Career Hurt by Lack of Gun Permit

I wish that romney was better on guns. However, considering how bad huckabee is with pardons I can better appreciate romney's position of not granting any commutations.

The sad fact is that romney is the best opportunity america's gun owners have at this time. [thinking]
 
Yeah but look what happened the last time we had a leader that stuck to his own ideals rather than what advisory groups and people around him asked and suggested.

There comes a point where Romneys decision to maintain his record is more about preserving his image rather than helping his constituants.
 
Yeah but look what happened the last time we had a leader that stuck to his own ideals rather than what advisory groups and people around him asked and suggested.

There comes a point where Romneys decision to maintain his record is more about preserving his image rather than helping his constituants.


I agree with you... there is no question that we are in a national pickle.

- Rudy is antigun.
- Huckabee is a liberal who just wants to be friends.
- John Mccain is a democrat, who I believe voted against all of bushes tax cuts and refuses to torture terrorists.

That leaves us with romney. He actually starts to look good when compared with the others. [thinking]
 
I agree with you... there is no question that we are in a national pickle.

- Rudy is antigun.
- Huckabee is a liberal who just wants to be friends.
- John Mccain is a democrat, who I believe voted against all of bushes tax cuts and refuses to torture terrorists.

That leaves us with romney. He actually starts to look good when compared with the others. [thinking]
Hmm. From where I stand, Huckabee looks liberal solely on his spending and pardon record. Romney and Giuliani look a lot more like RINOs to me. Frankly, I am starting to warm up to Paul. Unless Thompson actually wakes up and starts to campaign, I am going to throw in for Paul. I really just don't see fundamental differences with Romney and Giuliani - because with both, they are talking quite differently from their record, so I have no idea what they will actually do. Ergo, they certainly do not get my vote, at least in the primary.
 
This particular topic always makes me irritated, and this kind
of thing mentioned in the article is the reason why.....

There should be some way, at the state or federal level, or both,
for someone to "redeem" themselves of a nefarious past. If we're
not going to offer individuals that opportunity, then as a society
we should just keep them in prisons, for the rest of their
lives. It could be argued that if one is too "dangerous" to own
a gun, then they shouldn't be allowed to drive, or otherwise roam
freely in our society.

This case is especially egregious- the government went so far
as to entrust this man with other peoples lives, so why can't he
be trusted with something that is (suppose to be) a constitutional
right?

-Mike
 
There should be some way, at the state or federal level, or both, for someone to "redeem" themselves of a nefarious past.
There is (or, was) - it's called a federal petition for relief from disability. The granting of such relief does not "erase" the felony, but erases the "gun disability".

Unfortunately, congress repeatedly votes to specifically de-fund the processing of such relief applications and the supreme court has ruled that individuals whose applications are not accepted may not appeal as the non-acceptance is not a denial.
 
- John Mccain is a democrat, who I believe voted against all of bushes tax cuts and refuses to torture terrorists.

I think McCain's reasons for not wanting to torture anyone are completely reasonable and understandable.

As for the original point of this thread, to me it seems the real problem is not that Romney won't pardon the Iraq war vet (which is ridiculous also) but that the vet can't get an LTC even with that very minor mark on his otherwise clean record.
 
I agree with you... there is no question that we are in a national pickle.

- Rudy is antigun.
- Huckabee is a liberal who just wants to be friends.
- John Mccain is a democrat, who I believe voted against all of bushes tax cuts and refuses to torture terrorists.

That leaves us with Ron Paul. He actually looks good when compared with the others.
FYP
 
I think McCain's reasons for not wanting to torture anyone are completely reasonable and understandable.

Why doesn't anyone ask him if, given the choice, he would chose water-boarding over what was actually done to him in the Hanoi Hilton.

[ignoring for the now the question of the NV torturing him to confiess to personal crimes and crime of the USA, rather than divulging plans and contacts.]
 
There is (or, was) - it's called a federal petition for relief from disability. The granting of such relief does not "erase" the felony, but erases the "gun disability".

Unfortunately, congress repeatedly votes to specifically de-fund the processing of such relief applications and the supreme court has ruled that individuals whose applications are not accepted may not appeal as the non-acceptance is not a denial.

I knew this, but it's "deactivation" makes it essentially a nullity.

Additionally, even if there is a Federal system to shed prohibited
person status, a commie state like MA could probably "ignore"
such a judgment under it's own, more restrictive state laws, unless
the federal law's scope is such that it is binding against the states.

-Mike
 
I think McCain's reasons for not wanting to torture anyone are completely reasonable and understandable.

As for the original point of this thread, to me it seems the real problem is not that Romney won't pardon the Iraq war vet (which is ridiculous also) but that the vet can't get an LTC even with that very minor mark on his otherwise clean record.

I have to say that the kid obviously has much more of a record than the media is revealing. The DA was probably privy to a detailed school record, which indicates much more than we know, now. Why did they not seek a CWF for the fellow or get the charge dismissed? Both parties in the incident seem to think of it as a non-event. Why did the guy plead guilty?

In my office full of liberal co-workers every individual is for the fellow receiving a pardon. They want to PARDON EVERY CRIMINAL!
So wake-up and smell the coffee. I told one co-worker, "The fellow wants the pardon so he can his gun license." It caught her by surprise. Romney has stated that he would not restore gun rights to people.
 
