Boston Globe: Weapons Check

[calsdad]

I have no problem with having to go through a background check and getting fingerprinted or providing a few references... Not at all.. and I know some on this board feels that violates individuals rights...

...

It's not just what some people on this board think, it is what the supreme law of this country spells out:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Since many people in this country nowadays seem to have a problem with the English language - lets find the definition of infringed:

infringe
A verb
1 encroach, infringe, impinge

advance beyond the usual limit
Category Tree:
travel; go; move; locomote
╚advance; progress; pass on; move on; march on; go on
╚encroach, infringe, impinge
2 conflict, run afoul, infringe, contravene

go against, as of rules and laws; "He ran afould of the law"; "This behavior conflicts with our rules"
Category Tree:
act; move
╚interact
╚relate
╚disrespect
╚transgress; offend; infract; violate; go against; breach; break
╚conflict, run afoul, infringe, contravene


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - means no encroachment. Unless the state issues licenses to every single person who comes in and asks for one , with no questions asked, no waiting periods, no restrictions - etc. etc. etc. - there is infringement.

The current MA state licensing apparatus is unconstitutional pure and simple - since by your own admission - they are requirements to get the license, therefore there are reasons you could get denied, therefore there is infringement.

The Constitution does not spell out a right to bear arms with certain caveats - is says (once again) : SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[john m]

A resident of Boston jumps through all the hoops and gets a Class A LTC that has the following restrictions: Sport-Target-NO CONCEAL CARRY. The rational behind a LTC with those restrictions is to completely invalidate the license.
It is like putting a motorcycle license applicant through the paces and then issuing a license that says, "here's your license. You cannot leave the garage while operating your motorcycle."
Overall I think the article is good. Since it is in the Globe, I'm just wondering "when's the other boot going to drop?" Do I expect any positive changes to the present gun license policies? NO.
Best Regards.

You can get a class A LTC in a small town in MA. and carry in boston!

 

[Admin]

The Constitution does not spell out a right to bear arms with certain caveats - is says (once again) : SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Whoa, lets not let facts enter in...

 

[calsdad]

Why not? why bitch about it and complain that its a "violation of my rights".. You want your rights violated? Go to Canada or England... see what they say about your guns...

If they tell you know you can not have a FID.. then thats a violation of your rights... not that they ask for a letter of recommendation..

If the state will only issue you an FID card - that is an infringement. The Constitution does not say "Keep and bear SOME arms". It says "Arms" meaning all. The way an FID card is instituted in MA it restricts your right to own (and bear) certain types of arms defined by the state.

Therefore - once again - it is unconstitutional.

What does Canada and England have to do with U.S or MA law? Do you live your life in constant comparison to other people? - and make your decisions based on how crappy other people's lives are?

Gee well I guess my life isn't so bad because Ted and his family are living in a box and eating dog shit for dinner every night.

I guess my life isn't so bad because I am living in a tent and I get to eat shoe leather.

Making comparisons like this is essentially a race to the bottom. There will always be some situation that is suckier than the situation you are in. If you constantly only strive for less sucky - what you inevitably end up with in the end - is still something that sucks.

When I come over to your house and steal your car and have sex with your wife - I better not hear you complain - because I went to your neighbors house and stole his car, his TV set, and his lawnmower - and I had sex with his wife AND his daughter. SO you are better off by comparison - so stop complaining.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

 

[calsdad]

Whoa, lets not let facts enter in...

Sorry I go all crazy sometimes.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

I never really understood the argument that since other people have it worse, we should be happy our suck isn't as bad as their suck, therefore we shouldn't complain.

Let me punch you in the nose, then kick him in the balls. That way you can feel "lucky".

+1

 

[WayneWong]

You can get a class A LTC in a small town in MA. and carry in boston!

When I spoke to Matt Carroll I emphasized that too him, and also emphasized that the default issue to out of staters was unrestricted. I emphasized that all the adjacent towns to me are unrestricted and those residents can carry in my town, but I cannot. I had hoped he would have printed this or challenged the chiefs with this, but alas and alack...

Anybody notice that all these chiefs just pull excuses and reasons out of their butts when justifying their actions? Whether it's the Acushnet chief's "reputation." or the "Wild West" in Brookline or no need for it in Quincy or even Rosenthal's assertion that Mass is the second safest state.

