A Random Thought On 2A...

[bob68]

Mark, that's precisely why I'd love to see a legal exemption in our laws for anyone who serves/served honorably in the Armed Forces . . . they have EARNED the right to all "privileges" of an adult, regardless of age (e.g. vote, right to drink/buy alcohol, guns and carry them, no further need for "training" to get FID/LTC, etc.).

It would be the least we could do for those that fight to secure our freedom (what's left of it ).

i agree with that. they have earned that right/privilege regardless of age. god bless them.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

AGAIN, Bulls**t.

You do not know what you are talking about. Neither, if what you said above is true, does that clerk. Either that, or he is telling you that as a scam to cover up the fact it is simply store policy.

Sort of like a certain range that has a big sign on its door declaring that it is "illegal to shoot silhouette targets." As the range is a commercial enterprise and not a club, still less the one club actually holding a club LTC, that assertion is also utter crap.

Scrivener, so the thing about having your license on the counter is not law? I was not aware of this. Every shop I've been to, if I forget to have my license ready, asks me to put it on the counter "in case someone from the state comes into the place". So this must then just be a store policy that most shops have adopted to CYA?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Let's take a look at this situation to see perhaps why such a policy exists in many/most gun shops.

- Some random Joe/Mary walks in, shows no proof of being licensed and walks out with the gun while the clerk is distracted! Now they have no idea who stole the gun and the chase goes on. The local chief is probably not going to be happy either and can give the FFL a bad time (state licenses are "discretionary", just ask the guy in Worcester who USED TO run a gun rental range). By having your LTC/FID on the case, they've looked at it and have a clue who may have stolen the gun . . . puts them in a better position of due diligence. [Now in "Free America" this isn't deemed necessary, but you are talking about commiechusetts here.]

- MA has an exemption to licensing IFF the unlicensed person is being "supervised" by a licensed person. What if the clerk hands you a gun to look at (as an unlicensed person) and then gets called away to a phone call or a problem at the cash register? Are you still being supervised? If someone wants to bust balls (you are talking about MA after all), it could cause problems for the shop.

So, although not required by law, I can fully understand why shops invoke this as policy . . . and it's easier to just tell customers that "it's the law" than try to explain either of the above to them.

I can tell you from personal experience that once the shop-owner gets to know you (or the clerk does) that I have not always been asked to show my LTC before being handed a gun to look at. And more than a few times they've been called away while I'm there holding the gun and had to interrupt someone to hand it back to a clerk . . . I won't just lay it down on the counter and walk away, and they know that.

The above may not be the only reasons, but are strictly based on my personal experiences. YMMV

 

[MassMark]

The point of the thread:

Guy comes into DSG and cannot buy a gun - any gun, because this is Massachusetts

Guy served in Marines and toted weapons in defense of his country

Guy can't own the same type of handgun he carried in battle

Guy should be granted and exception because he served in the military but,

Guy should not have to be granted an exception in the first place. I don't recall an age restriction in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Scrivener]

Guy comes into DSG and cannot buy a gun - any gun, because this is Massachusetts

WHY?

Is it simply because he hasn't bothered to get a license?

Or has he done something which prevents him from getting one?

 

[USMA-82]

I remember being told I needed a "safety class" to get my permit. I had just wrapped up ten years in the U.S. Army as a Combat Engineer, having had the opportunity to shoot everything from a .45 pistol to a 155mm SP Howitzer (and just about everything in-between).

The next thing I knew, I was sitting in a class with some guy pointing to a handgun going over the parts and pieces - "THIS...IS....THE...MUZZLE"

Oh, my freakin' head.

*

 

[MassMark]

WHY?

Is it simply because he hasn't bothered to get a license?

Or has he done something which prevents him from getting one?

Just moved here with his fiancee from North Carolina. Is going to get his license. The fact that he needs a license at all is kind of the point...This was not meant as a debate on licensing requirements in the Commonwealth. It was to highlight just how ludicrous it is that there are licensing requirements in the Commonwealth, (stating the obvious, I know). It was also to point out how ludicrous it is that this young man can fight in a war, but is restricted from the 2nd Amendment and from even buying a beer, (stating the obvious, I know). If you folks feel inclined to turn this thread into a debate over licensing requirements and whether or not he can handle a firearm in a gun shop, have at it. It wasn't the intent of my post, but that's never stopped anyone before...Enjoy.


