• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Christy Mihos on WRKO

JonJ

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
13,068
Likes
353
Location
Plymouth, MA
Feedback: 11 / 0 / 0
Did anyone else catch Christy Mihos on the "Johnny D" show yesterday morning? Someone called in and asked where he stood on the 2nd and Massachusetts gun laws. Mihos said that he supports the 2nd, and he shoots regularly with his son who is a hunter. Mihos said that he wasn't a hunter.....yet. He commented that Mass laws are too restrictive and mentioned the power that chiefs have in issuing LTC's. A comment on the failure of gun control in DC was made but I can't remember if Mihos or JD made it.
 
I sent an email to his camp to get a statement from him on exactly where he stands on the 2nd.
 
Last edited:
He was on Howie Carr about a month ago. If I lived in Mass. I would support him. He gave all the right answers as far as I was concerned.

Brian
 
His stance on illegals is right too. No services, no licenses. If someone hires an illegal, fine them and big.
He's pro choice.
Wants the Turnpike Authority eliminated (no surprise there).

When you listen to him, you hear nothing but common sense, something that there isn't too much of these days.
 
Common sense in this state would be refreshing. If he is elected he will have his hands tied with the 85% democratic legislature. [angry]
 
derek said:
Common sense in this state would be refreshing. If he is elected he will have his hands tied with the 85% democratic legislature. [angry]
So will a Republican but better him or Muffy than a Democratic Gov.
Here's the audio from the Howie Carr show. I haven't listened to it yet. I emailed the campaign to see if they would get the audio from yesterday's WRKO interview.
http://www.christy2006.com/pages/radio.cfm
 
Christy's the only candidate for any office in MA who I've heard actually use the phrase "carry a gun" when talking about things that law-abiding people should be able to do.

He's got my vote.

I know too well how all the Dem candidates feel on the issue, and I can't help but feel that Muffy Healey would be a "don't rock the boat" kind of Governor and do nothing to restore our gun rights.

I can see her being as much a friend to gun owners as Romney's been.

Oooooh....the LTC will fit in your wallet now!

Big whoop-dee-f***.

If we could get shall-issue CCW in MA, I'd settle for a license that woud require me to wear a backpack to carry the damn thing.
 
mAss Backwards said:
I know too well how all the Dem candidates feel on the issue, and I can't help but feel that Muffy Healey would be a "don't rock the boat" kind of Governor and do nothing to restore our gun rights.

Sort of like little Billy Weld. That guy was a bold faced liar if I ever saw one. I remember him on tv telling the listeners that things had changed from when he first came into office, and that's why he supported the 94 AWB. Hmmm, the crime stats showed that crime was going down.

That guy was a total RINO!

Brian
 
Last edited:
mAss Backwards said:
...I can't help but feel that Muffy Healey would be a "don't rock the boat" kind of Governor and do nothing to restore our gun rights.

I can see her being as much a friend to gun owners as Romney's been.

Oooooh....the LTC will fit in your wallet now!

Big whoop-dee-f***.

You ignore the more significant benefits of Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004:

1. License period increased 50% at the same fee;

2. Restoration of the 90-day grace period; and

3. Creation of the FLRB.

Of course, #1 was after the period had been reduced 20% while the fee quadrupled, and #2 gave us what should not have been taken away, but the bottom line is that there were substantial improvements Romney signed.

Of course, he did so at a press conference at which he IGNORED the real architect of the improvements, GOAL, while praising the gun-grabbers.

I don't think Healy would do more and expect she would do far less.
 
Scrivener said:
You ignore the more significant benefits of Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004:

1. License period increased 50% at the same fee;

2. Restoration of the 90-day grace period

Lot of good those do for the people who live in Quincy, Brookline, etc.

Licenses could be valid for life and cost $1.50, but if your police chief has a stick up his ass the size of the Bunker Hill Monument, those "reforms" do nothing for you.

They represent but the "babiest" of baby steps.
 
Waiting for the other shoe to drop and all the two-party-realists to come in and squash this thread. Muffy will be a disaster. Obviously our favorite AG would be relatively worse disaster. But there's a chance here to put in somebody who has a record putting his ass on the line fighting Beacon Hill's BS and actually believes the 2nd isn't an outdated embarrassment.

I'm for Mihos 1000%.
 
crakowski said:
Waiting for the other shoe to drop and all the two-party-realists to come in and squash this thread. Muffy will be a disaster. Obviously our favorite AG would be relatively worse disaster. But there's a chance here to put in somebody who has a record putting his ass on the line fighting Beacon Hill's BS and actually believes the 2nd isn't an outdated embarrassment.

I'm for Mihos 1000%.
So far, I'd have to say that I'm with you and it's not just based on his stance on the 2nd either.
It's time for a political revolution in this state and I can only hope that it's starting now.
 
Sometimes you just HAVE to make a change, and this is one of those times.

