MA Police Chief denies permit due to Internet posting.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll withhold judgment until I see what this guy actually posted.

So you're OK with attaching a First Amendment test to the ability to exercise the Second Amendment?

Unless the speech itself is a crime, denying the permit because of it makes me sick. And, if the speech itself was a crime, why didn't the Chief have the guy arrested?

"Terroristic Threat" is usually defined as: (can certainly vary state to state)

•willful threat of a crime which would result in great bodily injury;
•specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat, whether or not the perpetrator intended to carry it out;
•the threat, under the circumstances, conveyed a “gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat”;
•the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear; and
•the threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

If it doesn't fit those things I'm not sure there is much basis for denying the permit.
 
Last edited:
Everyone is rushing to his aid but if he posted something like, "MY PERMIT IS TAKING TOO LONG! I'M GONNA KILL THE CHIEF WHEN I GET MY GUN!"

Then, suddenly, it seems like perhaps the chief may have been on to something.

It's not unreasonable to assume that if the applicant had posted anything that could be construed as being a threat or actions that could be considered harmful to himself or others, the chief would have stated that.

If that were the case, it might at least give the chief some basis for denying the permit.

Near as I can tell, the posters only faux pas is getting impatient with the chief and posting it online.
 
Unless the speech itself is a crime, denying the permit because of it makes me sick. And, if the speech itself was a crime, why didn't the Chief have the guy arrested?

The way I see it, the problem is that the permit is "may issue" and doesn't involve due process, not the First Amendment. Free Speech doesn't imply "no consequences."

Issuing the permit shouldn't be discretionary in the first place. And the Second Amendment is entirely separate from the First.
 
And the Second Amendment is entirely separate from the First.

Not in MA apparently :)

No, I'm with you, they shouldn't be related at all. But even in "may issue" states I'm not OK with the use of simple speech to deny the permit. That's a stretch it seems to me.
 
I'd also like to see exactly what this guy wrote. "Preoccupation with firearms"??? Count me in as one of those people. Although the part about circumstances surrounding deadly force makes me wonder what else he posted. Still if there was anything threatening posted then I'd agree that this guy would've had some legal action taken against him, not just a permit denial.
 
I'm not OK with the use of simple speech to deny the permit

Me, too. But, as someone not born yesterday, I have to stop and acknowledge that I don't know what the speech was, nor how simple it was.:)

Could be that the guy badmouthed Chief Wiggum on a political board or blog, and this is retaliation. Could also be that the guy really did make himself sound like a complete nutball, and the Chief believed he was just doing his job to deny the permit (knowing that, if he approved it, and the guy went and shot up the trailer park, the news media would blame the gun, and the Chief for approving the permit, instead of the shooter).

That's why "may issue" is wrong: it's the rule of men, not of law. But... the Chief could have been in a no-win situation here, given the laws as they stand in Massachusetts.

So I'm still curious about what the guy wrote, and the real basis for the denial.

"Preoccupation with firearms"???

Unless it was political or personal retaliation by the chief, I somehow doubt that "preoccupation" means that the guy had expressed extreme eagerness to buy a 99% Colt Python he saw at the gun shop...:)
 
I just can't imagine myself living in a state that requires you to have a permit to buy ammunition. My god if Texas ever does that then I will have to go looking for another country to live in.
 
It's easier to get an out of state permit in Mass because it is through the state police not some town's chief
 
Thank the Lord I live in the south. When I turned my FFL papers over to my county's Sheriff he said, "I don't know why the Fed's give you the run-a-round with all this paperwork, son". Free coffee in thier office too.
 
^^^^
What he said.

If you live in a small town, there are a couple of things to remember:

1. The police chief knows who you are, who your dad is, your mom is, and probably most of your close relatives...

And that's working well for me also so far. It's a good thing to be considered "one of the good guys" by the local LE establishment, and living where they're almost all "the good guys" too. To expand philosophically, I'm not so sure that in the long-run, our society can survive on written-law enforced by bureaucracy alone. Informal relationships among "the good-guys" may be required too.