.

 

[jasons]

I remember being told I needed a "safety class" to get my permit. I had just wrapped up ten years in the U.S. Army as a Combat Engineer, having had the opportunity to shoot everything from a .45 pistol to a 155mm SP Howitzer (and just about everything in-between).

The next thing I knew, I was sitting in a class with some guy pointing to a handgun going over the parts and pieces - "THIS...IS....THE...MUZZLE"

Oh, my freakin' head.

*

Really. It would seem logical that a DD214 stamped "Honorable" should satisfy the training requirement IMHO. I just fixed radars and fire control electronics (no high-speed low drag operator stuff here) and even I had months of firearms training. And yet I still had to take the 4-hour home safety class.

But in any case the Devil Dog in the OP would not have been able to buy a pistol in any state. MA is far from perfect but you can't blame this one the state.

 

[MassMark]

But in any case the Devil Dog in the OP would not have been able to buy a pistol in any state. MA is far from perfect but you can't blame this one the state.

That was kind of my point...I guess I should have been more clear. It was also about more than handguns, so in that case, you can indeed blame that one on the state....

Whatever...I'm all set here. Off to create a thread about the injustice of drivers licenses...

 

[Hanwei]

EDIT: I'm too slow

 

[Chris]

I hear ya Ken.

I spent a good part of my youth on target ranges where the slightest infraction of a safety rule would have you doing push-ups until your shoulders felt like they were going to fall off. And some smarter than me legislator thought I should go to a class to have Walter tell me "Always keep the muzzle in a safe direction". He apparently never met my grandfather. (^_^)

However, I've also seen people join a club and their first day on the range act like something you see in a REALLY BAD action movie.

I can understand the "we have to be sure of all" mentality, but that only addresses the ignorance side of the equation. People who are going to be responsible will usually make the effort to cure the ignorance without anyone telling them they have to. Just look at the noob posts on this list.

I'm convinced, however, that nothing will cure carelessness. We see it in every endeavor of life from driving to unprotected sex. For legislators to think that mandating a safety course will have any real effect is ignorance on their part.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on criminals.

To tie in with the OP, prohibitions of all kinds result in only ONE basic outcome. The responsible people of society suffer while the very people they strive to control continue on unabated.

There once was a social checkvalve on youth behavior. You grew up in a community where you knew that any action would get back to your parents and then you would get hell for it. Such a network no longer exists in many places. Heck, a vast segment of our population don't even know their neighbor's names anymore.

As a result, the values and morals which should be imprinted into youth are being ignored. And the result is government attempting to be the parent. Gun laws, driving laws, alcohol laws, etc all restrict every youth regardless of their ability. As with every prohibition that has been attempted in the past - this only encourages illegal behavior.

 

[pdm]

Guy should be granted and exception because he served in the military but,

No.

Guy should not have to be granted an exception in the first place. I don't recall an age restriction in the 2nd Amendment.

This. A thousand times, this. Special classes of people is how those in charge keep us divided. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

 

[terraformer]

The point of the thread:

Guy comes into DSG and cannot buy a gun - any gun, because this is Massachusetts

Guy served in Marines and toted weapons in defense of his country

Guy can't own the same type of handgun he carried in battle

Guy should be granted and exception because he served in the military but,

Guy should not have to be granted an exception in the first place. I don't recall an age restriction in the 2nd Amendment.

Or you could have just used the emoticon .

 

[Tara]

Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, he's used to walking in to a gun shop and walking out with a gun. NC is lenient like that.
It is quite sad that he can risk his life for us, but can't drink a beer on his way to war or own a gun of his own.

 

[drgrant]

Which one? The 21 to buy a handgun thing is a federal law. There are no "free states" for that one.

Disagree, at least partially. Yes, he would not be able to buy a handgun from a dealer, but there are numerous free states where a private FTF of a handgun to an 18 year old would likely be legal, or his parents could legally buy/give him one as a gift.

MA's laws are just an additional kick in the groin over and above the federal bull**t on the matter.

-Mike

 

[mikem317]

I never fully understood the contradiction here either.

