Gun Owners' Action League Blog
Vote Freedom First
Vote Freedom First
BLOG.GOAL.ORG
Will You Help Make History? Vote for Scott Brown for U.S. Senate
On Tuesday, January 19, 2010 the citizens of Massachusetts have a once in a lifetime opportunity to send a message to Washington D.C. that will resonate around the world!
The election on Tuesday is not about Democrat vs. Republican. It isn’t even just about our Second Amendment civil rights, while that is certainly a priority for GOAL members. This election is about sending a clear message to the entrenched political machine in Washington D.C. that an elected seat of any kind belongs to the people and not to a family dynasty, political party or any other entity.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It should be obvious to all that we have not come to that point yet, but it should also be clear to everyone that our nation’s capital has become a tyrant in of itself. While this is not a physical battle, we certainly have an opportunity on Tuesday to spill some political blood and recapture some of our authority over our government. In this battle, your weapon is your vote!
As our forefathers did many years ago when they rallied the local patriots at the Concord Bridge, it is time for us to rally our fellow patriots. We urge you to rally your family, your friends, your neighbors and armed with their votes go to the polls on Tuesday. Together as a voting modern militia we can retake our freedom and our future! A win for Scott Brown on Tuesday is a win for freedom and it will most certainly become known as the political shot heard round the world.
Scott Brown:
· Supported GOAL’s Target Shooter’s bill in 2006 allowing the sale of new Olympic Style Target pistols in Massachusetts,
· Supported the Hunter Education Bill in 2006,
· Supported the GOAL’s 2004 Reform Bill
o Created a review board for people who had lost their rights for minor offenses,
o Created a 90 day grace period for lawful citizens who trying to renew their licenses but were entangled in an unresponsive bureaucracy,
o Standardized the size of firearm license
· When in the House he fought to undo a lot of the mistakes made in the anti-civil rights 1998 Gun Control Act
Martha Coakley:
· In November of 2009 as Massachusetts Attorney General she filed an Amicus Brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opposing the Second Amendment as an individual civil right. In the brief she cited a post civil war case called Cruikshank to back her position. This case was one of the most anti-civil rights and racist decisions ever handed down and not only ruled against the Second Amendment, but the First as well.
· Attached regulations to GOAL’s Target Shooters bill after its passage to make it virtually impossible for firearms to pass the standards. Nearly four years after the bill’s passage only three firearms have made the list.
· Continued the enforcement of the fraudulent handgun regulations that were created through an abuse of the consumer protection laws.
Civil Rights Equals Detainment?! So Says the Federal Court
Civil Rights Equals Detainment?! So Says the Federal Court
If the gun laws here in Massachusetts are not confusing enough, just try and follow the court rulings. Most recently a case has come out of a local federal court that has gun owners confused and angry.
This most recent case is Schubert v. City of Springfield (United States District Court Civil No. 07-30033). In this case Mr. Schubert was crossing a street during mid-day and was held at gun point by a police officer. The officer had claimed that he had seen a handgun under Mr. Schubert’s jacket. In legal terms the officer claimed to be conducting what is called a Terry Stop.
A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a case, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 6 (1968).
During the stop, the officer detained Mr. Schubert for around ten minutes while he supposedly tried to verify the License to Carry (LTC). According to court records, the officer was not able to validate the LTC and as a result released Mr. Schubert but confiscated the LTC and the firearm. Both items were recovered at the police station later on. As a result of the incident, Mr. Schubert filed a civil rights case in federal court. The particular filings did not include any Second Amendment claims.
On March 4, 2009 Judge Michael A. Ponsor heard a motion to dismiss from the city. Judge Ponsor was born in Chicago and appointed to his position on the federal court by President Bill Clinton. That same day, the Judge gave an oral ruling followed by one in writing. The Judge stated in his ruling the following:
“I find on the undisputed facts of this case that the police officer had the right under the Terry decision to stop and make inquiry of the plaintiff once he recognized that he was walking in public and carrying a firearm…”
“…I believe the police officer is not violating the Constitution by confronting the individual, disarming the individual, and requiring the individual to produce identification and a license.”
“I don’t believe that the police officer crossed the constitutional line by drawing his firearm to protect himself and even pointing it at the plaintiff…”
“I find that the police officer once he was given the license was not required to accept it on its face…”
The events that led up to this case and the subsequent ruling are disturbing at best. According to this ruling, any lawful citizen who chooses to exercise their civil rights in public is now subject to detainment and search. This ruling exemplifies the socially immature attitude towards firearms here in Massachusetts. Of course one has to wonder how this type of ruling would go in an open carry state.
The ruling itself is very disturbing alone, but we can certainly get some insight as to how that ruling came about by looking at some statements made by the Judge. GOAL acquired a transcript from the motion to dismiss on March 4, 2009. The following are some statements made by Judge
Ponsor during that hearing. The statements obviously demonstrate a complete prejudice towards firearm ownership.
Judge Michael A. Ponsor
“I guess my question is what is a middle aged guy with a suit carrying a briefcase doing packing a handgun and walking around downtown Springfield? Is this becoming Dodge City here where everybody’s going to be carrying firearms?”
“Every time anybody’s at a chicken place and somebody pulls out a handgun we’ll have bullets flying in 16 different directions and its mutual destruction and we’re really two seconds away from gun firing breaking out. I’m really, really, really bothered by that.”
“I’m really appalled to hear that that many people are carrying guns.”
“You have the right to do a lot of things. It doesn’t mean you have the right to be free from an inquiry about what you’re doing.”
