crewchief
Member
Right On! My Wife looks innocent and sweet, but goblins beware she is a former Army MP and she also packs a .357.
Army MP shot in head, pummels shooter into submission
- Thread starter ZeroX
- Start date
- Status
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
Welcome Keaner!
From a fellow Mass-hole to another!
The shooting happened only a couple of miles from my house. I am glad the MP dude did not too badly hurt. I am sure that the Bad Guy had a full Class A Concealed Carry permit!
From a fellow Mass-hole to another!
The shooting happened only a couple of miles from my house. I am glad the MP dude did not too badly hurt. I am sure that the Bad Guy had a full Class A Concealed Carry permit!
Ex-MA Hole
Member
Depends on where you live...
Sorry, TOTALLY not true. This, unfortunately, has little to no bearing.
It depends on the city/ town. I lived there my whole life, until January of this year. I know the rules all too well.
I'm glad he came out ahead, though. Sorry for the pun.
M
WhiteKnight
Member
ZeroX
Member
I guess we can be glad he wasn't shooting .45 ACP.
UnknownSailor
Member
I think SunBear is on to something. Just think about it. How many thousands of our troops have rotated through the two current hotspots? Not all of them are going to stay in. In short, we now have many thousands of troops throughout the various services who have seen the elephant. When these troops start filtering out into general socoety, watch for this type of story to become more common.
I'd hesitate to bet against a combat vet in a street fight.
I'd hesitate to bet against a combat vet in a street fight.
RevDisk
Member
Happened to one of my Sergeants. Wasn't shot, he disarmed the guy and beat him with his own handgun. He got in a bit of trouble over "excessive force", but eventually was cleared. Excessive force being giving the guy a whooping after disarming him.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
I though Super Mario Bros. were butt kicking plumbers!
The skull is hard, round and fairly smooth, hardly a Zane Grey book goes buy without somebody getting creased. Still, our guy is lucky.
David
The skull is hard, round and fairly smooth, hardly a Zane Grey book goes buy without somebody getting creased.
Still, our guy is lucky.David
Blackcloud6
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 608
Well I think the lucky one is Ed Green. He's lucky that he didn't get beat to a pulp!
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
Yeah, after this GI was done you'd hear "Clean up - Aisle 7" on the intercom.
Reminds me of the story my goju-ryu sensei used to tell about bar-hopping with two Marines and getting mugged by a pair of guys with knives.
Sensei lost 2 fingers (but they were able to reattach them), and one of the Marines had to get about 20 stitches.
The muggers both had a long vacation in the ICU. Sensei was very suprised and relieved to find out that they had both survived.
I live in the Peoples's Republiuc of Ma.The laws here really ARE that bad;i'm an ex-infantryman myself,with no felony or violent misdemeanor,and I LOST my LTC when the statuory change (Ch180) occurred back in 1998(although it did not hit ME until June of 99 when I went to renew). This is because the Chiefs are allowed to "interpret" the law.Say you have 300 Chiefs of lolice as issuning authourity;now you have 300 possible different versiuons of the same law.
As far as Bailey ther goes,Good on Him!! He rocks and I hope Mr. Green from Matapan gets his @ss kicked further by anyone he tries to impress in lock up,The moral of the story is as follows..."Deny Everything,Take Nothing ,Fight Everything, and Never Quit"....kind of a nice back up to "It was'nt me, no one saw me and you can't prove a thing".
As far as Bailey ther goes,Good on Him!! He rocks and I hope Mr. Green from Matapan gets his @ss kicked further by anyone he tries to impress in lock up,The moral of the story is as follows..."Deny Everything,Take Nothing ,Fight Everything, and Never Quit"....kind of a nice back up to "It was'nt me, no one saw me and you can't prove a thing".
Benjamin
Member
No, they're not. They're specifically NOT allowed to do that.
If you got railed when you're entitled to a LTC, get an attorney, file a petition for judicial review.
Goal can point you to a few attorneys in MA who do this a bunch.
You're BOTH wrong.
"I LOST my LTC when the statuory change (Ch180) occurred back in 1998(although it did not hit ME until June of 99 when I went to renew). This is because the Chiefs are allowed to "interpret" the law.Say you have 300 Chiefs of lolice as issuning authourity;now you have 300 possible different versiuons of the same law." [misspellings in original]
No; chiefs had discretion for LTC's PRIOR to the enactment of c. 180. What DID change in '98 was that it a host of misdemeanors that were never statutory disqualifiers before (OUI being a significant one) were made so. As there was no limit on the scope of the new law's effect in this regard (such as "on and after" the effective date of c. 180), a lot of prior licensees became barred.
Moreover, there were no references to, still less any authorization of, restrictions prior to c. 180. Chiefs are now expressly authorized to fabricate and impose whatever restrictions they wish:
"...subject to such RESTRICTIONS relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such RESTRICTIONS relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it deems proper." M.G.L. c. 140, s. 131
"This is because the Chiefs are allowed to "interpret" the law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they're not. They're specifically NOT allowed to do that."
