Boston Globe: Weapons Check

[drgrant]

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

No, I think what he's suggesting is that the system should not be committing a blanket infringement on peoples rights in a vain, futile attempt to keep a person with bad intent from carrying a gun. The only thing stupid crap like the MA permit system does is give a few weak-minded folks a "warm fuzzy feeling" that the state is trying to prevent some BG from getting a gun- but reality shows this is a severely inflated false sense of security. When you look at the facts, there appears to be very little real relationship between gun laws (eg, permit issuance strictness, standards, etc. ) and crime rates. Why should we support and endorse a system which has readily been proven to be an abject failure with regards to actually reducing crime, while at the same time infringes on everyone's right to self defense? (and yes, asking for references, is most certainly an infringement, as it adds another order of magnitude pain in the ass factor to the whole process).

FWIW, if you lived in Brockton, Brookline, Boston, etc, I doubt you'd be supporting the concept of a "discretionary issue" system, and would
probably feel the same way most of us do.... It's a matter of perspective. I realize it "feels good" but once you've seen/felt the abuse
of such a system, the negatives will appear to outweigh any perceived "benefit" of it by orders of magnitude.

-Mike

 

[gene]

Those who inflict criminal violence, harm or pain on others have no right to expect equal protection under the law once they have been tried and convicted by a jury of their peers. Else I would have to believe that a convicted felon is entitled to the same rights as a lawful citizen and I do not!

Without surrendering rights to some sort of rules even as a screening process we become citizens of the jungle where only the strong survive. Society has moved beyond the natural insticts of man to survive. We have a preditor mentality in society that has not been dealt with effectively or efficiently. Granted they might have been shot, hung or executed back in the day but times have changed. I am all for laws that place fewer restrictions on lawful citizens but the criminals can fend for themselves. They seem to get more rights than lawful people anyway!

 

[economist]

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

I must have been unclear. My point (I admit, in the form of a fairly strong diatribe) was that our freedom is not a function of something having been written in the past. It is inherent to our existence. My gripe, as it was, is that too often people appeal to law when they would not accept the source of their appeal were it not in their favor. For example, if a new constitutional amendment were passed that outlawed all gun ownership, would those who appeal to the second amendment now so readily accept the consequences? I don't believe they would. And, consequently, their argument is not to the point.

Furthermore, I noted that any form of social contract is only as stable as circumstances allow. And, that in the most dire of circumstances, when freedom is most likely under attack, the laws and constitutionally derived rights being discussed here are approximately irrelevant.

Hence, far from being "ripped from my heart", I consider individual liberty to be about the most important thing in the world, and the source from which all other happiness is derived. And I do not relegate the underlying nature of that liberty to the fragility of any document or social agreement, however well written or constructed such may be.

 

[economist]

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.

Point taken. Well said.

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

FWIW, if you lived in Brockton, Brookline, Boston, etc, I doubt you'd be supporting the concept of a "discretionary issue" system, and would
probably feel the same way most of us do.... It's a matter of perspective. I realize it "feels good" but once you've seen/felt the abuse
of such a system, the negatives will appear to outweigh any perceived "benefit" of it by orders of magnitude.

-Mike

again.. I think the current system sucks.. not the fact that you have to be fingerprinted.. OR have to fill out a application.. but the fact that no matter what you fill out or what you do to please the state... nor what comes back in your background check.. its up to the Chief of Police in your town to say yes or no... and that is WRONG... So that is violating my rights more then making me get a useless letter... IMHO... but I guess the letter is worst to most on here.. Maybe I wasn't being very clear in my original post..

 

[BOBKATT]

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

I think that was somewhat disrespectful to a member who contributes quite a bit of information and good points to our discussions here.

My question to you is do you really think that the "gang bangers" are affected by the fact that they can't get an ALP carry permit? How many "gang bangers" do you think have a firearms permit at all? And how many of them have all that hard of a time getting their hands on a gun?

Only law obiding citizens seek the "legal" means of obtaining a carry permit. Even though the fact that you have to own a carry permit in order to carry a firearm is illegal, at least in terms of our Bill of Rights.

I for one do not think that restricting a persons right to own a gun has any effect on them owning a gun or using one to commit a crime. Still not sold? Take a look at D.C., You haven't been able to legally own a handgun in D.C. for about the past 30 years. I am not going to tell you the statistic on the amount of handgun crime, I would rather you look it up and see for yourself wether or not it has worked.