“I find on the undisputed facts of this case that the police officer had the right under the Terry decision to stop and make inquiry of the plaintiff once he recognized that he was walking in public and carrying a firearm that was visible to him from where he was seated in his squad car.”
With this new disturbing federal court decision, we must now ask the question as to how it affects prior state court rulings or rather how the federal decision should have been affected by them.
It is common knowledge that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stripped Commonwealth citizens of their Second Amendment civil rights in the infamous 1976 case Commonwealth V. Davis (369 Mass. 886).
“The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This was adopted to quiet the fears of those who thought that the Congressional powers under article 1, section 8, clauses 15 and 16, with regard to the State militias might have the effect of enervating or destroying those forces. The amendment is to be read as an assurance that the national government shall not so reduce the militias… So the amendment is irrelevant to the present case. The chances appear remote that this amendment will ultimately be read to control the States, for unlike some other provisions of the bill of rights, this is not directed to guaranteeing the rights of individuals, but rather, as we have said, to assuring some freedom of State forces from national interference.”
This horrendous decision was based on anti-civil rights cases like United States v. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875). The same case the Massachusetts Attorney General used recently to back her possession against the Second Amendment. This Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) Case not only ruled against the Second Amendment, but also the First.
“The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone.”
“The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.”
The Davis decision was then backed up by Chief of Police of Shelburne v. Moyer, 16 Mass. App. Ct. at 547 (1983) and Ruggiero v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 18 Mass.App. 256, 464 N.E.2d 104 (Mass.App. 1984). These two decisions basically echoed the courts’ anti-civil rights stance and the authority of local authorities to deny or restrict rights. The Moyer decision also seemed to create a complete role reversal between citizens and their government.
“The burden is upon the applicant to produce substantial evidence that he is a proper person to hold a license to carry a firearm.”
Even with all of these absurd rulings and statements by the court concern our civil rights in earlier years there has certainly been some sound state court rulings that should have had some leverage on the Schubert decision.
Commonwealth vs. Samuel H. Nowells 390 Mass. 621 September 12, 1983 - December 20, 1983
“The ownership or possession of a handgun (or a rifle) is not a crime and standing alone creates no probable cause.”
Commonwealth vs. Marcos A. Rojas. 403 Mass. 483 October 5, 1988 - December 8, 1988
“We note that possession of a handgun is not per se illegal.”
Commonwealth vs. Paul R. Couture. 407 Mass. 178 December 6, 1989 - April 9, 1990
“The mere possession of a handgun was not sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was illegally carrying that gun, and the stop was therefore improper under Fourth Amendment principles.”
“The police in this case had no reason to believe, before conducting the search of the vehicle, that the defendant had no license to carry a firearm. A police officer's knowledge that an individual is carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish probable cause to believe that the individual is illegally carrying that gun.”
In the Couture case, a clerk at a convenience store in Lowell telephoned the local police and informed them that a man inside the store had a small handgun protruding from his right rear pocket. The clerk said that the man entered a gray pickup truck with a New Hampshire registration number. The clerk reported the registration number to the police. The man was then pulled over and arrested by police for illegal possession after a search of his vehicle. The evidence was eventually thrown out since no criminal activity was known to have taken place prior to the stop.
An interesting to connection to the Couture case is the Assistant District Attorney that lost this case, former State Senator Cheryl Jacques. Senator Jacques was the architect of the disastrous Gun Control Act of 1998. In 2008 she was appointed by Governor Deval Patrick to be a Judge at the Department of Industrial Accidents.
Most recently a case regarding possession came before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth vs. Thomas YOUNG & another. SJC-10147 January 5, 2009. - May 4, 2009.
“While we are cognizant that unlicensed possessors of firearms may use firearms unlawfully, unlicensed possession of a firearm itself is a regulatory crime. It is passive and victimless.
Case after case in Massachusetts the courts have maintained that mere possession of a firearm is not enough evidence to justify suspicion, search or detainment. The problem here is that the case was filed as a civil rights case in federal court and unfortunately some federal courts are still stuck in Civil War Era civil rights denial.
One interesting statement that appeared in the Schubert ruling was a footnote #2 on page three: “Second, Plaintiff’s right is secured, not restricted, by the state licensing statute, Mass. Gen. Laws.ch. 140, § 131.” This is a very peculiar statement since the licensing system in Massachusetts is based on Commonwealth v. Davis that told us we citizens of Massachusetts have no such rights. A law student could probably do a whole thesis on that one.
So now that your eyes are glazed over you are probably asking the question, where does this leave us as lawful gun owners? The answer is, good question.
From all of the case research and history here, it all boils down to this. We have a federal court system that sort of recognizes our civil rights as gun owners but does not feel it is a problem if we are detained and questioned for simply exercising our rights. On the other hand we have a state court system in Massachusetts that does not recognize our civil right to keep and bear arms, but has strongly ruled that we should not be detained or questioned for mere possession of a firearm.
In the months and years to come I am certain there will be more cases heard on the national level to follow the famous Heller decision. Certainly the McDonald v. city of Chicago to be heard this spring by SCOTUS should provide us with more insight as to how we are going to be treated by our collective governments. For now, I am afraid, the lawful gun owners of Massachusetts are still yet seeking answers to the answers we have been given to the questions we shouldn’t have had to ask.
If the gun laws here in Massachusetts are not confusing enough, just try and follow the court rulings. Most recently a case has come out of a local federal court that has gun owners confused and angry.
This most recent case is Schubert v. City of Springfield (United States District Court Civil No. 07-30033). In this case Mr. Schubert was crossing a street during mid-day and was held at gun point by a police officer. The officer had claimed that he had seen a handgun under Mr. Schubert’s jacket. In legal terms the officer claimed to be conducting what is called a Terry Stop.
