Don't Rock the Boat Gun Owner

GOAL

GOAL

NES Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
541
Likes
1,747
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
I normally would not post things such as this, but I felt it necessary to show all of you why we have such a hard time getting things done. When gun owners are telling me not to rock the boat because they have it good, we are indeed in trouble. We apparently shouldn't be working to ensure that the state enforce the laws and take responsibility for a corrupt system.

I removed the emailer's info to protect his privacy.

_______________________________________________________



As a followup to my previous e-mail, I must express a concern with regard to equanimity in licensing. Certainly I am aware of many of the illegal requirements being imposed locally in many cities and towns. For example, last I knew, in the town of Auburn, renewal applicants were being required to retake a safety course ($100) on each and every renewal. The course was conducted by a retired police officer ( I assume Auburn). This information may be outdated by now and should be rechecked.

In some towns (cities) an applicant has to be on bended knee to get a Class B, and a Class A requires an act of God. While in a lot of other places, licensing is a relative piece of cake.

This should not be the case for a STATE law.

HOWEVER, AS THE RESIDENT OF A PRETTY LENIENT TOWN, I AM TRULY CONCERNED. IF WE ADDRESS THIS AT A STATE LEVEL, AND DEMAND ACROSS THE STATE EQUALITY, THEN THE VOCIFEROUS INPUT FROM THE LIKES OF TOM MENINO WILL BE HEARD.

THE LIKELY RESULT, IF WE ACTUALLY ACHIEVE EQUAL TREATMENT, WILL BE AN AVERAGING OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE VARIOUS LOCALITIES. AND THAT AVERAGING WILL GUARANTEE A "SHIFT" TOWARDS THEIR SIDE OF THE FENCE, AND A BIG "SHIFT" AT THAT.

I CANNOT SEE BOSTON AND OTHER "PEOPLE'S REPUBLICS" LOOSENING UP THEIR NOOSE ON GUN OWNERS. IT JUST AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. WHAT I CAN SEE HAPPENING IS A REWRITE OF THE STATE LICENSING LAW TO INCLUDE MORE AND MORE RETRICIONS ON ALL MASS CITIZEN'S RIGHTS.

APPEALING TO GOV PATRICK WHILE CERTAINLY IS "GOING TO THE TOP', IT IS, AS I SEE IT, THE LIGHTING OF A FUSE, WITH LITTLE TO NO CHANCE OF A POSITIVE OUTCOME. HE WILL NOT BE A SYMPATHETIC EAR. IN FACT, WE CAN BE ASSURED THAT HE WILL USE OUR COMPLAINT TO FURTHER THE ANTI-GUN OWNER AGENDA.

IF GOAL IS TO RIGHTFULLY ADDRESS THIS INEQUALITY, THEN I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE DONE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

LOOK AT GOAL DEMOGRAPHICS. WHERE DO OUR MEMBERS LIVE? CONTACT OUR MEMBERS TO LEARN WHAT GOES ON IN THEIR TOWNS. IDENTIFY POLICE CHIEFS BY NAME. PICK OUR BATTLES.

KEEP IT LOCAL. IN THE CASE OF A "MINOR" INFRACTION AS IN WESTMINSTER, A SIMPLE, NON-CONFRONTATIONAL FYI LETTER MAY BE ALL THAT'S NECESSARY. WHY TAKE OUT THE SLEDGEHAMMER AS A FIRST APPROACH TO SOMEONE WHO IS OTHERWISE ON OUR SIDE.

IN THE CASE OF AUBURN (CITED ABOVE) MAYBE SOMETHING A TOUCH STRONGER IS INDICATED, BUT AGAIN, NOT THE "WE WILL TAKE YOU TO COURT" SLEDGEHAMMER. AT LEAST NOT AT FIRST.

