GOAL Legal

GOAL's Legal/Litigation

Here you can keep up with legal actions that GOAL is involved in. Some may be initiated by us and some we may be supporting.

It is important to keep in mind that GOAL does not have the resources to help every individual. What we look for are cases that will make a difference for as many citizens as possible.

Mike Harris - Director of Public Policy

Mike is a graduate of Suffolk University Law School and a twelve year Massachusetts State House Aide. Aside from being one of GOAL's registered lobbyists, Mike works closely with highly respected Second Amendment attorneys on the state and federal cases. He reviews all of the requests we receive for legal help and carefully vets both the plaintiffs and the potential cases.

Contact Mike

Fighting Chapter 135 (H.4885)

Strategy: This law is so massive that no court will take it on all at once. The law will have to be broken down in chunks by specific subject matter. This will result in several different cases being filed. GOAL has been working for months with several organizations to share the workload.

GOAL Federal Cases

Rights for 18 - 20 Aged Adults

2A Coalition Moves to Protect Rights for 18 - 20 Aged Adults

GOAL joined the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Commonwealth Second Amendment to file a challenge to a portion of Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 in US District Court of Massachusetts.

Continuing the national co-operative effort the GOAL set in motion over year ago, this latest litigation seeks to enjoin the Commonwealth from enforcing laws that would prohibit 18-20-year-olds from possessing and carrying semiautomatic firearms and handguns.

Long Gun Testing & Roster Requirements

Chapter 135 revised the handgun testing and roster requirements to include all guns. This was done by changing the definition of "firearm". GOAL had prepared a federal court action against this requirement. As soon as we announced our intention to file suit, the state suspended that part of the new laws.

The Firearm Control Advisory Board has determined that long guns do not fit within the "context" of the testing and roster requirements. We are waiting to find out if the Secretary of Public Safety agrees.

Training Requirements

Theodore et al v. Campbell - Chapter 135 Training and Licensing Mandates - Attorney Jay Porter

This was the first case launched against Chapter 135. It focused on the new training and licensing requirements. No sooner did we file the case iin federal court that the legislature passed a bill that temporarily suspended the new requirements.

GOAL has withdrawn this case as the legislature suspended the training requirements.

The case has been filed (August 1, 2024) - Court filing document.

GOAL State Level Cases

GOAL seeks out potential litigation that can attack the unconstitutional gun laws with the outcome effecting the greater Second Amendment community.

Suitability Cases

Shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States Bruen case ruled that the Second Amendment was not a second class right and that suitability itself was unconstitutional the Massachusetts Legislature snuck an amendment into an Informational & Technology bill. The amendment "codified" suitability and in their belief made it legal.

Since then, GOAL has been looking for litigation opportunities to attack it.

Belchertown - Suitability

Eastern Hampshire District Court - Attorney Daniel Hagan

In February of 2024, the Belchertown, MA firearm licensing authority denied resident Connor Doran a firearms license due to being determined “unsuitable”. That denial was appealed with the help of Attorney Dan Hagan of Springfield. In district court, Judge Bruce S. Melikian, ruled against Belchertown stating that the denial was “overly broad, vague and therefore arbitrary and capricious.”

Westbrook - Suitability

In a case that originated from the town of Holyoke, MA, Mr. Westbrook applied for a License to Carry (LTC) and was denied by Chief David Pratt of the Holyoke Police Department. His denial was due to Westbrook being determined “unsuitable” by the Chief. Mr. Westbrook then sued the Town asserting that the decision to deny him his license based on “suitability” was unconstitutional (Bruen). The judge handling the case at the local District State Court agreed with him and ordered the Town to issue him his LTC.

Holyoke District Court - Attorney William Smith