I wonder how Rosenthal thinks that owning guns with a restricted license is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. Makes no sense.

They haven't cited any statistics or pointed to any study that shows their version of gun control works. It's all about control, politics, and personal agendas. Maybe they think they are acting in good faith, or have convinced themselves they are acting in their community's interest.

The bottom line is the Gun Control Act of 1998 is unconstitutional and it will be taken apart ( along with the chiefs' licensing fifedoms) sentence by sentence after the the Heller case.

 

[Riverside]

You can get a class A LTC in a small town in MA. and carry in boston!

There's nothing like the feel of salt being poured in the open wound!
That was not your intent, was it?
Rather you are pointing out the obvious. It is the foolish, idiotic, lack of common sense that is involved in Boston's licensing decisions. The policy comes from the top down even though Raymond Mosher claimed that he was the instigator.
According to the former Boston Licensing Officer, people who live in Boston do not hunt, it is an activity that people who "live in the sticks do." Apparently it is unthinkable that we city dwellers would want to leave the City in pursuit of hunting adventures.
Best Regards.

 

[Mass-diver]

I thought both articles sucked, espically the 1st one. The reporter does not make it clear that many/most of the Class A LTC issued in this state are restricted, meaning it's a license to carry but you can't carry. Stats about the number of Class As a town gives out mean nothing unless the number of ALPs is also stated.

 

[PaulD]

(If this is too far off topic, mods, please delete and give me a demerit.)

I don't agree with Cherokee_Outlaw but where is everyone's personal limit on gun control, if you have one at all? Should absolutely everyone in the country be allowed to own a firearm regardless of criminal record or proven mental instability? What types of arms should people be allowed to own (without special licensing)? Full autos? Howitzers? Stinger missiles? ICBMs?

 

[VTpro]

I thought both articles sucked, espically the 1st one. The reporter does not make it clear that many/most of the Class A LTC issued in this state are restricted, meaning it's a license to carry but you can't carry. Stats about the number of Class As a town gives out mean nothing unless the number of ALPs is also stated.

You do know that Matt does NOT have final say on what (part) of his story gets published, right ?

An Editor can chop and screw your story at his discretion

 

[sig shooter]

owning a gun is a RIGHT just like freedom of speech but we dont have a license to have freedom of speech because that would be a infringment on our rights JUST LIKE HAVING A LICENSE FOR GUN OWNERSHIP!! it's private property and the governmet has no right to regulate it .

if im not mistaken its against the law already to shoot some one if its not in self defense or threaten someone with a gun, its also against the law to endanger some one life with reckless behavior while carrying a gun ..so why have a license to carry a gun when the criminal is not going to get one?

 

[pdm]

(If this is too far off topic, mods, please delete and give me a demerit.)

I don't agree with Cherokee_Outlaw but where is everyone's personal limit on gun control, if you have one at all? Should absolutely everyone in the country be allowed to own a firearm regardless of criminal record or proven mental instability? What types of arms should people be allowed to own (without special licensing)? Full autos? Howitzers? Stinger missiles? ICBMs?

Ahh yes, the old "a nuke in every home" canard. Arms, as meant by the Framers, refers to man-portable firearms (in their day, mostly muskets, pistols and fowling pieces). It did not refer to cannons, artillery or explosives. Cannons were collectively owned, due to the expense and fact that it took a well regulated crew to operate them.

So yes, we should be able to purchase, own and carry pistols, rifles and shotguns, semi- or fully automatic with nary a by-your-leave from those in government. Those caught misusing firearms in any manner should be punished. Not let out on bail, but punished by some serious prison time. If they make a habit out of it, well then maybe it's time they were removed from society permanently.

 

[economist]

Can we please stop this idiotic talk about how many restrictions we like, and whether one foolish law or governmental employee violates some other law or edict? For decades I have listened to enough second amendment parsing and bullshit to make any sane person livid.

Who gives a damn what some document written centuries ago says about anything. Get it straight: laws are arbitrary, and will abandon you when you need them most. Ask a gun owner in New Orleans during Katrina, or anyone who has lived through civil unrest, war, or just a little selective prosecution. You have a right to defend yourself as a function of being alive. All other arguments are opportunistic crap.

This obscene business of subjugating the essential rights of free people to arcane arguments about legal definitions is beneath most of you. Stop it. And realize that no matter how much you try to wedge your freedom into the collective's web of control and legal minutia, you just will not win.

 

[Pilgrim]

Who gives a damn what some document written centuries ago says about anything.

you are either being sarcastic or you are an ass.

 

[theGringo]

you are either being sarcastic or you are an ass.

I agree that Economist's choice of wording is harsh, probably intended to provoke a strong response. But I think the point he's making is a reference to natural law, to which our founders turned in the drafting of our Constitution, and which transcends any written document or law that can be devised by man.

 

[sig shooter]

you are either being sarcastic or you are an ass.

+1 i hope Economist is being sarcastic or the flame of freedom must have been ripped from his heart.

 

[pdm]

Economist is merely saying that you don't need a law to give you the "right" of self-defense. You have that by virtue of being alive. He's much closer to the Framer's view of rights than any law or Constitution.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

...Raymond Mosher...

Damn, I was having a really good day until I read those two words. Seriously, I have never sat face-to-face with anyone who's more of a reprehensible, authoritarian douchebag than that (scum on the scrotum of a) hack.

Ray Mosher can [censored] my [censored [censored]!

</offtopic>

 

[gene]

Ah yes, thats exactly why the gang bangers figure they have a right to carry because they have a right to protection for the life they choose criminal or not. There are laws today and there will always be laws and rules of some sort because we have deviants and criminals born and bred daily whether it's here or in some other part of the world.

The issue is whether the laws are unreasonable, impractical or unconstitutional for a person that just wants to live his life in a lawful manner. Without some laws and restrictions, simple arguments might turn into fatalities. We have no desire here to uphold the rights of criminals, deviants, drug and dope addicts or the mentally infirmed. I for one do not!

I like the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and deranged people. There are people I do not feel should be allowed to own or carry a gun. They still get them and all I ask is that if they are truly criminals, they go off to the cross bar inn for a stretch. Most of all, I do care about what was written during the early American years because I believe what was written at the time applied equally as well then as it does today.

 

[calsdad]

Can we please stop this idiotic talk about how many restrictions we like, and whether one foolish law or governmental employee violates some other law or edict? For decades I have listened to enough second amendment parsing and bullshit to make any sane person livid.

Who gives a damn what some document written centuries ago says about anything. Get it straight: laws are arbitrary, and will abandon you when you need them most. Ask a gun owner in New Orleans during Katrina, or anyone who has lived through civil unrest, war, or just a little selective prosecution. You have a right to defend yourself as a function of being alive. All other arguments are opportunistic crap.

This obscene business of subjugating the essential rights of free people to arcane arguments about legal definitions is beneath most of you. Stop it. And realize that no matter how much you try to wedge your freedom into the collective's web of control and legal minutia, you just will not win.

Nobody really does give much of a damn about that document written over two centuries ago. Unfortunately it seems like this argument has devolved into "the 2nd amendment says this" - because discussing natural law to most people nowadays is like discussing quantum physics with somebody who still believes the earth is flat.

If we can't even get people to realize that the Constitution is still nominally the law of the land - how far do you think we are going to get with an argument about natural law? Especially with those people whose view of the world is based on socialism and or communism and believe man has no rights other than that given to them by the government? These people talk incessently about "the law is this" and "the law is that" - so they need to be reminded that NO - the law is the Constitution, until such time as the government declares it invalid. At which point in time we would do well to remember what our natural rights are - and hit the reset button and start over again.

 

[theGringo]

Ah yes, thats exactly why the gang bangers figure they have a right to carry because they have a right to protection for the life they choose criminal or not. There are laws today and there will always be laws and rules of some sort because we have deviants and criminals born and bred daily whether it's here or in some other part of the world.

The issue is whether the laws are unreasonable, impractical or unconstitutional for a person that just wants to live his life in a lawful manner. Without some laws and restrictions, simple arguments might turn into fatalities. We have no desire here to uphold the rights of criminals, deviants, drug and dope addicts or the mentally infirmed. I for one do not!

I like the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and deranged people. There are people I do not feel should be allowed to own or carry a gun. They still get them and all I ask is that if they are truly criminals, they go off to the cross bar inn for a stretch. Most of all, I do care about what was written during the early American years because I believe what was written at the time applied equally as well then as it does today.