I want to know the details of this 'childhood felony'. Because plenty of guys around me played with BB guns and shot at each other - not smart, fer sher, but they weren't being felonious, they were playing war or just plain tormenting each other the way boys do (or did. Nowadays they'd be locked up in a psych ward as dangerous and...well, denied their rights for the rest of their lives!) [rolleyes]
 
Why did they not seek a CWF for the fellow or get the charge dismissed? Both parties in the incident seem to think of it as a non-event. Why did the guy plead guilty?

Probably because it was "cheaper" in the short run. Probably
because nobody had the forethought to think that such a conviction
would cause him problems later, etc. A lot of people toss down a
plea without understanding the long term repercussions of doing
so. (whether the party is guilty or otherwise). Maybe his
parents had crappy counsel.... or the DA/prosecutor was a jerk.. who
knows.

-Mike
 
As for the original point of this thread, to me it seems the real problem is not that Romney won't pardon the Iraq war vet (which is ridiculous also) but that the vet can't get an LTC even with that very minor mark on his otherwise clean record.

I was under the impression you could appeal to your Chief of police or the CHSB with a Lawyer? No?
 
Why doesn't anyone ask him if, given the choice, he would chose water-boarding over what was actually done to him in the Hanoi Hilton.
Or, looking at the other side - when an American POW is waterboarded or chained naked until he s--ts himself is that a "professional interrogation technique" or "torture"? It's nasty business, but any side that uses the technique to extract information loses any legitimacy when complaining about the other side using it for a similar purpose.

-----------------

I was under the impression you could appeal to your Chief of police or the CHSB with a Lawyer? No?

No. Although you can ask the chief to reconsider, it's not an "appeal". The CHSB sdoes not handle appeals, and neither does the Firearms Licensing Review Board.

The only entity that hears firearms license denial appeals is the district court and, if the case is appealed, courts higher in the food chain.
 
Or, looking at the other side - when an American POW is waterboarded or chained naked until he s--ts himself is that a "professional interrogation technique" or "torture"? It's nasty business, but any side that uses the technique to extract information loses any legitimacy when complaining about the other side using it for a similar purpose.

Thank you for making the point better than I did.
 
I have to say that the kid obviously has much more of a record than the media is revealing. The DA was probably privy to a detailed school record, which indicates much more than we know, now...
Oh really? And the basis for this speculation, calling this veteran a lying, is what?
 
We are in TROUBLE..... wasn't the Handgun Consumer Protection Act past [sic] under is [sic] watch?

There is no such act. The original "consumer protection" BS was Scotty Harshbarger's cunning plan to use c. 93A to impede handgun sales and bolster his creds with the goo-goos in preparation of his failed run for governor. Note that he almost won.

The "quality standards" portion of the AG's edict, including the testing standards, were enacted as part of Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998 - well before Romney's reign. [rolleyes]
 
I can't believe all the sticklers on this forum want to pardon a person with a felony firearms charge to allow him to obtain a ccw. I must be in bizzaro world.Why does it matter that he's a vet.I say thanks for your service and to all on this forum, but I know quite a few vets that I wouldn't like walking around with a ccw.
 
I can't believe all the sticklers on this forum want to pardon a person with a felony firearms charge to allow him to obtain a ccw. I must be in bizzaro world.Why does it matter that he's a vet.I say thanks for your service and to all on this forum, but I know quite a few vets that I wouldn't like walking around with a ccw.

It was a BB gun. The fact that he's a vet doesn't even play into the equation for me.
 
So what, he turned it on someone pulled the trigger, hurt someone, got in trouble the pleaded guilty.I'm sorry I have no sympathy for him.
 
So what, he turned it on someone pulled the trigger, hurt someone, got in trouble the pleaded guilty.I'm sorry I have no sympathy for him.

It was a BB gun. If his crime was so severe that he shouldn't own guns, then he shouldn't be in the service, either.
 
If he was under 5 at the time O.K. but 13,and keep in mind for this to make it to court and for him to plead guilty it had to be worse than it appears as someone else stated.It was because he was 13 that they allowed him in the service.Look, guys, I'm not saying he's some crazy criminal but he has a felony firearms charge.
 
First off, Romney is a dickhead for his decision in this case. This typifies the fact that many politicians, particularly those in Massachusetts, would rather do something WRONG for the sake of being able to say they did something (read for political expediency) than to do what is right or nothing at all.

Kids do stupid things, it's a fact of life. I know people who at thirteen used to engage in mutual combat with BB guns, anything below the waist was fair game. In hindsight, yes it was kind of stupid and dangerous but their wasn't all this political PC crap about it. How about the simunitions that cops use for training these days? I've seen many a welt from them. What about paintball? Ever seen a welt from one of those?

For Romney to hold this against someone who has clearly demonstrated their maturity in later years and learned from their mistakes, for his own political expediency is idiotic, wrong and goes against the grain of reasonable discretion. Frankly I think Romney's ego has gotten the better of him over the years and he won't be getting my vote in November 2008.

EDITED TO ADD: I don't think anything to do with BB guns was a felony many years ago, any kid could buy one in a department store or sporting goods store if they had the money. They used to sit right in the rack or on the wall and we used to stop in after school and oogle at them, trying to figure out how many cashed in coke bottles it would take to buy one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom