A word of advice...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think maybe the fact that you had a post about people not being able to speak Engrish. As I said before, if you can't understand simple Engrish, don't lie, don't apply and stop wasting people's time. I'll leave it at that.

GG did his job as I stated earlier, not sure why people are still jumping on him. there are plenty of LO's out there that even I would jump on if done something wrong. In this case, he did nothing wrong. I would've denied the dumb shit for lying. Serve him right. It is a simple thing to tell the truth. Even if you think it is a huge deal it is not. Lying is a much bigger deal, because you are only compounding your problems at that point.
 
Last edited:
Too many here are "shoot the messenger" types and you may wonder why very few LEOs still participate on NES!

The laws are what they are, none of us here chose them to be what they are. We must live with them until/unless we are able to change them.

You don't just live with them, you actively enforce them. You have sided with the Antis when you chose to work for them, to be the strong arm for their Anti-gun policies. Everyone knows MA is Anti, You said you would enforce these laws when you signed up, either you are Anti or a hypocrite. Its like saying I'm an abortion Dr, but I think abortion is morally wrong
 
Suitability is a crazy thing in some places.

In my professional opinion, there are instances (rare ones) where a persons character should be considered in issuing an LTC. However, denying someone for a driving record is BS. However, having a clean record, but being a known member of a violent street gang SHOULD be a factor in determining suitability.
 
You don't just live with them, you actively enforce them. You have sided with the Antis when you chose to work for them, to be the strong arm for their Anti-gun policies. Everyone knows MA is Anti, You said you would enforce these laws when you signed up, either you are Anti or a hypocrite. Its like saying I'm an abortion Dr, but I think abortion is morally wrong

Seriously? (insert theme from Red Dawn) Perhaps I saw some injustice, and decided that I would take it upon myself to do whatever I could to correct a broken system? I will give you a B- for trying though. Unfortunately, this isn't the fat kid olympics, and everybody doesn't win.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? (insert theme from Red Dawn) Perhaps I saw some injustice, and decided that I would take it upon myself to do whatever I could to correct a broken system? I will give you a B- for trying though. Unfortunately, this isn't the fat kid olympics, and everybody doesn't win.

Don't get all pissy and lash out now that you realized you can not be a Strong 2A supporter and work/enforce for the government that restricts constitutional rights.

I think everyone that is not in jail should be able to own a gun, I also understand that my position is what most would consider extreme. But it fits into my beliefs regarding freedom. I would not take a job doing/enforcing acts that I morally objected to, you don't seem to be as strict in your belief.
 
In my professional opinion, there are instances (rare ones) where a persons character should be considered in issuing an LTC. However, denying someone for a driving record is BS. However, having a clean record, but being a known member of a violent street gang SHOULD be a factor in determining suitability.

You're drunk on power, dude. You're not professional enough to determine people's gun rights.
 
Glasgow don't take this the wrong way...

@Supermoto, it is well known that the "police" as an organization and I do not get along. So I don't spend a lot of time defending police as a rule of thumb, but unfortunately the police, as an organization, are a necessary evil, and will be until such a time as people can act civilly to each other.

As much as I disagree with the direction law enforcement is taking, including the militarization of local law enforcement, the escalation of no knock warrants, the thin blue line mentality, etc, I know that there are good police officers in the ranks, and quite a few of them happen to frequent this forum, some are public about their profession, some are not, some have hinted at it.

Not all LEO's are out to screw us, there are still some brave principled officers out there, and I happen to know a couple of them, so try not to paint with such a broad brush.
 
Hey Glasgow where do you stand on Lautenberg? Good legislation or bad?
 
You don't just live with them, you actively enforce them. You have sided with the Antis when you chose to work for them, to be the strong arm for their Anti-gun policies. Everyone knows MA is Anti, You said you would enforce these laws when you signed up, either you are Anti or a hypocrite. Its like saying I'm an abortion Dr, but I think abortion is morally wrong

This is beautiful. So if I understand you correctly you believe a person can't be a LEO and believe in the second amendment.
Let's take it one step further; as an ordinary citizen, if you go through the process of obtaining an LTC you are showing your support for gun control. If it was morally wrong you wouldn't do it. Right?
 
Glasgow don't take this the wrong way...

@Supermoto, it is well known that the "police" as an organization and I do not get along. So I don't spend a lot of time defending police as a rule of thumb, but unfortunately the police, as an organization, are a necessary evil, and will be until such a time as people can act civilly to each other.
.

I think you have me confused as some one that does not like the police, I don't have an issue with them (when they act within in the constitution) nor do I have an issue with people that are anti. Its their right to believe what ever they choose to. But you can not say you are strong supporter of anything, then work for those who are trying to limit it.

