What if Massachusetts is right??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tory and Michael T

when you say OP, do you mean original poster? If you do, you're mixing me and another poster up.

BTW, I am fully aware of the rules for safety classes in Massachusetts, thank you for being so precise.

Tory, you seem like someone who would do a good job suing the police for a permit,...are you my lawyer by any chance??? :)

I agree that individual Chiefs of Police issuing permits is not the best way to go, especially if you live in a restrictive town. If you live in a town with a sensible chief, it's a world of difference, and I have seen both kinds.

When I said a MUST ISSUE license like a drivers license, I meant that you couldn't be denied if you met the criterea, no violent felonies, not on probation, not an addict and a few others. Otherwise, until proven not worthy of the permit, you should get it.

By the way, when Massachusetts instituted the law that said you needed a hunter safety course for a hunting license, the previous conditions were a course approved by the NRA, or a signed document for a reputable person who would affirm your ability to handle firearms. Someone like your Scout Leader or your Father.

Once you had your first license, you never needed to have that hunter safety course.

Same thing with a pistol permit. If you had one before the law that said you had to have training, you were grandfathered in with a permit. I'm guessing you'd have to be older than 50 to be one of these people, but they are out there. Not that it matters, it's just a point of interest.

MICHAEL T, BTW, I have in my possession a Brown Bess that a great great uncle picked up off the ground at the battle of lexington and concord that you speak of. Uncle Henry would be ashamed of me if he didn't think I was just as willing to fight for my rights as he was. My Greatgrandfater, and his Father, both lived beyond 100 years old, so when I heard stories about "how it was", they were pretty personal to me. My Yankee stock goes back a long way. I met my Greatgrandfather when I was 9 and knew him until I was 14. He passed at 106 years of age. The Kimballs and the Halls passed on their love of freedom and country to hundreds of their offspring, maybe thousands.
 
When I said a MUST ISSUE license like a drivers license, I meant that you couldn't be denied if you met the criterea, no violent felonies, not on probation, not an addict and a few others. Otherwise, until proven not worthy of the permit, you should get it.

That's the law in 37 states nowadays. You take the course, pass the background check and they have to issue the license.

It strikes me that any other system (other than the Vermont/Alaska approach) is unconstitutional -- allowing authorities to arbitrarily discriminate among people who merely desire to exercise their civil right to be armed.
 
depicts,
>It is supposed to be an automatic 1 year in prison in Mass if you are found with an illegal >gun. That law was passed sometime around 1974 I beleive. To the best of my knowledge, >due to plea bargianing ect, I don't think a half dozen people have ever been sentenced >under that law. If they had been, I think that would have taken a serious bite out of gun >crime.

Why is this a good idea. Again, punishment for having a gun is IGNORING
the problem. The person.

ABTOMAT,
I am waiting for your links to the statistics backing up your assertion about
how big a problem, in terms of numbers, the problem really is. What
percentage of our population is really impacted by unsafe gun handling.
 
Didn't read the whole thread (yet), but just off the top of my hat:

If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers?
Not a darned thing. Which just happens to be exactly what keeps guns out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers in Massachusetts (and D.C.): Not a darned thing.
 
What if Massachusetts is right??

Then Chicago, Washington DC, New York, etc would be (to quote El Tejon) "The violence-free petting zoos that we know them as today."

I remember my dad telling me that in the 50's the politico's stated that if they could just ban the switchblade knife, the gang problem would go away.

They did and it didn't, in fact it's only gotten worse. Ergo, it's not the implement but the person(s) behind the implement.
 
If in the states where it is legal to buy a firearm with no record of the transfer of that gun, what keeps that gun out of the hands of druggies and gangbangers??
The character of the person who owns the gun.

If the prospects of arming a criminal don't give you pause, then neither will some middling paper trail.

EDIT:
Why do anti's always assume that without laws, we'd all be evil, murderous thugs?

"Gee, I'd love to go shoot up that schoolyard, but damn, that'd be illegal. I guess I have no choice but to be a decent and upstanding father/neighbor/citizen instead." :barf:
 
Last edited:
depicts wrote


The latest incident was this week. A 31 year old son of a close friend of mine committed suicide with an illegal gun. In between there have been 39 years for me to meet people. Sorry if that makes me a scumbag in your eyes.