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

I think that was somewhat disrespectful to a member who contributes quite a bit of information and good points to our discussions here.

My question to you is do you really think that the "gang bangers" are affected by the fact that they can't get an ALP carry permit? How many "gang bangers" do you think have a firearms permit at all? And how many of them have all that hard of a time getting their hands on a gun?

Only law obiding citizens seek the "legal" means of obtaining a carry permit. Even though the fact that you have to own a carry permit in order to carry a firearm is illegal, at least in terms of our Bill of Rights.

I for one do not think that restricting a persons right to own a gun has any effect on them owning a gun or using one to commit a crime. Still not sold? Take a look at D.C., You haven't been able to legally own a handgun in D.C. for about the past 30 years. I am not going to tell you the statistic on the amount of handgun crime, I would rather you look it up and see for yourself wether or not it has worked.

First off..PLEASE tell me how telling someone he/she is "living in la la land" is disrespectful!??

Second.. Are you are saying that everyone should have the right to get a LTC without a background check??

 

[BOBKATT]

First off..PLEASE tell me how telling someone he/she is "living in la la land" is disrespectful!??

Second.. Are you are saying that everyone should have the right to get a LTC without a background check??

Well, the term "living in la la land" to me would suggest that the person you are referring to is suffering from some form of psychosis and is not a credible source for valid thoughts.

I am saying two things:

1.) Requirements of an American citizen to own, keep, carry, bear, a firearm other than the fact that they are an American is unconstitutional.

2.) Requiring background checks, safety courses, letters of recomendation, etc. Does not in any way shape or form prevent a criminal from getting his or her hand on a gun and committing a crime with it. Therefore the false sense of security that you get from a background check is null and void.


I refer to the following made up situation where the names have been changed to protect the not so innocent:

Joe Thug just failed the backround check for his LTC. Joe Thug is bummed out but he is still faced with the problem that he needs a gun so that he can effectively rob and possibly murder Jane Law-Obider, if she fails to cooperate.

How hard is it for Joe Thug to get a gun in Washington D.C., where handguns are all out banned? If you answered "Not too hard at all, Washington D.C. enjoys some of the most handgun violence in the nation." You would be correct. Therefore my reasoning tells me that we would be far better off if it wasn't so damn hard or impossible for Jane Law-Obider to obtain her ALP CCW permit, which as you know, is actually her constitutional right.

 

[06LemansC6]

Well, the term "living in la la land" to me would suggest that the person you are referring to is suffering from some form of psychosis and is not a credible source for valid thoughts.

I am saying two things:

1.) Requirements of an American citizen to own, keep, carry, bear, a firearm other than the fact that they are an American is unconstitutional.

2.) Requiring background checks, safety courses, letters of recomendation, etc. Does not in any way shape or form prevent a criminal from getting his or her hand on a gun and committing a crime with it. Therefore the false sense of security that you get from a background check is null and void.


I refer to the following made up situation where the names have been changed to protect the not so innocent:

Joe Thug just failed the backround check for his LTC. Joe Thug is bummed out but he is still faced with the problem that he needs a gun so that he can effectively rob and possibly murder Jane Law-Obider, if she fails to cooperate.

How hard is it for Joe Thug to get a gun in Washington D.C., where handguns are all out banned? If you answered "Not too hard at all, Washington D.C. enjoys some of the most handgun violence in the nation." You would be correct. Therefore my reasoning tells me that we would be far better off if it wasn't so damn hard or impossible for Jane Law-Obider to obtain her ALP CCW permit, which as you know, is actually her constitutional right.

Oh so so true. excellent post.

 

[dsm]

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

George? George Bush? Is that you?

 

[economist]

George? George Bush? Is that you?

No, but if you think he is violating the constitution then it illustrates my point: laws are no better, and no more powerful, than the living people who support them, and it is impossible to create law that can control those who choose to ignore it.

 

[pdm]

No, but if you think he is violating the constitution then it illustrates my point: laws are no better, and no more powerful, than the living people who support them, and it is impossible to create law that can control those who choose to ignore it.

Exactly. Even a good law can be perverted by a bad actor.

 

[jhblaze1]

They do it all the time. They take stories during the week and rehash them to fill the Sunday paper. A lot of people don't read the weekday paper plus they're hurting for stories for Sunday and their budget is constantly shrinking.

As part of the NY Times they often run the same stories in various markets too.

I think it's because the SCOTUS decision is due out later this month...

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

Well, the term "living in la la land" to me would suggest that the person you are referring to is suffering from some form of psychosis and is not a credible source for valid thoughts.

I am saying two things:

1.) Requirements of an American citizen to own, keep, carry, bear, a firearm other than the fact that they are an American is unconstitutional.

2.) Requiring background checks, safety courses, letters of recomendation, etc. Does not in any way shape or form prevent a criminal from getting his or her hand on a gun and committing a crime with it. Therefore the false sense of security that you get from a background check is null and void.


I refer to the following made up situation where the names have been changed to protect the not so innocent:

Joe Thug just failed the backround check for his LTC. Joe Thug is bummed out but he is still faced with the problem that he needs a gun so that he can effectively rob and possibly murder Jane Law-Obider, if she fails to cooperate.

How hard is it for Joe Thug to get a gun in Washington D.C., where handguns are all out banned? If you answered "Not too hard at all, Washington D.C. enjoys some of the most handgun violence in the nation." You would be correct. Therefore my reasoning tells me that we would be far better off if it wasn't so damn hard or impossible for Jane Law-Obider to obtain her ALP CCW permit, which as you know, is actually her constitutional right.

Well.. if you truly feel that background checks are not needed.. then your way out in left field looking at june bugs and not even watching the game...

 

[Pilgrim]

The very act of requiring a license is unConstitutional in the truest sense of the word 'infringe'.

Even if a license were completely shall issue, the act of charging a fee for those background checks, handling, etc would undoubtedly prevent someone who cannot afford the fee from being able to get a license. And if they didn't have a license because of this fee and did have a weapon, they would be in violation of the law.

Their right to keep and bear would be stripped from them because they can't afford that freedom.

 

[Patriot]

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...

How do you like having your records kept by the Criminal History Systems Board? Where do
you draw the line at having your Constitutional rights violated?

What I have a issue with is the fact that its up to each chief to say yes or no...

I guess this is it then? Indiscriminate and absolute power over your Constitutional rights?

One thing I have to give this state kudos for is the fact that once you get a LTC..(if your lucky enough to get one).. the state pretty much allows you to carry everywhere. Oklahoma/Texas you still have a lot of places that carrying is a NO NO... like a TGIFs or Pub99 would be off limits...

I will never give this freakin' Commonwealth kudos for anything. They are the bottom of
the barrel on individual rights and freedoms. If you like it here you can like it anywhere
I would say. The problem is maybe you have never been free and are getting used to
having indiscriminate restrictions placed on your freedoms. For me, I will never ever
accept them. I have to live with them or go to jail I suppose but as for liking someone
who limits my freedoms? That is the talk of people who already have one foot in the
sheepskin. What will you do when they make it a crime to possess brass in the shape
of a bullet cartridge? Oh wait, they already did that, never mind.

 

[BOBKATT]

Well.. if you truly feel that background checks are not needed.. then your way out in left field looking at june bugs and not even watching the game...

Thanks for your opinion.

What does the background check that is currently being used consist of and what is it about the background check that would determine that someone is unsuitable to own a firearm?

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

How do you like having your records kept by the Criminal History Systems Board? Where do
you draw the line at having your Constitutional rights violated?



I guess this is it then? Indiscriminate and absolute power over your Constitutional rights?



I will never give this freakin' Commonwealth kudos for anything. They are the bottom of
the barrel on individual rights and freedoms. If you like it here you can like it anywhere
I would say. The problem is maybe you have never been free and are getting used to
having indiscriminate restrictions placed on your freedoms. For me, I will never ever
accept them. I have to live with them or go to jail I suppose but as for liking someone
who limits my freedoms? That is the talk of people who already have one foot in the
sheepskin. What will you do when they make it a crime to possess brass in the shape
of a bullet cartridge? Oh wait, they already did that, never mind.

If you are doing no wrong.. then you shouldn't worry now should you?

 

[Fsorrent]

If you are doing no wrong.. then you shouldn't worry now should you?

You've got to love that logic. It's the same logic that allows for your rights to be shit on. Let them violate your rights, as long as you've got nothing to hide...

So exercising your rights is only for those that have something to hide?

I believe it is you who are in the left field chasing butterflies and blowing kisses in the direction of your legislators while they trample your rights because you have nothing to hide. This country was founded on the principles of individualism and that "self-help" ideology. It's thoughts like your which are proof we're heading towards that socialist, nanny-state Govt controls all aspects of your life state. Why should anyone tell anyone else whether or not they are qualified to exercise their rights.