Really? Got a cite that "specifically" supports that assertion?
What chiefs are allowed to do is set their own standards, add superfluous conditions, and impose whatever restrictions they feel like. An applicant can challenge the BS of course; however, the burden - both evidentiary and financial - falls squarely on the applicant.
It is not the chief's job to prove the applicant is "not suitable;" it is the applicant's ludicrous burden to prove the negative: That he is NOT "not suitable."
You're both right on this point: The system sucks.
"I LOST my LTC when the statuory change (Ch180) occurred back in 1998(although it did not hit ME until June of 99 when I went to renew). This is because the Chiefs are allowed to "interpret" the law.Say you have 300 Chiefs of lolice as issuning authourity;now you have 300 possible different versiuons of the same law." [misspellings in original]
No; chiefs had discretion for LTC's PRIOR to the enactment of c. 180. What DID change in '98 was that it a host of misdemeanors that were never statutory disqualifiers before (OUI being a significant one) were made so. As there was no limit on the scope of the new law's effect in this regard (such as "on and after" the effective date of c. 180), a lot of prior licensees became barred.
Moreover, there were no references to, still less any authorization of, restrictions prior to c. 180. Chiefs are now expressly authorized to fabricate and impose whatever restrictions they wish:
"...subject to such RESTRICTIONS relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such RESTRICTIONS relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it deems proper." M.G.L. c. 140, s. 131
"This is because the Chiefs are allowed to "interpret" the law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they're not. They're specifically NOT allowed to do that."
Really? Got a cite that "specifically" supports that assertion?
What chiefs are allowed to do is set their own standards, add superfluous conditions, and impose whatever restrictions they feel like. An applicant can challenge the BS of course; however, the burden - both evidentiary and financial - falls squarely on the applicant.
It is not the chief's job to prove the applicant is "not suitable;" it is the applicant's ludicrous burden to prove the negative: That he is NOT "not suitable."
You're both right on this point: The system sucks.
dustind
Member
I had a friend who was a MP, so I know how thick headed they can be. Just kidding.
I hope he does not get into any legal trouble over defending himself.
I hope he does not get into any legal trouble over defending himself.
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
Gripper:
You are correct that each town's licensing officer has discretion over the permit process, the reality is that there is a great deal of uniformity. Join GOAL, they love this stuff!
www.goal.org
You are correct that each town's licensing officer has discretion over the permit process, the reality is that there is a great deal of uniformity. Join GOAL, they love this stuff!
www.goal.org
I've been a GOAL member for years.On October 31,the partial reform to CH180 kicks in;setting up an appeals board for those of us who had licensing prior to the statutory ammendment in1998.This won't "grant us a new licens",it will simply give us somewhere else to take our appeal.For the record,my case can be looked up in Dupont v,.Davis;it ranfrom 1999 (petition for juducual review,Ayer District Cout,2 appearances, to Middlesex SDuperior Court(Lowell,petition for certiori) in 2001, to the Ma. court of Appeals(2002). In each case , the court refused to consider ANYTHING but whether or not the chiefs actions(however retroactive or ex post facto were legal under the current legislative scheme,not whether or not he could apply a new legal interpretation to an old case that had been disposed of breofre the passage of 180.
Translation;GOAL is good,but theydon't(or did'nt in my case)do more than tell me a few avenues to approach.
I had to do this and pay for it all myself. The Appeals court knew I could beat them above the Ma. system;they also know that its a coin operated legal system(not a justice system),and I was out of money. What heurts,is the fact that I caught the AAG,Sysan Paulson, and the Town Counsel trying to mis-state dates,and use non-relevant case law to argue my case,and while the judges spanked them in court,they did'nt do anything but allow the status quo.Meanwhile I had to pay both MY way, and THEIR way(tax funded expenses for our 'public servants",you know).
I could have (and was setting up to) gotten out from under this stuff simply by movung to NH,butsome family medical, and other situations came upt to keep me stuck here a bit longer. WTH, I was always a stubborn SOB;let THOSE @ssholes leave the state,I wazs here first. in the meantime.....
Translation;GOAL is good,but theydon't(or did'nt in my case)do more than tell me a few avenues to approach.
I had to do this and pay for it all myself. The Appeals court knew I could beat them above the Ma. system;they also know that its a coin operated legal system(not a justice system),and I was out of money. What heurts,is the fact that I caught the AAG,Sysan Paulson, and the Town Counsel trying to mis-state dates,and use non-relevant case law to argue my case,and while the judges spanked them in court,they did'nt do anything but allow the status quo.Meanwhile I had to pay both MY way, and THEIR way(tax funded expenses for our 'public servants",you know).
I could have (and was setting up to) gotten out from under this stuff simply by movung to NH,butsome family medical, and other situations came upt to keep me stuck here a bit longer. WTH, I was always a stubborn SOB;let THOSE @ssholes leave the state,I wazs here first. in the meantime.....
- Status