A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a case, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 6 (1968).
During the stop, the officer detained Mr. Schubert for around ten minutes while he supposedly tried to verify the License to Carry (LTC). According to court records, the officer was not able to validate the LTC and as a result released Mr. Schubert but confiscated the LTC and the firearm. Both items were recovered at the police station later on. As a result of the incident, Mr. Schubert filed a civil rights case in federal court. The particular filings did not include any Second Amendment claims.
On March 4, 2009 Judge Michael A. Ponsor heard a motion to dismiss from the city. Judge Ponsor was born in Chicago and appointed to his position on the federal court by President Bill Clinton. That same day, the Judge gave an oral ruling followed by one in writing. The Judge stated in his ruling the following:
“I find on the undisputed facts of this case that the police officer had the right under the Terry decision to stop and make inquiry of the plaintiff once he recognized that he was walking in public and carrying a firearm…”
“…I believe the police officer is not violating the Constitution by confronting the individual, disarming the individual, and requiring the individual to produce identification and a license.”
“I don’t believe that the police officer crossed the constitutional line by drawing his firearm to protect himself and even pointing it at the plaintiff…”
“I find that the police officer once he was given the license was not required to accept it on its face…”
The events that led up to this case and the subsequent ruling are disturbing at best. According to this ruling, any lawful citizen who chooses to exercise their civil rights in public is now subject to detainment and search. This ruling exemplifies the socially immature attitude towards firearms here in Massachusetts. Of course one has to wonder how this type of ruling would go in an open carry state.
The ruling itself is very disturbing alone, but we can certainly get some insight as to how that ruling came about by looking at some statements made by the Judge. GOAL acquired a transcript from the motion to dismiss on March 4, 2009. The following are some statements made by Judge
Ponsor during that hearing. The statements obviously demonstrate a complete prejudice towards firearm ownership.
Judge Michael A. Ponsor
“I guess my question is what is a middle aged guy with a suit carrying a briefcase doing packing a handgun and walking around downtown Springfield? Is this becoming Dodge City here where everybody’s going to be carrying firearms?”
“Every time anybody’s at a chicken place and somebody pulls out a handgun we’ll have bullets flying in 16 different directions and its mutual destruction and we’re really two seconds away from gun firing breaking out. I’m really, really, really bothered by that.”
“I’m really appalled to hear that that many people are carrying guns.”
“You have the right to do a lot of things. It doesn’t mean you have the right to be free from an inquiry about what you’re doing.”
“I find on the undisputed facts of this case that the police officer had the right under the Terry decision to stop and make inquiry of the plaintiff once he recognized that he was walking in public and carrying a firearm that was visible to him from where he was seated in his squad car.”
With this new disturbing federal court decision, we must now ask the question as to how it affects prior state court rulings or rather how the federal decision should have been affected by them.
It is common knowledge that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stripped Commonwealth citizens of their Second Amendment civil rights in the infamous 1976 case Commonwealth V. Davis (369 Mass. 886).
“The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This was adopted to quiet the fears of those who thought that the Congressional powers under article 1, section 8, clauses 15 and 16, with regard to the State militias might have the effect of enervating or destroying those forces. The amendment is to be read as an assurance that the national government shall not so reduce the militias… So the amendment is irrelevant to the present case. The chances appear remote that this amendment will ultimately be read to control the States, for unlike some other provisions of the bill of rights, this is not directed to guaranteeing the rights of individuals, but rather, as we have said, to assuring some freedom of State forces from national interference.”
This horrendous decision was based on anti-civil rights cases like United States v. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875). The same case the Massachusetts Attorney General used recently to back her possession against the Second Amendment. This Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) Case not only ruled against the Second Amendment, but also the First.
“The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone.”
“The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.”
The Davis decision was then backed up by Chief of Police of Shelburne v. Moyer, 16 Mass. App. Ct. at 547 (1983) and Ruggiero v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 18 Mass.App. 256, 464 N.E.2d 104 (Mass.App. 1984). These two decisions basically echoed the courts’ anti-civil rights stance and the authority of local authorities to deny or restrict rights. The Moyer decision also seemed to create a complete role reversal between citizens and their government.
“The burden is upon the applicant to produce substantial evidence that he is a proper person to hold a license to carry a firearm.”
Even with all of these absurd rulings and statements by the court concern our civil rights in earlier years there has certainly been some sound state court rulings that should have had some leverage on the Schubert decision.
Commonwealth vs. Samuel H. Nowells 390 Mass. 621 September 12, 1983 - December 20, 1983
“The ownership or possession of a handgun (or a rifle) is not a crime and standing alone creates no probable cause.”
Commonwealth vs. Marcos A. Rojas. 403 Mass. 483 October 5, 1988 - December 8, 1988
“We note that possession of a handgun is not per se illegal.”
Commonwealth vs. Paul R. Couture. 407 Mass. 178 December 6, 1989 - April 9, 1990
“The mere possession of a handgun was not sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was illegally carrying that gun, and the stop was therefore improper under Fourth Amendment principles.”
“The police in this case had no reason to believe, before conducting the search of the vehicle, that the defendant had no license to carry a firearm. A police officer's knowledge that an individual is carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish probable cause to believe that the individual is illegally carrying that gun.”
In the Couture case, a clerk at a convenience store in Lowell telephoned the local police and informed them that a man inside the store had a small handgun protruding from his right rear pocket. The clerk said that the man entered a gray pickup truck with a New Hampshire registration number. The clerk reported the registration number to the police. The man was then pulled over and arrested by police for illegal possession after a search of his vehicle. The evidence was eventually thrown out since no criminal activity was known to have taken place prior to the stop.
An interesting to connection to the Couture case is the Assistant District Attorney that lost this case, former State Senator Cheryl Jacques. Senator Jacques was the architect of the disastrous Gun Control Act of 1998. In 2008 she was appointed by Governor Deval Patrick to be a Judge at the Department of Industrial Accidents.
Most recently a case regarding possession came before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth vs. Thomas YOUNG & another. SJC-10147 January 5, 2009. - May 4, 2009.
“While we are cognizant that unlicensed possessors of firearms may use firearms unlawfully, unlicensed possession of a firearm itself is a regulatory crime. It is passive and victimless.
Case after case in Massachusetts the courts have maintained that mere possession of a firearm is not enough evidence to justify suspicion, search or detainment. The problem here is that the case was filed as a civil rights case in federal court and unfortunately some federal courts are still stuck in Civil War Era civil rights denial.
One interesting statement that appeared in the Schubert ruling was a footnote #2 on page three: “Second, Plaintiff’s right is secured, not restricted, by the state licensing statute, Mass. Gen. Laws.ch. 140, § 131.” This is a very peculiar statement since the licensing system in Massachusetts is based on Commonwealth v. Davis that told us we citizens of Massachusetts have no such rights. A law student could probably do a whole thesis on that one.
So now that your eyes are glazed over you are probably asking the question, where does this leave us as lawful gun owners? The answer is, good question.
From all of the case research and history here, it all boils down to this. We have a federal court system that sort of recognizes our civil rights as gun owners but does not feel it is a problem if we are detained and questioned for simply exercising our rights. On the other hand we have a state court system in Massachusetts that does not recognize our civil right to keep and bear arms, but has strongly ruled that we should not be detained or questioned for mere possession of a firearm.
In the months and years to come I am certain there will be more cases heard on the national level to follow the famous Heller decision. Certainly the McDonald v. city of Chicago to be heard this spring by SCOTUS should provide us with more insight as to how we are going to be treated by our collective governments. For now, I am afraid, the lawful gun owners of Massachusetts are still yet seeking answers to the answers we have been given to the questions we shouldn’t have had to ask.
GOAL Calls on Legislature to Come to the Aid of a Heroic Citizen
Find your legislator here.
GOAL Calls on Legislature to Come to the Aid of a Heroic Citizen
By now the world has heard the news of the lawful defense shooting that took place at the Massachusetts General Hospital clinic in Boston. In a case of true American selflessness, Massachusetts citizen Paul Langone ran towards danger to come to the aid of a complete stranger. In doing so, Mr. Langone saved the life of Psychiatrist Astrid Desrosiers who was being repeatedly stabbed by patient turned assailant, Jay Carciero.
In what was most certainly a case of lawful defense, Mr. Langone found himself in a situation that called on deadly force in order to save Ms. Desrosiers and to protect the lives and safety of other clinic staff and visitors. While there is much debate in the media and amongst the general public as to why Mr. Langone was there and why he was carrying a gun, the simple answer for everyone involved is that they are lucky he was.
What may be the greatest tragedy to yet take place regarding this story of a citizen hero is his exposure to a civil suit from the assailant's family. While we are not aware that such a suit has been filed, the danger exists. Under current Massachusetts law there are no protections from such suits for citizens who use force to protect themselves or others. However, the Massachusetts legislature has an opportunity to save this hero from such a suit.
Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL) currently has a bill before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary in the State House to address this matter. Senate Bill #1580, "An Act Relative to the Common Defense", was filed January 11th 2009 to protect citizens who find themselves in a situation that requires the use of force to defend themselves or others.
"It is clear enough to everyone that we live in a state where self defense is frowned upon and even discouraged," said Jim Wallace Executive Director of Gun Owners' Action League. "However, when such a lawful action of defense takes place it is unforgiveable that the Commonwealth would allow a law to exist where an assailant, or his family, is allowed to sue a defender. Just as Mr. Langone risked his life to come to the aid of other citizens, we now must come to his aid."
S.1580 would provide specific language that would clearly define what an act of lawful defense is. It would also provide protection to citizens who have acted in a lawful defense act from civil suits regarding the death or injuries to an assailant.
GOAL urges all Massachusetts citizens to come to the aid of this hero by contacting their legislator and ask them to immediately move on S.1580 "An Act Relative to the Common Defense". Citizens can obtain information on their legislators here.
S.1580 AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE.
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 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person defense of self or others;
Section 8A. It shall be an act of lawful defense if a person, who is an occupant of a dwelling or in any place that they have a right to be, used deadly force, or less than deadly force, if he or she acted in the reasonable belief that an assailant was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon themselves or upon another person who also had a right to be in the location. There shall be no duty on a person to retreat from any place that they have a right to be. An act of lawful defense as outlined in this section shall not be cause for arrest or prosecution. 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.
SECTION 2. Chapter 231: Section 85U. Death or injury to assailants; liability of defender
Section 85U. No person who has committed an act of lawful defense as outlined in section 8A of chapter 278 shall be held liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an assailant.
GOAL Calls on Legislature to Come to the Aid of a Heroic Citizen
By now the world has heard the news of the lawful defense shooting that took place at the Massachusetts General Hospital clinic in Boston. In a case of true American selflessness, Massachusetts citizen Paul Langone ran towards danger to come to the aid of a complete stranger. In doing so, Mr. Langone saved the life of Psychiatrist Astrid Desrosiers who was being repeatedly stabbed by patient turned assailant, Jay Carciero.