 

[BOBKATT]

If you are doing no wrong.. then you shouldn't worry now should you?

Sounds like something the guys in Europe might have said when they were told they had to register their guns. That of course gave the trusty government the ability to know who had a gun in order to be able to require them to turn it in.

 

[jhblaze1]

If you are doing no wrong.. then you shouldn't worry now should you?

Holy shit. I honestly can't believe you just said that! I sincerely hope you are playing devil's advocate. If not, I can only say that I truly hope you never go into politics, really.

So if the police stopped you for no reason on the side of the road and searched you without a warrant it would be ok with you? I mean you weren't actually doing anything wrong so you'd have nothing to worry about, right? Or would it bother you? In which case, one must ask, how do you pick and choose which parts of the constitution are valid and which aren't?

Would you be cool with periodic home inspections to make sure your guns are properly stored like the do in Japan? I mean you'd have nothing to worry about so who cares if the gov't preemptively assumes your a criminal.

WOW

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

Thanks for your opinion.

What does the background check that is currently being used consist of and what is it about the background check that would determine that someone is unsuitable to own a firearm?

Current system tosses out everyone that has had a felony... thats a good start...


I don't feel that it is everyones right to carry a concealed gun... But it should be everyones duty to carry if they can lawfully..

What you do at your house is a whole different subject and thats your business to do what you want AS LONG as your not hurting anyone else.....

 

[BOBKATT]

If you are doing no wrong.. then you shouldn't worry now should you?

In contrast to that logic, I feel that there is no greater reason to worry than when you are doing no wrong but yet your rights are being violated.

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

Holy shit. I honestly can't believe you just said that! I sincerely hope you are playing devil's advocate. If not, I can only say that I truly hope you never go into politics, really.

So if the police stopped you for no reason on the side of the road and searched you without a warrant it would be ok with you? I mean you weren't actually doing anything wrong so you'd have nothing to worry about, right? Or would it bother you? In which case, one must ask, how do you pick and choose which parts of the constitution are valid and which aren't?

Would you be cool with periodic home inspections to make sure your guns are properly stored like the do in Japan? I mean you'd have nothing to worry about so who cares if the gov't preemptively assumes your a criminal.

WOW

No I would not be cool with periodic home inspections.. nor having a cop search my car just because he feels like it.. Also the government doesn't preemptively assumes your a criminal.. they put RULES into place..

yes... I know it may be hard for MOST of you to believe... but I have FAITH in my God and Country... If I was arrested for killing or raping someone... and I did not do it... I have FAITH that when everything is over... I would be found innocent..

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

Sounds like something the guys in Europe might have said when they were told they had to register their guns. That of course gave the trusty government the ability to know who had a gun in order to be able to require them to turn it in.

again... that is why we not only have the longest living constitution in the world best the greatest.....

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I have FAITH that when everything is over... I would be found innocent..

Some of the dozens of people who did serious time before DNA cleared them probably had similar faith.

 

[VTpro]

No I would not be cool with periodic home inspections.. nor having a cop search my car just because he feels like it.. Also the government doesn't preemptively assumes your a criminal.. they put RULES into place.. .

Why not ?
What have you got to hide in your home or car ?

Whats wrong with a cop stopping you on your way to work, and he does a brief 10 search of your vehicle ?

 

[Pilgrim]

If you are doing no wrong.. then you shouldn't worry now should you?

That was said 1,000 times a day in Nazi Germany....by the Nazis.

 

[Fsorrent]

No I would not be cool with periodic home inspections.. nor having a cop search my car just because he feels like it.. Also the government doesn't preemptively assumes your a criminal.. they put RULES into place..

yes... I know it may be hard for MOST of you to believe... but I have FAITH in my God and Country... If I was arrested for killing or raping someone... and I did not do it... I have FAITH that when everything is over... I would be found innocent..

I would hope you'd exercise your constitutional rights, because if your being charged with murder those two cops aren't trying to figure out what happened, they are trying to get a confession out of you and would love for you to "start talking, because you have nothing to hide".

 

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

Some of the dozens of people who did serious time before DNA cleared them probably had similar faith.

looking back at those dozens of people... I would bet everyone one of them had a record sheet a mile long.. and usually put themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time... Was it still right that they went away for all that time?? No way... but IMO.. that happing to a crack addict/armed robber is nowhere close to happening to joe blow with his wife and kids...