I'll see you around the VA. I'm the strange looking one who laughs when I walk by the VA police desk


Illegal gun. You use that term like you are describing a the bad boy biker your sister was dating when she was raped by him and his gang. People commit legal and illegal acts the gun, torch, knife , hammer etc are just tools.Guns have no disposition to act one way or another. What you are doing is the same thing as the Wonderful People from Walt Disney did with Bambi and anyone of a half dozen of their films in attributing human attibutes to things that do not have them.The kid you mention it didn't matter if he had possessed thegun legally or not he had made the decision to kill himself a healthy dose of vitamin P(percoset) orleavign the gas oven going in a locked room could have been used. The gun did not seductively whisper into his ear sweet nothings about how great killing himself would be. You have the same problem many have you seek to blame the gun as you wish to not see o understand the deep black void of evil many people have in them or you realize it and just do not want to accept people can be that way. The key is controlling the bad people.

As for laughing by the desk Drive on I say.Read my sig line.:D
 
depicts said:
At least in Mass, when I see someone in a gun shop buying ammo or guns, I can pretty well tell he or she isn't a dangerous felon or a wanted criminal.

Why do you feel this way just in Mass., in EVERY state in order to buy a firearm at a gun shop you must pass a NICS check.....
 
Barney Frank. Ted Kennedy. John Kerry, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Nah, MA isn't right...about much of anything!
 
Guys, I'm not saying that firearm-realted injuries _are_ a huge problem. I'm saying that a lot of inexperienced owners out there are are not playing safe. I don't mean the people on this board, obviously, but the newbies out there who don't quite have a complete grasp on the whole thing. It just makes sense for someone to know what they're doing. A lot of folks turn up on boards like these and say they're just getting into shooting, what should they do? A popular answer is shooting or CCW (as the case may be) instruction. Now think about the people who are getting into shooting and don't know to ask, or think they know everything because they've seen all the Chuck Norris movies?

You know as well as I do that there aren't any statistics for that. It's like people who are awful drivers but haven't gotten into accidents yet.

You're making sound like as long as no one gets shot there's no reason for someone to know good procedure or correct shooting methods. That's a big change from what I'm used to hearing. You want someone talking to you at a range with their finger on the trigger?
 
Chas Martel

Chas_Martel you replied
"Why is this a good idea. Again, punishment for having a gun is IGNORING
the problem. The person."

in response to a comment I made about mandatory sentencing.

It has been proposed here, by more than just me, that instead of restrictions, criminals with guns should be treated firmly by the law. I was mentioning that Massachusetts had such a law, but it was seldom used, a failure as a deterrent as far as I could see. It's not ignoring the problem, it's enforcing the law.

If someone is caught with an illegaly possesed gun, they go to jail. That gets the criminal off the street, an effective first step in reducing crime using guns.

GruntII, I don't want to set you off with the illegal gun thing, of course I know it isn't the gun that was responsible for the death of my friends son. He had problems that weren't treated. It just happens that the gun he used to kill himself was not legally purchased. Maybe if he had to try some other method, he might not have been successful. I do however, know what you mean, he could have choosen a thousand ways to go.
 
Personally, I see gun rights as being similar to the right to free speech - some reasonable restrictions (libel, copyrights, state secrets, and so on) are fair, so long as there is both a compelling need, and a minimum of harm done.

Good point - it's also important to note that free speech and the free press are THE most LETHAL weapons on Earth - yet anyone can say most anything.

Consider radical Islam. The hate an intolerance is spread by charismatic individual spewing out lies and half truths - resulting in the death of countless thousands of people, year after year. Yet the individuals responsible never fire a shot.

Shall we limit free speech based on some subjective criteria?

Freedom is ABOSLUTELY more important that safety.

Consider that Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, but that didn't make Italy a nice place to live! Consider the true cost of absolute order and safety.
 
Originally Posted by depicts
At least in Mass, when I see someone in a gun shop buying ammo or guns, I can pretty well tell he or she isn't a dangerous felon or a wanted criminal.

But you CAN certainly be sure they are a elitist liberals who know better what's good for you and all of us. Or, at the very least, folks whom the liberal elite find "acceptable" or "good enough" to own firearms. People worthy of protecting themselves.
 
