GOAL not showing up to Novemeber FCAB

Z

zevana

NES Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2024
Messages
90
Likes
121
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
I just saw the meeting minutes from the November FCAB. Goal didn't show up. What is the point of having an organization that is supposed to advocate for us if they don't bother representing gun owners when it matters. It's completely incomprehensible they wouldn't be there. This is one of their core purposes.

I think it might be time to get a new advocacy group in the state.

I attached the meeting minutes for those interested.
 

Attachments

HARRYM said:
Wouldn't this have been simply 2 Wolves and a Sheep thingy.......
Click to expand...
Even if that's true, GOAL is a member of the FCAB. Failing to show up is problematic. If it were a blanket refusal, we could ask why they bothered to show up to the one last week.

At the same time, I would wait for an explanation before putting them on blast...
 
Drix said:
Is it possible that Jim was I'll or had a conflicting appointment?
Click to expand...
I have no clue. He likely was invited which is why he was listed as not in attendance. However having been involved in a contentious litigation in the early eighties I recall my Lawyer telling me to stay the F away and don't make any statements after we filed for court action. My guess is GOAL fully understands this is a legal matter now.
 
HARRYM said:
I have no clue. He likely was invited which is why he was listed as not in attendance. However having been involved in a contentious litigation in the early eighties I recall my Lawyer telling me to stay the F away and don't make any statements after we filed for court action. My guess is GOAL fully understands this is a legal matter now.
Click to expand...
per the design of the Board, one of the members is to be a member of Goal
 
HARRYM said:
I did not know that. Is that member Jim? I still believe once court action has been filed GOAL and the Board need to keep their distance. But then again a Lawyer I am not.
Click to expand...

Gun Control Advisory Board

To advise the executive office of public safety regarding the implementation of firearm licensing laws.
boards.mass.gov boards.mass.gov

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131 1/2

malegislature.gov malegislature.gov

Section 1311/2. The governor shall appoint a gun control advisory board, hereinafter referred to as the board. The board shall consist of seven individuals, one of whom shall be a member of the gun owners action league, one of whom shall be a police chief selected from a list of four selected by the police chiefs association and one of whom shall be the director of the firearms record bureau within the department of criminal justice information services. It shall be the responsibility of the board to advise the executive office of public safety on matters relating to the implementation of sections 121 to 131P, inclusive, and section 2SS of chapter 29. The board shall serve without compensation and shall adopt operating rules and procedures for its organization and activities.
 
HARRYM said:
A member of GOAL, surprised it would be Jim. I still see no value in having any dialog with those you will eventually face in court. It seems unwise to me.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, you show up and say nothing and what you say will be ignored for sure.

Initial meetings are going to keep the pistol rosters. Glidden will then start banning long guns.....and making lists. Enjoy.
 
zevana said:
I just saw the meeting minutes from the November FCAB. Goal didn't show up. What is the point of having an organization that is supposed to advocate for us if they don't bother representing gun owners when it matters. It's completely incomprehensible they wouldn't be there. This is one of their core purposes.

I think it might be time to get a new advocacy group in the state.

I attached the meeting minutes for those interested.
Click to expand...
Where do you get the minutes from? Not obvious where these would be on the state website. Do you have a link?
 
Palladin said:
per the minutes, the latest meeting was last friday. The November meeting sounded like a formality per the minutes
Click to expand...

There was discussion of the need for rosters for long guns, testing of long guns, and the ASF roster. That is not just “formality”. That stuff matters and GOAL should have absolutely been there to speak for gun owners.
 
Spartan65 said:
You don’t “meet” with the enemy

You fight them in court. Anything you say WILL be used against you.
Click to expand...
What are they gonna use against him in court? The constitutionality you speak of or speaking of their ignoring it and banning things?

Im not naive to think they aren't going to listen. They aren't. But at least you provided your input and not providing it can't be used against you in court..

What is going to be said in court is...your honor we included a rep from GOAL on the Advisory board...but well....they don't show up to the meeting.....so we made our interpretations without any input from them. Since I guess they didn't care, so we are assuming our interpretation should be A OK with them.

I don't care about this personally, Im not there anymore am zero affected by this stupidity.....but as a member of GOAL.....I do.
 
Last edited:
My gosh. Do we not have enough crap going on for everyone looking for a conspurrusurr or Urncurmperternce at every turn????
 
WTF GOAL? You have a vote, and I expect you to use it. They are discussing things like a long gun roster (was on the agenda for 2nd meeting).

In this, he at least implied he attended the 2nd Dec meeting (although i suppose he could have only reviewed the minutes, which are not available online yet):

New Government Tactics

www.goal.org www.goal.org

"You know I've already talked a little bit about in a previous audio about the Firearm Control Advisory Board which I sit on that tried to deal with only two things, the potential long gun roster, and then the potential banned assault weapon roster. In two hours we couldn't even make a dent in just those two simple things, well they're not simple, but they're just two subjects out of how many that are in this chapter?"
 
Last edited:
BTW, under MA's Open Meeting Law, they don't appear to be required to post meeting minutes (is anyone surprised?). However, they are required to provide them to anyone who requests the minutes:

"The procedures and timeframes for responding to requests for meeting minutes are different depending on whether the request is made under the Open Meeting Law or the Public Records Law.

A request for minutes under the Open Meeting Law must be made to the public body. The Open Meeting Law requires that “[m]inutes of an open session, if they exist and whether approved or in draft form, shall be made available upon request by any person within 10 days.” G.L. c. 30A, § 22(c). A public body has 10 calendar days from the date a request is received to provide a response. If minutes do not yet exist at the time of a request, the public body is still required to respond to the request within 10 calendar days with an explanation of whether the minutes do or do not exist in either approved or draft form."

 
Lance_Kilkenny said:
WTF GOAL? You have a vote, and I expect you to use it. They are discussing things like a long gun roster (was on the agenda for 2nd meeting).

In this, he at least implied he attended the 2nd Dec meeting (although i suppose he could have only reviewed the minutes, which are not available online yet):

New Government Tactics

www.goal.org www.goal.org

"You know I've already talked a little bit about in a previous audio about the Firearm Control Advisory Board which I sit on that tried to deal with only two things, the potential long gun roster, and then the potential banned assault weapon roster. In two hours we couldn't even make a dent in just those two simple things, well they're not simple, but they're just two subjects out of how many that are in this chapter?"
Click to expand...
There’s no voting going on here. It’s just a discussion so they can say they listened to GOAL and others. (But dismissed everything said)
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I went to one of these meetings several years ago, they are open to the public after all. It’s a big snoozer.
Click to expand...
The one and only GCAB meting I went to was extremely lively! It was held immediately after the public hearings on two proposed CMRs . . . putting limits on bonded warehouse fees, etc. (the CMR was killed after this meeting) and on implementation of LEOSA (in direct violation of the federal law). That GCAB meeting was very contentious, to say the least.
EJFudd said:
Hopefully, that friend of yours will continue to submit FOIA requests for all such future meetings. [thumbsup]
Click to expand...
It's too bad that MGL on so-called "transparency" doesn't require posting minutes publicly. I think that we all know why that is! :mad:
 

Similar threads

January 2025 FCAB Meeting Notes
Replies
4
Views
338
BigGreen2000
B
Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
32
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Run to Home Base Fundraising
Replies
1
Views
79
Severus Semi-Auto Snape
Severus Semi-Auto Snape
Appreciate the commitment to not using the modular frame
Replies
4
Views
150
jkelly1229
J
  • Poll Poll
Which gun to shoot for complete gun n00b?
2
Replies
56
Views
745
Cuz
Cuz
Back
Top Bottom