In what was most certainly a case of lawful defense, Mr. Langone found himself in a situation that called on deadly force in order to save Ms. Desrosiers and to protect the lives and safety of other clinic staff and visitors. While there is much debate in the media and amongst the general public as to why Mr. Langone was there and why he was carrying a gun, the simple answer for everyone involved is that they are lucky he was.
What may be the greatest tragedy to yet take place regarding this story of a citizen hero is his exposure to a civil suit from the assailant's family. While we are not aware that such a suit has been filed, the danger exists. Under current Massachusetts law there are no protections from such suits for citizens who use force to protect themselves or others. However, the Massachusetts legislature has an opportunity to save this hero from such a suit.
Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL) currently has a bill before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary in the State House to address this matter. Senate Bill #1580, "An Act Relative to the Common Defense", was filed January 11th 2009 to protect citizens who find themselves in a situation that requires the use of force to defend themselves or others.
"It is clear enough to everyone that we live in a state where self defense is frowned upon and even discouraged," said Jim Wallace Executive Director of Gun Owners' Action League. "However, when such a lawful action of defense takes place it is unforgiveable that the Commonwealth would allow a law to exist where an assailant, or his family, is allowed to sue a defender. Just as Mr. Langone risked his life to come to the aid of other citizens, we now must come to his aid."
S.1580 would provide specific language that would clearly define what an act of lawful defense is. It would also provide protection to citizens who have acted in a lawful defense act from civil suits regarding the death or injuries to an assailant.
GOAL urges all Massachusetts citizens to come to the aid of this hero by contacting their legislator and ask them to immediately move on S.1580 "An Act Relative to the Common Defense". Citizens can obtain information on their legislators here.
S.1580 AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE.
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 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person defense of self or others;
Section 8A. It shall be an act of lawful defense if a person, who is an occupant of a dwelling or in any place that they have a right to be, used deadly force, or less than deadly force, if he or she acted in the reasonable belief that an assailant was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon themselves or upon another person who also had a right to be in the location. There shall be no duty on a person to retreat from any place that they have a right to be. An act of lawful defense as outlined in this section shall not be cause for arrest or prosecution. 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.
SECTION 2. Chapter 231: Section 85U. Death or injury to assailants; liability of defender
Section 85U. No person who has committed an act of lawful defense as outlined in section 8A of chapter 278 shall be held liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an assailant.
GOAL's argument for incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
Massachusetts Attorney General and District Attorneys Argue to Block Bill of Rights
Recently the Massachusetts Attorney General filed what is called an Amici Curiae (friend of the court brief) in the case of Commonwealth v. Richard Runyan. The brief is signed on to by a host of district attorneys and state officials. This is a case that is going before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding the Massachusetts firearm storage laws. In typical fashion of what we have come to expect of our state officials, the brief is full of support for state restrictions on innocent lawful citizens and an outright objection that the Second Amendment applies to the states.
One of the arguments from state officials is that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has never incorporated the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment (adopted in 1868) thus the states are free to abuse their citizens as they see fit.
For those who are not aware of what “incorporation” refers to, it refers to the process by which the Bill of Rights is applied to the states through what is called the “Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Throughout history the Bill of Rights has been incrementally incorporated. In other words, the entire Bill of Rights has not yet been established as protecting citizens against state governments. In fact it was years, even decades, after the Fourteenth Amendment before citizen’s civil rights were being protected from state governments. This history lesson is critical when reading the arguments of state officials who still wish to trample on the civil rights of lawful citizens.
In Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Amicus Brief she, like so many before, selectively chose to use ancient Supreme Court rulings in arguing against civil rights. As in so many writings of officials who attempt to subdue Second Amendment rights, she uses two well known cases as examples. In her brief she states: “For over 120 years it has been established that the Second Amendment is not incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, does not restrict the authority of the states to regulate firearms.”
It is important to keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was never about regulations. It was about protecting the sacred civil rights of every lawful citizen of United States. So, when state officials argue that certain rights have not been incorporated, what they are actually telling us is that lawful citizens have no federal protection from state official’s tyrannical actions against our civil rights. That is truly the core of the incorporation argument.
The two cases that are continually used to argue the preservation of certain state tyranny in regards to the Second Amendment are United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Presser v. Illinois (1886). Both cases ruled that in spite of the Fourteenth Amendment passed years before that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. Specifically, in the Attorney General’s brief, she uses a quote from Cruikshank that regards the Second Amendment as a “means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government.” What the Attorney General, and many before her, continually fail to mention is that this same case ruled against the First Amendment right to assembly. The Cruikshank ruling stated that the First "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens." In fact the right to assembly under the First Amendment was not incorporated until 1937 nearly seven decades after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
In doing some research on the subject, I came across a Wikipedia article on the case, it can be found at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
Rather than defend the decision, as does our Attorney General and other public officials, the article actually stated that because of the decision: “In the short term, blacks in the south were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments who did little to protect them. When Democrats regained power in the late 1870’s, they passed legislation (state) making voter registration and elections more complicated, effectively stripping blacks from voter rolls.”
I urge everyone to do a web search on Cruikshank and you will find article after article that blames the decision for the disarming and disenfranchisement of African Americans.
Is this the type of decision that our state officials should be using to defend their position on gun control? Would these state officials still defend the entire decision? If a public official is going to use rulings like Cruikshank to support their policy positions, then they must be held as supporting the entire decision and the consequences of it!
As a further example of how ridiculous it is use to use late 1800’s decision in defending an anti-civil rights policy decision, we must look at how long it took SCOTUS to officially incorporate other parts of the Bill of Rights. Here is a short list of some of our civil rights we take for granted and the year in which they were incorporated:
First Amendment
Freedom of Religion 1940
Freedom of Speech 1925
Freedom of the Press 1931
Freedom of Assembly 1937
Third Amendment (Quartering of Soldiers in Private Homes)
Has NOT been incorporated.
Fourth Amendment
Unreasonable Search and Seizure 1961 (Had been ruled to not be incorporated as late as 1949.)
Fifth Amendment
Double Jeopardy 1969
Self Incrimination 1964
Sixth Amendment
Speedy Trial 1967
Public Trial 1948
Trial by Impartial Jury 1971
Right to Council 1963
Eighth Amendment
Protection Against Excessive Bail 1982
And it goes on. How many people actually know that the 1970’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) never made it to the Bill of Rights because the states failed to ratify it? If our Attorney General and other state officials stand behind their argument, then they certainly wouldn’t support any of the issues in the ERA since it was never even ratified.
If we are to logically apply the Attorney General’s use of Presser and Cruikshank should we soon expect that Massachusetts will begin quartering National Guard persons in our homes because the Third Amendment has not been incorporated? Also lest we forget, that a woman’s right to vote (Nineteenth Amendment) was not part of the Bill of Rights until 1920.
The history lesson here is that it took nearly a century after Fourteenth Amendment for SCOTUS to officially recognize most of our civil rights as protecting us from our own state governments. The certainty is that one by one SCOTUS has in fact given protection to citizens from their own state governments. For sure the court has been painstakingly slow and very deliberate, but it has done it. To use 120 year old anti-civil rights case law to defend a draconian position on gun control speaks volumes about those who support such stances.
Why is this history lesson of incorporation so important? Simply put, every citizen should keep the following in mind. Any person, and especially public officials, that use the incorporation argument to defend a policy position is in fact defending that position via the exclusion of the Bill of Rights. Clearly stated, the people using that argument are in fact supporting a position to keep the Bill of Rights from applying to the citizens of the states. By fighting to keep the Bill of Rights from applying to certain citizens can only mean they are anti-civil rights activists.
For years, I have told our members that the people fighting against our Second Amendment Rights are not anti-gun, but in fact are anti-civil rights extremists. The fairly new incorporation argument against the Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment, has proven that I was correct. The people supporting this argument can try to spin it anyway they want, but the plain fact is that anyone who fights against incorporation itself or uses the incorporation argument against certain rights is in fact anti-civil rights.
Sadly, we can count among the anti-civil rights activists those public officials that have signed on to the Runyan Amicus Brief. If the signers object to being honestly labeled, perhaps they should be more aware of what they sign their names to.
They are:
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley
Berkshire District Attorney David Capeless
Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter
Cape & Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe
Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett
Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett
Middle District Attorney Joseph Early
Norfolk District Attorney William Keating
Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel
Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health
More articles on Cruiksank:
U.S. v. Cruikshank: 1875 - Southern Racism Makes A Comeback
U.S. v. Cruikshank: 1875 - Supreme Court Delivers A Crushing Blow
United States v. Cruikshank
Recently the Massachusetts Attorney General filed what is called an Amici Curiae (friend of the court brief) in the case of Commonwealth v. Richard Runyan. The brief is signed on to by a host of district attorneys and state officials. This is a case that is going before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding the Massachusetts firearm storage laws. In typical fashion of what we have come to expect of our state officials, the brief is full of support for state restrictions on innocent lawful citizens and an outright objection that the Second Amendment applies to the states.
One of the arguments from state officials is that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has never incorporated the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment (adopted in 1868) thus the states are free to abuse their citizens as they see fit.
For those who are not aware of what “incorporation” refers to, it refers to the process by which the Bill of Rights is applied to the states through what is called the “Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Throughout history the Bill of Rights has been incrementally incorporated. In other words, the entire Bill of Rights has not yet been established as protecting citizens against state governments. In fact it was years, even decades, after the Fourteenth Amendment before citizen’s civil rights were being protected from state governments. This history lesson is critical when reading the arguments of state officials who still wish to trample on the civil rights of lawful citizens.
In Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Amicus Brief she, like so many before, selectively chose to use ancient Supreme Court rulings in arguing against civil rights. As in so many writings of officials who attempt to subdue Second Amendment rights, she uses two well known cases as examples. In her brief she states: “For over 120 years it has been established that the Second Amendment is not incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus, does not restrict the authority of the states to regulate firearms.”
It is important to keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was never about regulations. It was about protecting the sacred civil rights of every lawful citizen of United States. So, when state officials argue that certain rights have not been incorporated, what they are actually telling us is that lawful citizens have no federal protection from state official’s tyrannical actions against our civil rights. That is truly the core of the incorporation argument.
The two cases that are continually used to argue the preservation of certain state tyranny in regards to the Second Amendment are United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Presser v. Illinois (1886). Both cases ruled that in spite of the Fourteenth Amendment passed years before that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. Specifically, in the Attorney General’s brief, she uses a quote from Cruikshank that regards the Second Amendment as a “means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government.” What the Attorney General, and many before her, continually fail to mention is that this same case ruled against the First Amendment right to assembly. The Cruikshank ruling stated that the First "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens." In fact the right to assembly under the First Amendment was not incorporated until 1937 nearly seven decades after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
In doing some research on the subject, I came across a Wikipedia article on the case, it can be found at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
Rather than defend the decision, as does our Attorney General and other public officials, the article actually stated that because of the decision: “In the short term, blacks in the south were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments who did little to protect them. When Democrats regained power in the late 1870’s, they passed legislation (state) making voter registration and elections more complicated, effectively stripping blacks from voter rolls.”