PLACES LIKE BOSTON, WE MAY HAVE TO ADMIT, THAT WITHOUT A DRAMATIC TURNAROUND IN POLITICAL CLIMATE, WILL REMAIN BEYOND REDEMPTION. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. WE HAVE TO PICK OUR BATTLES.
 
This is a very interesting post, and while both sides have merit, the correct course of action is by no mean obvious. I don't feel I have a moral right to argue "don't rock the boat", since I live in a bright green town.

GOAL has already achieved "standardization" in one area - getting the "reason for issuance" (that one lower court deemed to not be a restriction) changed to "restriction", thus removing an ambiguity in a manner that helps the other side. In my opinion, pushing on the "what does reason for issuance mean" issue was destined to failure as the alternative (an official state decision that all licenses were unrestricted) was clearly not going to happen.

The emailer does make a good point - there is risk in any course of action, and that risk needs to be evaluated and considered. On interesting example is Michigan - that state went from "may issue to "shall issue" a few years ago but, in the process, those persons who already had MI LTC's, and out of staters carrying under reciprocity provisions, lost as a number of new "permit not valid" zones were created as part of shall issue.

HOWEVER, AS THE RESIDENT OF A PRETTY LENIENT TOWN, I AM TRULY CONCERNED.
Click to expand...
That person might feel different if he was in a town where LTCA/unrestricted was limited to persons of privilege, power and influence.
 
Last edited:
He does point out a frightening possible scenario. Are you sure that would NOT be the case? As it is in politics, as goes Boston, so goes the state. It's pretty much the same in all states with large metro areas. They control most of the lawmaking.

I'm not advocating his position, just asking a question that is probably on many peoples minds.
 
There's a solution to going to the state level: elect better representatives.

Not that it's practical, but that's the only way to ensure a fair shake.
 
Are you sure that would NOT be the case?
Click to expand...

That's what I meant when I suggested a "risk analysis" of any course of action. I cringe at the thought of a state board determining who has "sufficient need".
 
Pilgrim said:
Re: 2a and Must issue.

Where in the phrase 'shall not be infringed' does the word 'permit' appear?
Click to expand...

I just went and read some of the US constitution and amend 2. And, I agree, "infringe " is a very powerful word.

How in the world then can states as well as the US govt "infringe" on this right with so many restrictions and bans etc?

I guess I haven't really followed this or researched on line this info, but there must have been precedent court cases by individuals who have tried to protect the 2nd amen right.... similar to the DC case.
 
If his town turns from green to red, I bet his thinking will change.

Talk about sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem
 
Martin Niemoeller:

"In Germany they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up"
__________________________________________________________

And so it goes.....................
 
In order to add any validy to the argument that going to the top might change the dynamics, you would have to seriously beleive that lawfull gun owners are responsible for the crime rates mentioned and that more laws or those already on the books work.
We all know they don't and haven't! Personally I find it reprehensable that any lawful gun owner would be satified with the status quo or the fact that some towns are green and some are red and black. If you accept that scenario you are doomed to potentially becoming a red or black town with a simple personnel change. The reason why they have passed these laws in the first place is because gun owners have not banded together as the gun grabbers have, choosing instead to accept the fact that other citizens are discriminated against.

I personally choose to stand up for the rights of all citizens regardless of where they live for fair gun laws.
 
If the legal/political battles are to be won, gun owners have to come out of the closet and be proud of who they are.
Click to expand...
Well said. If all the upstanding members of the community who are gun owners hide, and the only examples of gun ownership those not involved in the issue see are the criminals, we have only ourselves to blame.
 
Jim said:
WHAT'S WRONG WITH ALL CAPS? IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO READ! [smile]
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Caps make all letters the same dimension. As we recognize letters by shape and CAPS greatly reduce the distinctiveness of a letter's shape, ALL CAPS is harder to read.

ALL CAPS is also the internet equivalent of shouting. Who wants to read or listen to a screamer?
 
That Email reminds me of this.