Les
 
CT is much more limited in what you can be denied for. This just makes certain towns more creative. They will tell you that they have no appointments left for fingerprinting for the next three months or something like that. Then some towns get you the results (background check/application review) back quicker than others. Mine took over month and my brothers took 4 days.
 
Once you put it out there you can't take it back. I just reformatted a drive and was able to pull emails from 2 years ago off of the server. As far as permits go the word permit kind of means they are permitting you to drive, shoot, carry etc. When they decide to stop permitting you, then it's a problem that becomes an individual matter. If the DMV feels you can no longer drive in a safe manner, they can refuse to issue you a drivers license in some areas. We should not jump to far ahead here without knowing the specific circumstances. There are people out there that should not have the ability to carry loaded weapons. I am sure we have all met a few in our lives, same as the ones who shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car. Some ware along the line someone may have to be politically incorrect and say, "hold on here" this person is at risk or just not competent
 
How are these places gun laws even more draconian NY State? I never thought I'd see the day.
 
Mitt Romney, thats pretty old we have deval patrick now which is as bad as romney, both of them are horrible policticans and if Mitt runs in 2012 you can bet ur butt im not gonna vote for the POS.

If steven colbert runs im voting for him hahahahaha. but seriously anyone is better than Romney
 
It is hard to judge without seeing the original postings, but even given a control-freak for a police chief, this is a good place to point out that posting on a web site, facebook or whatever, is not a chat among friends. It is like going on Larry King with a megaphone. Maybe ten million or hundred million people can read this if they want.

I realize that some postings do show immaturity, and some even hint at possible criminal activity (and I have said so here and elsewhere), but this sounds like the chief is one of those who will use any excuse to deny the permit.

I once had an Arlington County, VA, detective tell me he turned down a handgun purchase because the applicant had a hole in his screen door that should be fixed before he spent money on a gun. Then he told me the real reason - "and he was a snotty n****r b*****d." The screen door had nothing to do with denying the man his rights; his race had everything to do with it.

Jim
 
Okay,

"If steven colbert runs im voting for him hahahahaha"

Funny, for sure.

I might vote for the real Stephen Colbert but could never vote for the lib actor of the same name that plays Stephen Colbert.

Seriously, whether we get incorporation or not (and I believe we will), we will still have a long and scattered fight over 'reasonable restrictions' for a long time to come.

I'm afraid we can't relax about our 2nd amendment rights any more than we can about the rest of them.

I'm still pi$$ed about W,'s disregard of the 4th and the fact that congress allows his Homeland Security to continue unmanaged.

(If nobody hears from me for a while, don't send help, it'll be too late; save yourselves:eek:).

Best,

Will
 
Last edited:
Just my .02.....

"may issue" law = rule of man (potential for tyranny, anyone ever study the Jim Crow laws and blacks in the South not being allowed arms?)

"shall issue" law = rule of law (OK, but can be overly proscriptive, like the Brady Bill was.)

Vermont, Alaska law = U.S. Constitution (what part of "shall not be abridged" don't you understand....)

Anyone's opinion about whether someone should be allowed to carry a weapon, own a weapon, buy a weapon, etc. is nothing more than advocating the rule of man (they just want to be the one making the decision...see the current crop of politicians of any ilk).

Rule of law mean everyone abides by written or unwritten laws regardless of who they are, and supposedly this ensures fairness and equality (blind justice for example).

Our Constitution was written to put shackles on our governement so they couldn't interfere with our basic liberties as granted by God, and charged the government with securing those liberties.....looks like we have let the rule of law (case law in most cases) get to proscriptive and take away a lot of our liberties as guaranteed under the US Constitution.

If you want real change, then vote....every single time, even if it is for head dog catcher and shame everyone you know into voting as well.
 
Does this help answer the question of whether your forum postings can be used against you?
Putting paranoia aside, Government can and does access information on individuals from the internet. The technology to track an individual through his ISP address is available and likely in use by various agencies. The legality of using the info obtained in this manner is debatable IMO. I don't see this as much different than tapping your phone; although probably not illegal when it involves a forum such as THR since we're putting it out in a public domain, but gaining access to e-mails, etc., has to be an invasion of privacy. I plan to keep to posting anything that IMO can't lead to identity theft, or some other negative ramifications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top