I urge everyone to do a web search on Cruikshank and you will find article after article that blames the decision for the disarming and disenfranchisement of African Americans.
Is this the type of decision that our state officials should be using to defend their position on gun control? Would these state officials still defend the entire decision? If a public official is going to use rulings like Cruikshank to support their policy positions, then they must be held as supporting the entire decision and the consequences of it!
As a further example of how ridiculous it is use to use late 1800’s decision in defending an anti-civil rights policy decision, we must look at how long it took SCOTUS to officially incorporate other parts of the Bill of Rights. Here is a short list of some of our civil rights we take for granted and the year in which they were incorporated:
First Amendment
Freedom of Religion 1940
Freedom of Speech 1925
Freedom of the Press 1931
Freedom of Assembly 1937
Third Amendment (Quartering of Soldiers in Private Homes)
Has NOT been incorporated.
Fourth Amendment
Unreasonable Search and Seizure 1961 (Had been ruled to not be incorporated as late as 1949.)
Fifth Amendment
Double Jeopardy 1969
Self Incrimination 1964
Sixth Amendment
Speedy Trial 1967
Public Trial 1948
Trial by Impartial Jury 1971
Right to Council 1963
Eighth Amendment
Protection Against Excessive Bail 1982
And it goes on. How many people actually know that the 1970’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) never made it to the Bill of Rights because the states failed to ratify it? If our Attorney General and other state officials stand behind their argument, then they certainly wouldn’t support any of the issues in the ERA since it was never even ratified.
If we are to logically apply the Attorney General’s use of Presser and Cruikshank should we soon expect that Massachusetts will begin quartering National Guard persons in our homes because the Third Amendment has not been incorporated? Also lest we forget, that a woman’s right to vote (Nineteenth Amendment) was not part of the Bill of Rights until 1920.
The history lesson here is that it took nearly a century after Fourteenth Amendment for SCOTUS to officially recognize most of our civil rights as protecting us from our own state governments. The certainty is that one by one SCOTUS has in fact given protection to citizens from their own state governments. For sure the court has been painstakingly slow and very deliberate, but it has done it. To use 120 year old anti-civil rights case law to defend a draconian position on gun control speaks volumes about those who support such stances.
Why is this history lesson of incorporation so important? Simply put, every citizen should keep the following in mind. Any person, and especially public officials, that use the incorporation argument to defend a policy position is in fact defending that position via the exclusion of the Bill of Rights. Clearly stated, the people using that argument are in fact supporting a position to keep the Bill of Rights from applying to the citizens of the states. By fighting to keep the Bill of Rights from applying to certain citizens can only mean they are anti-civil rights activists.
For years, I have told our members that the people fighting against our Second Amendment Rights are not anti-gun, but in fact are anti-civil rights extremists. The fairly new incorporation argument against the Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment, has proven that I was correct. The people supporting this argument can try to spin it anyway they want, but the plain fact is that anyone who fights against incorporation itself or uses the incorporation argument against certain rights is in fact anti-civil rights.
Sadly, we can count among the anti-civil rights activists those public officials that have signed on to the Runyan Amicus Brief. If the signers object to being honestly labeled, perhaps they should be more aware of what they sign their names to.
They are:
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley
Berkshire District Attorney David Capeless
Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter
Cape & Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe
Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett
Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett
Middle District Attorney Joseph Early
Norfolk District Attorney William Keating
Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel
Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health
More articles on Cruiksank:
U.S. v. Cruikshank: 1875 - Southern Racism Makes A Comeback
U.S. v. Cruikshank: 1875 - Supreme Court Delivers A Crushing Blow
United States v. Cruikshank
Good Guys Made Bad by Their Own Government
Good Guys Made Bad by Their Own Government
In 1974 the Massachusetts government implemented a new gun law known as the Bartley-Fox Act. This new law was supposed to be the answer to rising gun crime in the Commonwealth. The emphasis of the law was that anyone in possession of a gun without a license would be put in jail for one year. No excuses, no mercy, everyone who does not have a license goes to jail. This was government’s answer to crime?
Since the law was put in place over three decades ago, very few criminals have ever been sentenced under the law. While that itself is a failure of the system, I believe that Bartley-Fox is actually where things really started to go wrong in Massachusetts.
The passage of this law actually represents a surrender of sorts by our own state government. If one really thinks about the premise of that law, what it is really saying is: “We [the government] give up. We have no answers for rising crime. We don’t have the ability to tell the difference between a lawful citizen and a hardcore criminal. So anyone who doesn’t have the right piece of paper from us is going to jail regardless if they had criminal intent or not.” This was quite a startling new position taken by the Commonwealth where freedom was born.
Unfortunately for the citizens, this was only the beginning of a new culture of government that decided it was their job to grant us rights. Furthermore, they felt it was their job to monitor and control anyone who wished to exercise their rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms.
This new culture is what led to the Gun Control Act of 1998, commonly known as “Chapter 180”. This bill contained seventy-nine sections of new law written by people who hated guns and despised gun owners. A whole new set of laws built on the premise of the Bartley-Fox Act that blurred the lines between lawful citizens and criminals. Like Bartley-Fox, this law was designed to persecute anyone who didn’t fit government’s new culture of monitor, control and prosecute anyone who gets in their way.