First they came for the Catholics, but I wasn't a catholic so I did nothing. Then they came for the Jews, but I wan't a Jew, so I did nothing . . . then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up! The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.
Click to expand...
 
I found this on another forum...probably made up but it is a good read none the less...

There was a chemistry professor in a large college who had some exchange
students in the class. One day, while the class was in the lab the
professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing His
back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him
he had a bullet lodged in his back. Communists in his native country who
were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new
communist regime, had shot him while he was fighting them.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked: "Do you
know how to catch wild pigs?" The professor thought it was a joke and asked
for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting
corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the
free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one
side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the
fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the
fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you
have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs,
which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that
free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around
inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free
corn. They are so used to It that they have forgotten how to forage in the
woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees
happening in America . The government keeps pushing us toward
Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of
programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), tax credit for
unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies,
payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc... while
we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

One should always remember : There is no such thing as a free
lunch...

If you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem
confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send
this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your
way of life, then you will probably delete this email. But, God help you
when the gate slams shut!

The only thing I can add to this is a question for you... Which candidates
out there are most anxious to spread around the feed corn, and what might
their motives be? Think about it, and think about it very carefully...!
 
On the other hand...

If the state did implement the requirements that exist in Boston statewide, maybe we'll finally get these boneheads off their duff and do something.

Then again, you'll probably see some kind of "be nice to hunters" legislation and all the hunters say "not my problem".

My only real comment on this is the following:

It is against all that this country is about for a citizen to not know the exact specific reason(s) that a right is stripped from them. In MA, the very fact you need a state license is a right being removed, so any 'grey' in the process should be stricken as illegal. The fact that nobody can point to any individual in the state and explain exactly what the standards are uniformly across the state is in complete violation of everything that our system of equality under the law is all about.

In that case, I would risk my "easy green" and fight for the rights of others as I would expect them to fight for mine. It is NOT by sitting quietly in the "green" locations and praying 'they' don't see you that will change things. It is holding to 'their' face the very bigoted system that exists and demand that every citizen be treated equally.

Now, if any crimson starts appearing in my quiet green corner of the universe as a result, things will REALLY start getting ugly.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
That's what I meant when I suggested a "risk analysis" of any course of action. I cringe at the thought of a state board determining who has "sufficient need".
Click to expand...

Non-resident LTC applicants were routinely issued an LTC/A upon proof of an equivalent license in their home state. That was changed a couple of years ago to require a letter stating need, but it is still a far more uniform system than what residents are subjected to.

The ""wide latitude" and "broad discretion" granted local authorities is a court-sanctioned system of arbitrary and capricious procedure. "Doctor's letters," "letters of recommendation," range tests and "recertification" are the result of this abusive system.

I am not at all sure that the total removal of licensing from locals in favor of the state per the present non-resident system would be deleterious. Indeed, the FLRB functions far more fairly than many local PD's as regards the review of applicants.
 
Scrivener said:
Non-resident LTC applicants were routinely issued an LTC/A upon proof of an equivalent license in their home state. That was changed a couple of years ago to require a letter stating need, but it is still a far more uniform system than what residents are subjected to.

The ""wide latitude" and "broad discretion" granted local authorities is a court-sanctioned system of arbitrary and capricious procedure. "Doctor's letters," "letters of recommendation," range tests and "recertification" are the result of this abusive system.

I am not at all sure that the total removal of licensing from locals in favor of the state per the present non-resident system would be deleterious. Indeed, the FLRB functions far more fairly than many local PD's as regards the review of applicants.
Click to expand...

So what do we do, hope for Heller to get affirmed then attack the MA licensing structure on equal protection grounds, since that's already incorporated against the states and the 2nd hasn't been? I seriously doubt that we'd get a uniform licensing structure through the GC without giving up an arm and leg.
 
By the way, someone needs to remind the writer that at one time all the towns were pretty much green and that wasn't that many years ago!
 
Jim said:
You are quite good at dishing out sarcasm but you are apparently completely unable to understand when others are using it. [laugh]
Click to expand...

I don't know you well enough to tell from your writing. Especially as it had nothing to do with Apple....

No offense intended; just clarification. [wink]
 
Who need Heller for that?

State law already charges the Sept of Public Safety to define the application process. Any action not a part of that process should be viewed as a breech of authority.

Using the "suitability" clause to justify harassment should not be tolerated by the courts, legislature, or the Dept of Public Safety.

If, in the eyes of a license authority, the process isn't sufficient to determine suitability, he should petition the Dept of Public Safety, the State Police, or the legislature to change the process. Having an unelected official arbitrarily defining new requirements is akin to giving them the power to create law which is certainly not granted anywhere in the licensing laws. The fact that the courts (who can't seem to keep the dangerous criminals behind bars in the first place) has allowed this to happen is just another reason that it is the enforcement of existing law that is a real issue.
 
Chris said:
Who need Heller for that?

State law already charges the Sept of Public Safety to define the application process. Any action not a part of that process should be viewed as a breech of authority.

Using the "suitability" clause to justify harassment should not be tolerated by the courts, legislature, or the Dept of Public Safety.

If, in the eyes of a license authority, the process isn't sufficient to determine suitability, he should petition the Dept of Public Safety, the State Police, or the legislature to change the process. Having an unelected official arbitrarily defining new requirements is akin to giving them the power to create law which is certainly not granted anywhere in the licensing laws. The fact that the courts (who can't seem to keep the dangerous criminals behind bars in the first place) has allowed this to happen is just another reason that it is the enforcement of existing law that is a real issue.
Click to expand...

Our courts have already indicated that they don't believe there is an individual right to own/possess a gun (Comm. v. Davis). Thus, I don't trust them to enforce any requirements against the Commonwealth that isn't in line with their interests.
 
I support what your doing GOAL.
I think the standards of having different requirements for different cities/towns is just another way MASS tries to confuse and over regulate lawful gun owners.
 
pdm said:
Our courts have already indicated that they don't believe there is an individual right to own/possess a gun (Comm. v. Davis). Thus, I don't trust them to enforce any requirements against the Commonwealth that isn't in line with their interests.
Click to expand...

Aye. But one of the most admirable traits of the human race is to hold onto hope and have faith.

The only positive alternative to working within the system is to start revolting. I would hope people might get the message before lead starts flying. Massachusetts once before began the battle against oppression and systematic removal of arms. How odd that it might again be on this soil that the next stand against tyranny may occur.

But, I have a hope that such things may not come to pass and the light of freedom may once again shine from Beacon Hill.

All it would take is for those in their comfy green towns to stand together with those oppressed and shout in a chorus too loud to ignore.

I'd much rather write letters, march, and pack courtrooms and meeting halls than stand on the village green.
 
Jim said:
type of parade each year where lawful gun owners can march under the banner of GOAL while handing out information and inviting people to come to a GOAL sponsored shoot somewhere.
Click to expand...

I like that idea alot.
 
It should be kept in mind that this particular issue is not an argument about Chief’s discretion, unfair license restrictions or even an opinion that the licensing of a civil right is unconstitutional.

Rather, this a matter of simply asking that the state take responsibility for an out of control system and curb the illegal activities being conducted by its licensing agents. In short, follow the very laws that they themselves enacted!

If we citizens cannot expect our government to adhere to its own laws, then where does that leave us?
 

Similar threads

These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
603
Zappa
Zappa
Worcester pulls license of critical business owner
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
4K
s&w3913
S
Turncoat Gun Shop Owner
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
MauraHealey
M
WATCH: Eight Alleged Armed Robbers Flee Jewelry Store When Owner Appears with Shotgun
Replies
3
Views
136
friscoeast
F
Worcester PD - Going after the guns but how about the perps…
Replies
14
Views
575
houdini
houdini
Back
Top Bottom