Why does the state allow an 18-year old right out of high school to have grenades and select-fire rifles in some far off land but won't allow that same person the ability to own a basic revolver or semi-automatic pistol when they come back home for their own personal protection?

Makes no sense to me. I wish somebody could explain it to me.

 

[cb1]

I never fully understood the contradiction here either.

Why does the state allow an 18-year old right out of high school to have grenades and select-fire rifles in some far off land but won't allow that same person the ability to own a basic revolver or semi-automatic pistol when they come back home for their own personal protection?

Makes no sense to me. I wish somebody could explain it to me.

By allowing kids to enlist right out of high school at 18, legislators ensure that they have plenty of able bodied young men and women joining the military. Far less people would enlist if they had to wait until 21 as they would likely have started college, joined the workforce, etc. By keeping the age to enlist down they get more recruits but by keeping the age to purchase a handgun up, they "get more guns off the streets".

It's pure political BS and, as a result, does not need to make sense

 

[jasons]

Disagree, at least partially. Yes, he would not be able to buy a handgun from a dealer, but there are numerous free states where a private FTF of a handgun to an 18 year old would likely be legal, or his parents could legally buy/give him one as a gift.

MA's laws are just an additional kick in the groin over and above the federal bull**t on the matter.

-Mike

Right but that's not the situation that was explained in the OP. This young Devil Dog would not be able to walk into a gun shop in any state and buy himself a pistol. When I was a young Marine stationed in Arizona I still needed to wait until I was 21 before I could buy my first Glock. (Wish I had kept it...)

Yes, it's an F'ed up situation but it's not unique to MA. I was really replying to the "move to a free state" comment, lest this turn into yet another bash the Commonwealth thread. (Not sure why I bother.)

 

[mikem317]

...that's precisely why I'd love to see a legal exemption in our laws for anyone who serves/served honorably in the Armed Forces . . . they have EARNED the right to all "privileges" of an adult, regardless of age (e.g. vote, right to drink/buy alcohol, guns and carry them, no further need for "training" to get FID/LTC, etc.).

i agree with that. they have earned that right/privilege regardless of age. god bless them.

I can't agree with LenS and bob68 although I empathize with them. Our brave men and women ought to be recognized for their sacrifices, but this would be in violation of the spirit of our civil liberties; namely our right to self-preservation. The life of somebody who has served in the military is not more or less important than a civilian who has chosen not to. Plus the law ought to apply to everyone equally. Plus, as pdm mentioned, it would serve very dangerous precedent.

I'm all for military service, but I don't like the idea of treating military guys or any other group differently in the eyes of the law. It would set a bad precedent IMHO.

No. A thousand times, this. Special classes of people is how those in charge keep us divided. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

+1 jasons and pdm.

 

[mikem317]

By allowing kids to enlist right out of high school at 18, legislators ensure that they have plenty of able bodied young men and women joining the military. Far less people would enlist if they had to wait until 21 as they would likely have started college, joined the workforce, etc. By keeping the age to enlist down they get more recruits but by keeping the age to purchase a handgun up, they "get more guns off the streets".

It's pure political BS and, as a result, does not need to make sense

It definitely sounds like political chicanery.

If an 18-year-old can be trusted with a fully automatic M4 carbine in Iraq he should be trusted with a S&W revolver in Massachusetts. But this logic should apply to all adults. Not just those over 21 or have military experience. There's going to be irresponsible adults in every age group. But this should not warrant the total usurpation of our Creator-given rights.

 

[KMaurer]

It used to be both better and worse. Back when I was 18 we still couldn't legally buy beer(same), we could buy guns(better), but we couldn't vote(worse). Anybody looking for common sense to emanate from government buildings has none to begin with. BTW, I know first hand that you don't need to be 18 for your country to trust you to play with cool toys.

Ken

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Mark, that's precisely why I'd love to see a legal exemption in our laws for anyone who serves/served honorably in the Armed Forces . . . they have EARNED the right to all "privileges" of an adult, regardless of age (e.g. vote, right to drink/buy alcohol, guns and carry them, no further need for "training" to get FID/LTC, etc.).

It would be the least we could do for those that fight to secure our freedom (what's left of it ).

I agree.....but that would go against government's plan of complete disarmament and control. Hell, government has already declared returning vets as national security threats.