All reasonable positions. I think, going back to Economist's post, that a key issue is one of where rights come from, and how we get from "man in a state of nature" to a "social contract", without surrendering God given rights to either criminals or governments.

Good backgound here.

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

What do Canada and England have to do with the USA and our Constitution?

We have the best Constitution in the world... is it perfect? No... But it is still the best...

I'm tired people crying out "violation of my rights".. This is not 1777... times of change and times will continue to change.. Making people fill out a application is not violating your rights.. denying you the right to carry is a violation.

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

You are the model subject that MA wishes to turn all us gun owners into.

No thanks.

I want everyone that wants a LTC to be fingerprinted and fill out the proper paper work.. then if everything comes back clean.. you are issued a LTC... It should not be left up to chiefs in the towns around Mass...

So I guess if thats what MA wishes to turn everyone into.. then great!!

 

[Martlet]

We have the best Constitution in the world... is it perfect? No... But it is still the best...

I'm tired people crying out "violation of my rights".. This is not 1777... times of change and times will continue to change.. Making people fill out a application is not violating your rights.. denying you the right to carry is a violation.

Apparently you need to check the definition of "infringed".

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

It's not just what some people on this board think, it is what the supreme law of this country spells out:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Since many people in this country nowadays seem to have a problem with the English language - lets find the definition of infringed:

infringe
A verb
1 encroach, infringe, impinge

advance beyond the usual limit
Category Tree:
travel; go; move; locomote
╚advance; progress; pass on; move on; march on; go on
╚encroach, infringe, impinge
2 conflict, run afoul, infringe, contravene

go against, as of rules and laws; "He ran afould of the law"; "This behavior conflicts with our rules"
Category Tree:
act; move
╚interact
╚relate
╚disrespect
╚transgress; offend; infract; violate; go against; breach; break
╚conflict, run afoul, infringe, contravene


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - means no encroachment. Unless the state issues licenses to every single person who comes in and asks for one , with no questions asked, no waiting periods, no restrictions - etc. etc. etc. - there is infringement.

The current MA state licensing apparatus is unconstitutional pure and simple - since by your own admission - they are requirements to get the license, therefore there are reasons you could get denied, therefore there is infringement.

The Constitution does not spell out a right to bear arms with certain caveats - is says (once again) : SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Wow.. so your saying every gang banger should have the right to bare arms!?? your living in la la land my friend...

 

[Jedhed]

.. Making people fill out a application is not violating your rights.. denying you the right to carry is a violation.

Hypothetical... So I turn in my application with a reference letter or from by buddy down the street. A day or two after my app is submitted my buddy gets a ticket for a rolling stop at a stop sign. He mouths off a little bit to the LEO, no big deal but a couple days letter when my app comes up his name is remembered. I get denied. References are BS.

 

[06LemansC6]

As a non-resident. I have no issue with the background check, but the fingerprinting kind of pisses me off. Oh feel free to see my other posts regarding my LTC. I did receive it, but only after paying an excise tax from 1992. Please explain how and why an RMV check was done? What does that have to do with my history? Outside of a few speeding ticket in my younger years I have NEVER been in any kind of trouble. It's this type of thing that tells me that it is all about income. Us non-res license also costs $100 annually. Don't get me wrong I have no desire to nor will I ever live in MA again. At least as a non-resident a LTC -A- ALP is a give in.

 

[pdm]

Wow.. so your saying every gang banger should have the right to bare arms!?? your leaving in la la land my friend...

What, you don't believe in rehabilitation?

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

Hypothetical... So I turn in my application with a reference letter or from by buddy down the street. A day or two after my app is submitted my buddy gets a ticket for a rolling stop at a stop sign. He mouths off a little bit to the LEO, no big deal but a couple days letter when my app comes up his name is remembered. I get denied. References are BS.

It should be up to the fact that your are of proper age, no history of violet crimes and you have not been on mental drugs... not if the Chief likes the shirt you have on that day... As for the references.. I'm not aware that they check the person out who gave you the reference.. more to the fact that the person feels that your of sounds mind.


I'm amazed.. well maybe not.. that the only thing that everyone took out of my original post.. was the fact about requiring references... not the fact I basically said.. that as long everyone had to do the same thing... and they come back clean.. they SHOULD GET A LTC... and not up to a different guy in each town..