Crakowski, I'm a 2 party realist, but, more importantly, I'm an issue voter, and my only 2 party reality deals in electability and numbers. Voting for Ross Perot in 1992 to make a statement against Bush 1 backfired on me. Look what we got stuck with from that. I'm one of those folks that said voting for Badnarik wasn't smart in 2004. Mostly I said that I'm not voting for Bush as much as I'm voting AGAINST Kerry. Not that way this time. Both need to be voted against. Time to clean house.
 
mAss Backwards said:
Lot of good those do for the people who live in Quincy, Brookline, etc.

Licenses could be valid for life and cost $1.50, but if your police chief has a stick up his ass the size of the Bunker Hill Monument, those "reforms" do nothing for you.

They represent but the "babiest" of baby steps.

Not if you live in the 330+ cities and towns that DON'T indulge in such abuses. Note also that the LOCAL chief is, first and foremost, a LOCAL issue. [rolleyes]

That said, a law expressly stating that the form issued by CHSB and the information sought thereon is the ONLY document required to apply and the ONLY information which must be supplied would definitely make my day.
 
time to clean house

Exactly. Both parties need to be voted against now. $15,000,000,000 of Big Dig was not brought to you by Democrats alone.

JonJ's also right when you say the 2nd isn't even the best reason to vote for Mihos. He's a scrappy guy. I like that. Romney's kid gloves got us nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Shall issue isn't the Holy Grail of our fight.

mAss Backwards said:
If we could get shall-issue CCW in MA, I'd settle for a license that woud require me to wear a backpack to carry the damn thing.

Shall issue is not only a two edged sword, it has broken glass for a pommel. I’ve heard and read from people that TX, VA and other states that have shall issue are so much better than MA. This isn’t true, yes it can be a pain to get a LTC in MA, we may not be able to purchase ammo online or get certain firearms in state, but look at where you can carry with an unrestricted LTC in MA. Now compare that with other states with “shall issue.”

If one was to push for shall issue in this state it is conceivable that the only thing that you could carry is the LTC. The socialists in this state would push to put mundane places off limits such as: any store that sells alcohol, churches, banks/ atms, restaurants, any store that puts up a “30.06” sign such as the ones in OH and TX, or even just a blanket ban on places where people may congregate. Careful what you wish for.

As far as republicans in state office, there are more democrats in office that are on our side, mostly due to the population that hunts in this state.
 
That's why i used the word "if".

Shall-issue CCW just isn't going to happen here. Why, that would empower the masses, and make them less reliant on their benignant overlords on Beacon Hill.

And, we can't have that now, can we?
 
sdavid said:
Shall issue is not only a two edged sword, it has broken glass for a pommel. I’ve heard and read from people that TX, VA and other states that have shall issue are so much better than MA. This isn’t true, yes it can be a pain to get a LTC in MA, we may not be able to purchase ammo online or get certain firearms in state, but look at where you can carry with an unrestricted LTC in MA. Now compare that with other states with “shall issue.”

If one was to push for shall issue in this state it is conceivable that the only thing that you could carry is the LTC. The socialists in this state would push to put mundane places off limits such as: any store that sells alcohol, churches, banks/ atms, restaurants, any store that puts up a “30.06” sign such as the ones in OH and TX, or even just a blanket ban on places where people may congregate. Careful what you wish for.

As far as republicans in state office, there are more democrats in office that are on our side, mostly due to the population that hunts in this state.


With regard to Shall Issue/May Issue in MA... the problem is a little more complicated than that. CCW/ALP is only part of the problem. Unlike most other states, any LTC for whatever purpose is "May Issue" and subject to the discretion of the CLEO.

A Class A or B LTC is still required to purchase and posses large capacity rifles and handguns.

I know the court rulings have used the terms "arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion" in determining the level of authority police chiefs have in
issuing LTCs.

I'm not immediately aware of any CLEOs flat out denying a Class A or Class B LTC, but that still doesn't make me feel any better.
 
Exactly. They are not simply licenses to carry. They dictate who can possess what period. Carried or not. Even reloading components.
 
JonJ said:
When you listen to him, you hear nothing but common sense, something that there isn't too much of these days.
I agree,which unfortunately means he's pretty much unelectable in this state. Everyone knows that Massachusetts politicians and common sense don't mix.
 
He was on WRKO earlier this week (or was it this morning? I can't remember. I think with the idiot Scott Allen Miller) and I tried to get on to ask him specifically about his stance on the Second Amendment and gun owners' rights. I'm glad to see someone got through to him and he said what he said.

During that same interview I heard, he was saying that Connecticut had an independent governor, so did Maine, and both did well. Why couldn't we all get behind him? The majority of voters in this state are independents - maybe he can capture their votes. We can only hope. [thinking]
 
I heard a caller ask him about gunlaws when he was on the Depetro show. That seemed to be the only "Politition" answer he gave durring that appearence.

He said he was pro 2nd A, and he would "Work with Police Cheifs to get more consistant laws" (and the caller mentioned he haded the inconsistancy in the laws).

I'd like to see an offical statement posted here....still he looks like the man that's gonna get my vote.

-Weer'd Beard
 
Back
Top Bottom