Jim’s Thoughts – Mass Confusion

Youtube Audio

Hey folks, Jim Wallace here Executive Director of Gun Owners Action League. There’s a lot going on both with this garbage set of laws known as Chapter 135, or what we call, the devil's snare.

As most of you know, we've filed yet another lawsuit on a small piece of this thing. As we said over a year ago that if it passed that's how it would have to happen. You know we'd have to take this piecemeal and work with our national and local partners to try to make that it goes smoothly. It hasn't because the state keeps suspending pieces that we challenge.

This latest case with the 18- to 20-year-olds is bigger than some might think, and I don't expect that they're going to suspend that part of the law, but who knows. We’ll see.

Now one of the things I really want to talk about a little bit is, I know people are really struggling to try to comprehend this incomprehensible piece of legislation that is now law. Some are saying, “You know GOAL, it's been since the end of July, and you still don't have a reasonable summary of this bill now law to read.” I'm sad to say that may never happen.

Now, Jon Green is doing a phenomenal job out there. He's probably out three nights a week out teaching what we do know which is 2 1/2 to three hours. There's still an awful lot of questions we can't answer and frankly may never be able to. People should keep in mind that after the 1998 law was passed, we spent 25 years trying to unravel that thing, and still never completely got it done. This one's even worse.

 Take for instance, this assault style firearm stuff. So, the way it's written, in the way that the police are being taught about it is that there are three dates involved. Three “grandfathering” dates. The 1994 date, the 2016 date, and now the 2024 date. A lot of people don't agree with that and sometimes we take grief over providing that interpretation. This is because people are arguing, “wait a minute the 94 date as far as the guns go doesn't even appear in the law anymore”. And I am 100% with you. However, it's very interesting, and we've had a lot of conversations about this at the office.

The way the state is looking at it is you have to have known what was in the law prior to this passing. In other words, when were things lawfully owned before the clock ticked past midnight on August 1st, or rather, would have been July 31st of 2024. You actually have to refer to law that's no longer there to try to understand what's going on. To make things more complicated, the 2016 date that's in their states “shall not be a copy or duplicate”. Now to you and I that would mean: “Yeah OK so, they're no longer a copy of duplicate.”  But the way the state is interpreting this is that anything after that date will be a copy or duplicate. It's incredibly poor language.

I won't name names but, I was in discussion with some folks, and I was told point blank: “Well you know the courts are going to have to work this out”. Well, in order for the courts to work this out that means somebody has to be charged with a felony and then go to court and hope and pray that the attorneys can turn this around. That is not a way to deal with the civil right anywhere in this country.

You know further confusion, the semi-automatic stuff which is just ridiculous. I wrote a short piece about it; I don't know a week or so ago. You literally have to refer to three sections of law and one section isn't even in the general laws. It's just a section in the bill that was passed. Unless you knew to look in the bill for this exemption you wouldn't even know it existed.

So, people are desperately asking us questions, and folks we're desperately trying to get you answers but the other thing is to, is we don't want to get you in trouble. A lot of people will say, “Well Jim, you know you guys are overreacting you're going to the extremes on this.” To a great extent that's our job. You know we live in a very hostile state. We want to tell you what can happen. We are to the point where attorneys now, when they're answering questions, their response is what's your risk tolerance. That should never happen when you're trying to figure out what a law says. So, our job is to keep you out of the courtroom, out of jail, and certainly do not want any of you to go through life with a felony record. These laws are very confusing, again the devil's snare. The state basically has no answers. Law enforcement has no idea how to enforce this stuff.

You know one of the big things that's coming up is our 250th anniversary of Lexington and concord which, by the way, GOAL has events planned for that and we'll get that up soon. But they removed the black powder exemption from the laws the Massachusetts laws with this charter 135. Why did they remove it? Some of the legislators when they're asked about state “Well there's a federal exemption for that stuff”. Then why did you remove the state exemption? So, all these reenactors are really on edge as to whether especially the nonresidents whether they can even come and possess black powder. I can't imagine anybody being arrested for being in a reenactment, but you know there's always that chance.

The guidance letters that are coming out from the state, just remember those are really guidance letters they didn't come from the attorney general; they're not enforcement letters they're just guidance letters from a state agency. Will those stand up in court if somebody is charged? I don't know and I've asked a bunch of law enforcement and attorneys, they don't know either. I guess folks, the mass confusion that surrounds us.

We're really doing our level best to try to sort through it and help in any way we can. It's going to be a long road. We warned everybody way before this passed that if it did pass, it would take years to try to sort through. Whether it's in the courts, or just trying to figure out how it's going to be enforced. Sadly, we were right. We will continue to do what we do, and hopefully we'll move forward get some of this garbage thrown out. And don't forget the legislature is in session. Who knows what they're going to. But anyway, thanks for your support thanks for your memberships and we'll continue to do our best thank you very much