False reasoning

"If someone is caught with an illegaly [sic] possesed [sic] gun, they go to jail. That gets the criminal off the street, an effective first step in reducing crime using guns."

In point of fact, the true criminals are NOT going to jail because they possessed a gun illegally, it is because they were caught using it in a really serious crime; A&B, armed robbery, rape or murder. This means that the mandatory 1-year in jail for unlawful possession is IRREVELEVANT. If you are serving 10 years for armed robbery, the 1 year for unlawful possession is served concurrently, meaning it adds NOTHING to the time served. So much for deterrence.

Now tell us again how this law you so favor is "an effective first step in reducing crime using guns"...... :uhoh:

So - who REALLY gets charged and serves time for THAT crime? Well, here's ONE example:

Guy moves to Mass from Out West where they still have some concept of Freedom. Yes, his mistake... He knows nothing about gun licenses; don't need them where he comes from. Shortly after moving to the Home of "The Shot Heard 'Round The World," he decides to take his boy to the local range. Quality Time and all that.....

Dad gets stopped because his tires extend past his fender. Cop sees guns, seizes guns, arrests Dad, tows truck.

Dad now has an arrest record, a big tow/storage bill and even bigger legal fees ahead because he is charged with the crime of illegal possession. But wait; there's MORE!

A new resident has 60 days in which to get the necessary license. Did the cops - seeing the out of state plates and drivers license - even ASK when he moved to Mass? NO. They just hit him with a criminal charge carrying a MANDATORY 1-year jail term.

So, now you're thinking, "Well, surely the Ass't. District Attorney will see how ludicrous this is and drop the charge." Dream on, Ace. This is a "Gun Case" and the ADA has ZERO authority to drop the charge. The only decision he/she makes is whether to get Coke or Sprite from the vending machine at lunch - THAT decision is made by the District Attorney himself.

So, the luckless new Mass. resident is facing prison time because he took his lawfully acquired guns to Mass and got stopped by police too ignorant, insolent, arrogant and/or incompetent to even ask when he moved here.

THAT'S the sort of deranged criminal the OP thinks he's being saved from by this moronic law. Probably voted for Kennedy, too.......... :barf:
 
False reasoning

"If someone is caught with an illegaly [sic] possesed [sic] gun, they go to jail. That gets the criminal off the street, an effective first step in reducing crime using guns."

In point of fact, the true criminals are NOT going to jail because they possessed a gun illegally, it is because they were caught using it in a really serious crime; A&B, armed robbery, rape or murder. This means that the mandatory 1-year in jail for unlawful possession is IRREVELEVANT. If you are serving 10 years for armed robbery, the 1 year for unlawful possession is served concurrently, meaning it adds NOTHING to the time served. So much for deterrence.

Now tell us again how this law you so favor is "an effective first step in reducing crime using guns"...... :uhoh:

So - who REALLY gets charged and serves time for THAT crime? Well, here's ONE example:

Guy moves to Mass from Out West where they still have some concept of Freedom. Yes, his mistake... He knows nothing about gun licenses; don't need them where he comes from. Shortly after moving to the Home of "The Shot Heard 'Round The World," he decides to take his boy to the local range. Quality Time and all that.....

Dad gets stopped because his tires extend past his fender. Cop sees guns, seizes guns, arrests Dad, tows truck.

Dad now has an arrest record, a big tow/storage bill and even bigger legal fees ahead because he is charged with the crime of illegal possession. But wait; there's MORE!

A new resident has 60 days in which to get the necessary license. Did the cops - seeing the out of state plates and drivers license - even ASK when he moved to Mass? NO. They just hit him with a criminal charge carrying a MANDATORY 1-year jail term.

So, now you're thinking, "Well, surely the Ass't. District Attorney will see how ludicrous this is and drop the charge." Dream on, Ace. This is a "Gun Case" and the ADA has ZERO authority to drop the charge- THAT decision is made by the District Attorney himself. The only such decision an ADA makes is whether to get Coke or Sprite from the vending machine at lunch.

So, the luckless new Mass. resident is facing prison time because he took his lawfully acquired guns to Mass and got stopped by police too ignorant, insolent, arrogant and/or incompetent to even ask when he moved here.

