the intention of bumping it yard by yard to the goal line.
(no pun intended)