More recently, a District Attorney from Bristol County began misusing the state’s “dangerousness statute”. This is a law that allows the courts to hold a suspect without bail if they have been declared a danger to society by the court. The DA began bringing people before the court to be held as dangerous for firearm violations. The problem is that he stated on a radio interview that he was making no distinction between a lawful citizen who simply didn’t have the right piece of paper and a three time violent felon.
As an example of this new culture, one of the most frightening statements I have heard from a government official recently was a District Attorney who when speaking to the media said, “I can find no law that allows this activity to take place.” This is a true reflection of our government has changed. There are no laws that “allow” citizens to do anything. Laws are put in place to ban activities, not allow them.
It is very clear that this cultural change that began with Bartley-Fox has led the Commonwealth to a time where the lawful and the criminal are blurred together and treated the same. Knowing this, no rational person can deny the need for immediate reform. GOAL’s Civil Rights and Public Safety Act (www.MassGunLawReform.com) is an attempt to address and reverse this culture of government. By clearly separating the lawful possession issues and criminal enforcement matters we can begin to restore sensibility in our government policies. Only when we return to the day when our government can distinguish a lawful citizen, who may not understand the law, and a hardcore criminal robbing a store, can we effectively begin to fight the true enemy – the human criminal element.
In 1974 the Massachusetts government implemented a new gun law known as the Bartley-Fox Act. This new law was supposed to be the answer to rising gun crime in the Commonwealth. The emphasis of the law was that anyone in possession of a gun without a license would be put in jail for one year. No excuses, no mercy, everyone who does not have a license goes to jail. This was government’s answer to crime?
Since the law was put in place over three decades ago, very few criminals have ever been sentenced under the law. While that itself is a failure of the system, I believe that Bartley-Fox is actually where things really started to go wrong in Massachusetts.
The passage of this law actually represents a surrender of sorts by our own state government. If one really thinks about the premise of that law, what it is really saying is: “We [the government] give up. We have no answers for rising crime. We don’t have the ability to tell the difference between a lawful citizen and a hardcore criminal. So anyone who doesn’t have the right piece of paper from us is going to jail regardless if they had criminal intent or not.” This was quite a startling new position taken by the Commonwealth where freedom was born.
Unfortunately for the citizens, this was only the beginning of a new culture of government that decided it was their job to grant us rights. Furthermore, they felt it was their job to monitor and control anyone who wished to exercise their rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms.
This new culture is what led to the Gun Control Act of 1998, commonly known as “Chapter 180”. This bill contained seventy-nine sections of new law written by people who hated guns and despised gun owners. A whole new set of laws built on the premise of the Bartley-Fox Act that blurred the lines between lawful citizens and criminals. Like Bartley-Fox, this law was designed to persecute anyone who didn’t fit government’s new culture of monitor, control and prosecute anyone who gets in their way.
More recently, a District Attorney from Bristol County began misusing the state’s “dangerousness statute”. This is a law that allows the courts to hold a suspect without bail if they have been declared a danger to society by the court. The DA began bringing people before the court to be held as dangerous for firearm violations. The problem is that he stated on a radio interview that he was making no distinction between a lawful citizen who simply didn’t have the right piece of paper and a three time violent felon.
As an example of this new culture, one of the most frightening statements I have heard from a government official recently was a District Attorney who when speaking to the media said, “I can find no law that allows this activity to take place.” This is a true reflection of our government has changed. There are no laws that “allow” citizens to do anything. Laws are put in place to ban activities, not allow them.
It is very clear that this cultural change that began with Bartley-Fox has led the Commonwealth to a time where the lawful and the criminal are blurred together and treated the same. Knowing this, no rational person can deny the need for immediate reform. GOAL’s Civil Rights and Public Safety Act (www.MassGunLawReform.com) is an attempt to address and reverse this culture of government. By clearly separating the lawful possession issues and criminal enforcement matters we can begin to restore sensibility in our government policies. Only when we return to the day when our government can distinguish a lawful citizen, who may not understand the law, and a hardcore criminal robbing a store, can we effectively begin to fight the true enemy – the human criminal element.
GOAL Blog Launch
Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL) is pleased to announce the launching of our new blog site. For 35 years GOAL has been fighting to protect the civil rights of our members and the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is our hope that this new media will allow us to communicate the need for drastic changes to the public policy towards firearm ownership and criminal enforcement here in Massachusetts.
The current policies and laws in place in the Commonwealth have resulted in one of the greatest public safety and civil rights disasters in recent history. The results of years of incomprehensible persecutorial laws combined with a growing social immaturity towards firearm ownership have led to what is now known as the "Decade of Disaster".
Through overreaching arbitrary laws, lawful gun ownership has been decreased by 85% since the Gun Control Act of 1998. While some might foolishly celebrate that demise of lawful citizens, they do so at the risk of our society.
Since the passage of the draconian laws in 1998 lawful gun ownership may have decreased, but gun related crime has drastically increased. According to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health the following increases in crime have taken place since the Gun Control Act of 1998.
79 % INCREASE in homicide related firearm deaths since 1998.
72 % INCREASE in firearm assault related injuries since 1998.
243 % INCREASE in assault related firearm hospital discharges since 1998.
331 % INCREASE in firearm assault related emergency room visits since 1999.
590 % INCREASE in firearm assault outpatient observations since 2001.
(Most recent information available.)
It is clear that gun control is a failed social experiment that must be done away with. That is why GOAL has launched a new effort to completely rewrite the Massachusetts gun laws that will allow us to respect the civil rights of lawful citizens while addressing the needs of criminal enforcement. We invite all citizens to visit www.MassGunLawReform.com and witness the clear evidence of gun control's failure and see how our plan to reform the laws can provide a brighter future for all of us.
Welcome
Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.