THAT'S the sort of deranged criminal the OP thinks he's being saved from by this moronic law. Probably voted for Kennedy, too.......... :barf:
 
MMike87 and Tory (again

:) :)
MMike87, I'm smiling thinking of my friends at the counter, the elite ones, with flannel shirts, workboots, bluejeans ripped and covered with paint, a tooth here and a tooth there.....LOL..we're not all Kennedy's here in Massachusetts my friend :)

Tory, what happened to the idea that ignorance of the law was no excuse? I'm not saying the scenario you describe is the way it should be, I just like hearing your opinion, you sound so official, and proper...ACE! :)

I know if I moved somewhere new, actually before that, I'd make sure I'd know what was legal and what wasn't in terms of my guns, because they are important to me and I want to keep them.

BTW Tory, thanks again for pointing out my bad spellin' [sic], all us elite Massachusetts folks didn't go to Harvard!!!!:evil:
 
Still missing the point.......

"Tory, what happened to the idea that ignorance of the law was no excuse?"

Unlike YOUR excuses, it is still a valid precept. :scrutiny:

Those who read and comprehended my post realize that it was the COPS who failed to know and apply the law. As in, before you charge an obvious newcomer w/illegal possession, get your head out of your hindquarters, your hindquarters in gear and CHECK how long they've been here! If the 60 days aren't up, they are still in the statutorily protected period.

Another concept which, like spell check, you've utterly failed to grasp. :rolleyes:
 
MMike87, I'm smiling thinking of my friends at the counter, the elite ones, with flannel shirts, workboots, bluejeans ripped and covered with paint, a tooth here and a tooth there.....LOL..we're not all Kennedy's here in Massachusetts my friend

Hey - I covered that.
Or, at the very least, folks whom the liberal elite find "acceptable" or "good enough" to own firearms. People worthy of protecting themselves.

You and the flannel shirt workboot crowd are still "acceptable" - the problem arises when the liberal elite start to erode who is acceptable.

Fine example: Diane Feinstein in CA supposedly has a carry permit - yet in many parts of CA it's impossible for a "regular" citizen to get one.

Hope I didn't offend you - I certainly wasn't trying to! :) Just trying to prove a point.
 
Tory again

Tory, I guess I did miss your hypothetical point. (Or was that a real example?) I guess you were right, if the guy had a time limit to transfer, and could still legally use firearms during that period, the cops might have been wrong, in which case I'm sure you got them good.

As for the spell check, sorry, I don't have it, glad you're good enough to proof my stuff!!!:evil:

MMike87, I guess I just don't know what your definition of elite is then, because most of the people I meet at my gun club are pretty normal everyday folks. When I think elite, I too think Kennedy, Kerry ect, ect. It doesn't occur to me that the plumbers, janitors, tile layers, builders, deli workers and others in my club are ELITE! These and other "Elite" guys pay $100 a year to shoot in a sandpit owned by our club for over 75 years. We have open membership, anyone is welcome who follows the rules and pays their dues. I wish you could come to one of our dinner meetings, and see if the term "elite" still comes to mind.

When Ted Kennedy tries to stomp on gun rights, and he has bodyguards carrying machineguns with him all the time, now THAT I call ELITE. No you didn't offend me by calling me elite, but if I was, wouldn't I have spell check?? ;)
 
depicts, you said
>If someone is caught with an illegaly possesed gun, they go to jail. That gets >the criminal off the street, an effective first step in reducing crime using guns.

That makes no sense whatsoever. How can you illegally posses a gun
when the 2nd Amendment exist???

Now, if what you mean is that someone that is wanted for murder or
robbery is picked up and put in jail then great. Why is it not
enough to put someone in jail for a real crime and ignore the fact they
are exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights? Do you want to prohibit
convicted felons from being able to verbally defend themselves
in court?

I know, your thinking this chas_martel guy is crazy he wants felons
to be allowed to possess guns. But, your ignoring the main thrust
of my argument. Put people in jail for what they do, not for the fact
they possess a gun. Where this has ended up is that we ignore
punishing people for the real crimes. Face it - this nation is soft on
serious criminals and WAY to knee-jerkness on soft crime and people
exercising unpopular "rights". I for one think these points are
some how related.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top