-
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.
Globe Reporter Matt Carroll takes basic firearms safety course
- Thread starter ztp
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
good for him! I am glad he enjoyed shooting, too.
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
Nope, but he is the most infamous here...
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
same here.
Yes, there are some errors of fact in the article. I sent a private Email to Matt pointing out the mis-information. I don't do "letters to the editor" and don't want my name in print.
Titan
Banned
Keeping your gun and ammo in two separate places MAY be a good decision on a personal basis dependin upon how each individual reacts to being awakened.
I'd support any individual who made the choice because they take a long while to clear their head upon awakening, have extreme vision issues which they'd want to resolve first, etc. Obviously a trade-off is made regarding delayed response time, but again I wouldn't question anyone's personal choice if they willingly made that trade-off to avoid a catastrophe until they were coherent and clear headed.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 9,009
- Likes
- 5,488
The other thing that jumped in my face was the sentence "Even with the certificate, a police chief can still turn down an applicant for various reasons, such as if he or she had been convicted of a violent crime."
That implies a couple of misleading things, which nobody in the general public has understands:
(1) it implies that the police have discretion to grant a LTC to a convicted violent criminal
(2) it does not touch on the common practice of restricting LTCs to prevent people from actually
being able to carry at all, which in most cases has nothing to do with the applicant being
a violent criminal, but may just be the policy of the local PD.
I'd like to see a followup article when he applies for an LTC A ALP and then is surprised to find his license restricted by his local PD with no reason given or needed.
That implies a couple of misleading things, which nobody in the general public has understands:
(1) it implies that the police have discretion to grant a LTC to a convicted violent criminal
(2) it does not touch on the common practice of restricting LTCs to prevent people from actually
being able to carry at all, which in most cases has nothing to do with the applicant being
a violent criminal, but may just be the policy of the local PD.
I'd like to see a followup article when he applies for an LTC A ALP and then is surprised to find his license restricted by his local PD with no reason given or needed.
Last edited:
will99
NES Member
At least this is a fairer way of coming to a conclusion, where the writer shows the courage to walk the walk and formulate their own conclusion based on their experience AFTER the course.
The only thing that struck me was the statement, "My last shot nicks the bull’s-eye, and I’m eager for more, but it’s someone else’s turn." I think that most people that are hesitant to shoot, or are anti-gun, would feel exactly the same way once they actually shoot a firearm.
Though the article isn't exactly what "We" would want, I think it's a step in the right direction, considering the general audience of The Globe.
Thank you Matt, and no real offense meant to Globe readers
Though the article isn't exactly what "We" would want, I think it's a step in the right direction, considering the general audience of The Globe.
Thank you Matt, and no real offense meant to Globe readers
Last edited:
I wonder what the official class title was for this BFS course. I'll have to call Matt this week and ask.
I was going to point that out as well. I wonder who told either her or him for that...and why the instructor didn't correct him for the article.
Twigg
NES Member
I doubt there'll be any follow up.
Note the nifty lil' escape clause in the closing. "...if I want." Yeah, right.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
He's just another lib hack doing what his editor told him to do so they can say "We're fair and balanced" or something like that.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
C'mon, its the Glob. Whadja expect ?
Further evidence of shoddy reporting, due to poor research. Note that the assertion, besides being wholly false, leads the reader to believe that it is the local chief who is saving society from felons becoming armed.
The truth, as (most of) us here already know, is that:
1. Such a conviction is a STATUTORY disqualifier under MA law, which
2. Triggers a statutory disqualification under FEDERAL law.
No "chief's discretion" needed.
Or even available.
USMA-82
NES Member
"Even with the certificate, a police chief can still turn down an applicant for various reasons, such as if he or she had been convicted of a violent crime."
What about Misdemeanors punishable by up to two years in a House of Correction? It is my understanding that being convicted of crimes like "Failure to Report a Hotel Fire" and "Causing an Injury during a Physical Exercise Class" are reasons for denial, too. Good thing, too, because we wouldn't want them Non-Hotel-Fire-Reporters walking around with guns, would we?
What about Misdemeanors punishable by up to two years in a House of Correction? It is my understanding that being convicted of crimes like "Failure to Report a Hotel Fire" and "Causing an Injury during a Physical Exercise Class" are reasons for denial, too. Good thing, too, because we wouldn't want them Non-Hotel-Fire-Reporters walking around with guns, would we?
If chiefs only denied people for "Statutory Disqualifiers" We would not be talking about this. USMA-82 just stated that people have been denied for lessor reasons.
We are NOT talking about that. Carroll said - incorrectly - that chiefs can deny for violent crime convictions. In point of fact, those are statutory disqualifiers. As I clearly stated.
Really? Let's review:
Where is the reference to DISCRETIONARY denials for such convictions? Hint: There is none.
Which leads to the reasonable inference, especially considering the source, that he misstated the law. Hence the correction, lest he misinform others. That, as we all know, is what the MSM is for.
I'll give him a virtual thumbs up for that. Not often you read about media folks who are that principled.
I'm waiting to hear a follow up from an article written by some female Cambridge resident about the safety class that she took, with the desire to "follow up". Don't ask me when or where it was written, but I do recall reading it within the past year.
Matt responded to my private Email last night. Seems that he's impressed with so much interest in his article. I guess I'll send him another Email with a pointer to this thread.
What bugs me about the second article is Rosenthal said the current restrictions make it a little bit harder for criminals and terrorist to get guns.
Umm....no. That is what the standard background checks do. The restrictions just burden LAW ABIDING people, discouraging them from protecting themselves and their families by making them feel like they are criminals themselves!
Umm....no. That is what the standard background checks do. The restrictions just burden LAW ABIDING people, discouraging them from protecting themselves and their families by making them feel like they are criminals themselves!
