Globe Reporter Matt Carroll takes basic firearms safety course

[USMA-82]

What about them? They are NOT statutory disqualifiers.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the offense has to carry a potential penalty in excess of two years.

My mistake - these DO carry potential penalties in excess of two years - do they not?

 

[HooVooLoo]

nm

 

[LKB3rd]

same here.

I agree on the storing ammo away from the gun, but all in all, it's a positive article and a good thing if you ask me.

 

[jcr]

Can someone tell me where in the paper-version of the newspaper this appeared?

I've looked through the article. In the past they'd say what page it originally appeared on. I can't find it.

 

[ljr]

Can someone tell me where in the paper-version of the newspaper this appeared?

Paper? I have not read a paper version of the Globe in years!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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?

You're forgetting "receipt for deposit by insolvent banking institution"

 

[Mark from MA]

It was an OK read if you look at it from the normal moonbat 6th grade mentality weenie Globe reader point of view, where they are surprised they have the freedom to own a gun.

 

[Scrivener]

It was an OK read if you look at it from the normal moonbat 6th grade mentality weenie Globe reader point of view, where they are probably surprised they have the freedom to own a gun.

And STILL no comprehension of why anyone would wish to.........

 

[Bill Katt]

And STILL no comprehension of why anyone would wish to.........

Wish being a key word as far as the BS laws in this God forsaken state.

 

[Conservativegirl]

.

 

[Mark from MA]

And STILL no comprehension of why anyone would wish to.........

Exactly....

What bothers me about it is he goes over all the costs which is good, but there is no comparision to other states....especially our neighbors to the north who practice their constitutional rights for free. Imagine the horror of them finding out about our lawless lands to the north are actually safer places to live than anywhere near Boston.

 

[Len-2A Training]

You now need a firearms safety course or an hunter safety course for a new FID.

I copied this from the FID application.

Please Check One
New Applicant
Renewal - Most Recent License to Carry/FID Number:
Issued from Which City/Town? MA Expiration Date:
*NOTE: If application is for first firearms identification card or license to carry firearms, a copy of the Firearms Safety Certificate or
Hunter Safety Course Certificate must be attached to this application.

That's been true since 1998, HOWEVER, like most gov't forms they don't tell the entire story. FID-D (restricted to chemical sprays) by MGLs does NOT require any training at all. The fee is also different ($25 with free renewals vs. $100 per issue/renewal for other classes of FID/LTC).

 

[bostonasphalt2]

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.

How does one "trigger" another?

 

[HooVooLoo]

Just pull the trigger.

 

[Scrivener]

You now need a firearms safety course or an hunter safety course for a new FID.

Hardly new. Anyone who was not licensed as of 7/98 or who was not subsequently licensed - which is to say, NEW applicants - must satisfy the requirement of a safety certificate.

It has been that way since 10/98.

 

[Scrivener]

How does one "trigger" another?

Quite simply.

ANY curtailment of firearms rights under STATE law renders the individual a "prohibited person" under FEDERAL law.

This is hardly news to anyone familiar with the FID "burn-off" provision, which provides illusory relief.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Quite simply.

ANY curtailment of firearms rights under STATE law renders the individual a "prohibited person" under FEDERAL law.

This is hardly news to anyone familiar with the FID "burn-off" provision, which provides illusory relief.

thanks for explaining!