If you think, some should be able to have guns, others can't, you are entitled to that belief as much as some that says no gun for anyone or guns for everyone. The act belief is not my issue. My issue is saying you believe one way, then actively work against that
 
This is beautiful. So if I understand you correctly you believe a person can't be a LEO and believe in the second amendment.
Let's take it one step further; as an ordinary citizen, if you go through the process of obtaining an LTC you are showing your support for gun control. If it was morally wrong you wouldn't do it. Right?

No wrong, as I have no choice to go through the process and will have further rights restricted if I try to exercise my 2A rights. I have no choice. LEO do not have to take the job any more that you had to take yours. Huge difference is freedom of choice
 
Don't get all pissy and lash out now that you realized you can not be a Strong 2A supporter and work/enforce for the government that restricts constitutional rights.

I think everyone that is not in jail should be able to own a gun, I also understand that my position is what most would consider extreme. But it fits into my beliefs regarding freedom. I would not take a job doing/enforcing acts that I morally objected to, you don't seem to be as strict in your belief.

So do you feel that way about any chief of police in MA as well?
 
He didn't pass the laws, cut him some slack.

Guys, Glasgow doesn't make the rules and seems like he is being a good licensing officer in a green town. As much as I hate the fact that we need an application at all. Committing perjury on the damn thing puts these guys in a sticky spot.

^THIS !
Not only did 'Glasgow' not make the rules, if he doesn't follow them his career is in jeopardy AND he took the time to give us this reminder to Not Be Stupid. Sure, the trap is rigged and baited but there is advice out there about what will and won't disqualify someone. And folks here have gone to great lengths to help ensure this information is accessible.

So let's be smart. No one has so many friends that they can afford to throw one away for doing their job and trying to do us a favor. I'm probably late to this party but let's take the advice offered and enlist the help of a supporter inside the system to make things a wee bit better.
 
Nope, I don't think you have a point to the question

Oh no, I have a point.

The state dictates that the chief has discretion over who gets LTCs. In every municipality I know of, the day to day licensing activities are handled by an officer with directives from the chief. Some chiefs in the state are utter douchebags about the whole thing and give directives to the LO to mete out licenses in a manner consistent with the douchebag wishes of these chiefs.

In other towns, the chiefs are good guys and don't take advantage of the powers the state legislature has given them, even though they're forced to comply with the licensing parameters defined by the law. In these cases the LOs also hand out licenses in a manner dictated by the chief. As I mentioned in a prior post, some of these licensing officers are even helpful.

So it's logically inconsistent to say that the all licensing officers are somehow act in a way that's anti 2A in the course of their job, but that you don't have a problem with at least some chiefs.

So, once again, do you have a problem with all chiefs in this state?
 
i-qPSHxjm-M.jpg
 
So, once again, do you have a problem with all chiefs in this state?

You don't get it. I don't have a problem with any of them. They choose their job, part of which is to enforce laws that are contrary to the 2A. They have the right to choose whatever job they want.

I have a problem when the say they are strong supporters of the 2A, (unless they are from VT) Then choose to enforce laws to the contrary. It is no different then Obama saying he is pro 2A, his actions have proven otherwise, its hypocritical

If a LEO said he did not believe in the 2A or believed in limited 2A, I'm fine with that. But that's not what was said
 
You don't get it. I don't have a problem with any of them. They choose their job, part of which is to enforce laws that are contrary to the 2A. They have the right to choose whatever job they want.

I have a problem when the say they are strong supporters of the 2A, (unless they are from VT) Then choose to enforce laws to the contrary. It is no different then Obama saying he is pro 2A, his actions have proven otherwise, its hypocritical

If a LEO said he did not believe in the 2A or believed in limited 2A, I'm fine with that. But that's not what was said

Clearly in the context we're talking about, you do have a problem with them.
 
Clearly in the context we're talking about, you do have a problem with them.

only if they proclaimed they were strong 2A supporters, until then I can't make a judgement. Maybe some are huge anti 2A and decided the best way to limit peoples access to guns is to restrict their 2A. At least they stands behind their convictions, and while I don't agree with them, at least I can respect them.
 
Supermoto, did you ever think that perhaps some may try to work within the system for change? [I am not speaking for anyone in particular, just addressing your broad-brush approach.]
 
Supermoto, did you ever think that perhaps some may try to work within the system for change? [I am not speaking for anyone in particular, just addressing your broad-brush approach.]

Then they would have been a legislator not an enforcer
 
He deserves as much slack as a cop who proctors a literacy test at a polling place. His advice to accurately fill out the LTC application was correct.
I'm guessing you are one SERIOUS 2A activist? Will you be at the State House tomorrow?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom