Hey, wait a second...I don't like this at all!

MaroonedinMA

NES Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
1,408
Likes
3,052
Location
Eastern MA
Feedback: 19 / 0 / 0
Sometimes we know all the salient factors in a decision yet never stop to put them together. Today I made a mental leap I should have made long ago.

Like most gun nuts...er, defense minded firearms enthusiasts, I have long shied away from using my nicer and/or rarer pistols for defensive use. for a while I used to use a plain-jane 226 in 9, lately, in response to my new (distinctly unpleasant) urban surroundings, I use an 870. My reasoning has always been that I don't want to loose something great to the po po evidence locker should I ever have to deploy it.

Sounds logical...sorta.

Then I realized that, given my location, if for any reason I ever have to use or possibly even deploy my firearm, my license (and rights) are already halfway out the door thus I've lost them all anyway. Kinda makes me consider using a chrome plated picnic gun just for giggles.

The best part of MA is that there are 49 other states roughly 45 of which are better.
 
A bit fatalistic, no? Yes.
Eh, maybe I'm just a little overwhelmed...I've been reading here for hours about how evil Boston is and about how they're going to yank my non-restricted class A (if I haven't departed by the time I need to renew it) or slap a bunch of restrictions on it or worse yet, beat me up with a class B, as soon as I need to renew it (3 years). Then I read...well, I just read and damn. It's enough to make you want you want t re-think your employment though in this shite economy...
 
It is understandable you are overwhelmed by reading through all the MA law tripe. But look at it this way...If you have to use your sidearm to defend yourself or another, whether it is in Boston or Boylston, matters not. If you find yourself in court about it and get sent to prison forever (meaning you lived), you will eventually die there. If you die during the encounter, you will not care about your issue, since you are, well, dead. If you are aquitted of any charges due to your self-defense defense, then you don't have to worry because you will die eventually anyway.

What you choose to fret about is all up to you.

The choice is, of course, yours.
 
Actually...I think we've arrived at the same place via different paths. My point, like yours, is that if you have to use it in this state, particularly in the reddest of red areas, you'll be lucky to get off with just the loss of the particular firearm in question as well as your right to own one in MA. Now, my understanding is that loosing ones license in one state, can make it tough to get a license even in states that aren't as draconian. Sure, I could move to VT or AK but I'm already living here in an attempt to stay employed...Anyway, my point is, I feel the heavy weight of Mennino's big ass on my back.
 
Get out and breath the free air, life is too short IMO. Also, I can't imagine the cost of living in Boston either. It's probably more than my yearly salary.
 
Well, all I am trying to say is...

Whether you are here in MA, in super gun-friendly VT, or in the back-bayous of Louisiana; If you are in a situation where you would have to use your firearm, to protect either your own life of the life of another, I very much doubt that you will be thinking about the repercussions of using your firearm for defense based upon what state you are located in for the fraction of a second you have to respond.

I mean, who does that? And who could? If you are about to be knifed by a mugger, would you not pull the trigger if you are in MA, but WOULD pull the trigger if you are in NH? Doesn't make any sense, does it. Of course not.

Be judged by the 12, not loamed by the 6.
 
Be judged by the 12, not loamed by the 6.



Of course you're right. If you have to use it, you have to use it- that's what it's there for. I'm simply commenting on the fallacy of the logic behind not using one of your better guns simply cause you don't want to risk it's confiscation which appears inevitable in this location.
 
This is a quite fatalistic view. If you have to employ a firearm in self defense and the shooting is justified, even in MA you will probably be fine. There aren't many "armed citizen" type stories in MA, but I can think of 2-3 cases in the last few years where a licensed gun owner killed someone in defense of self or others and didn't face any charges.
 
This is a quite fatalistic view. If you have to employ a firearm in self defense and the shooting is justified, even in MA you will probably be fine. There aren't many "armed citizen" type stories in MA, but I can think of 2-3 cases in the last few years where a licensed gun owner killed someone in defense of self or others and didn't face any charges.

To add to that, they also did not lose their license. I can't see any police chief, even in the reddest of the red towns pulling your LTC because of a good shoot.
 
Well...perhaps I did let all that legalese go to my head. It's pretty overwhelming to a guy who's police chief dropped off his last license renewal at his house cause he was in the neighborhood and stayed for a cup off coffee. Thanks for the positive counsel!
 
If I am forced to use my gun in a self defense situation, I don't care what I have to use, the least of my worries is going to be is 'will I get this back.' You could very well be in a situation of life and death, and in that case, I want the weapon that I am the most confident in, most proficient in and the most reliable.
 
Only a couple of more months until I'm out of this Hellhole and never need consider what happens to my license in an even marginally defensible shoot. Hell, the penalty for almost all firearm-related offenses in Washington that don't involve a felony is a small fine and short suspension of your Concealed Pistol License, after which they HAVE to re-issue it.

Other aside from being cruel to people stuck here I agree with the original poster in one sense. When I bought the shotty I use for home defense, I took off all the tacticool accouterments the previous owner had put onto it. They aren't necessary for me and I anticipate not just losing my firearms, which would be the least of my worries, but the likelihood of actually being charged with a crime.

In Mass. I don't want to find out how a jury would react to a particularly "scary looking" gun if I was on trial for a self-defense shooting. I'm sure you could count on the DA making hay of your "military-style assault weapon." And don't even get me started on what they'd say bout reloads "Especially designed by the defendant to kill people," as though that wasn't the purpose of ANY cartridge.

Trusting a jury to make a rational choice here when guns are involved is not something I ever want to have to bet my freedom on. It won't keep me from pulling the trigger on whatever gun is to hand, but it will sure as Hell influence a lot of other decisions I would make here.
 
This is a quite fatalistic view. If you have to employ a firearm in self defense and the shooting is justified, even in MA you will probably be fine. There aren't many "armed citizen" type stories in MA, but I can think of 2-3 cases in the last few years where a licensed gun owner killed someone in defense of self or others and didn't face any charges.

I'm not sure if there just aren't too many cases of citizens defending themselves and not being prosecuted or that's just the liberal media's intent not to show stories of that nature. It would mean that carrying a gun deters crime...we can't have that can we?

Of course many people cannot defend themselves because they are denied right to carry, which makes the deck stacked against 'armed citizen" stories. Percentage of population of citizens that carry is low, which keeps armed response to violence by law abiding citizens low.

One thing is there's no shortage of stories about victims of violence here in this state. If you want to worry about all the nuances of what will happen if you use your weapon to defend yourself, then you are falling right into the liberal's playbook and increase the odds of becoming one of those victims.
 
Last edited:
If you want to worry about all the nuances of what will happen if you use your weapon to defend yourself, then you are falling right into the liberal's playbook and increase the odds of becoming one of those victims.[/QUOTE]

That's hyperbole. You cannot back that bolded part with any evidence. It's just a non-sequitur.

Whether one chooses to use one perfectly reliable, accurate, man-stopping gun over another for a carry piece with the thought in mind that he might have that gun in front of a jury someday is neither foolish nor unfounded. A long time ago someone ran an article in one of the shooting magazines with a bunch of cases in which reloads and the type of gun used were put into play at trial in defensive shootings. In several of those cases the guy went to jail.

It would seem that the trick would be not to get charged in the first place. In a legally "questionable" scenario, I don't want to hand a prosecutor any goodies that make the case a "winner" for him. For me, that simply meant restoring my excellent shotgun to it's original stock. There's no down-side to it, so why not?
 
In Mass. I don't want to find out how a jury would react to a particularly "scary looking" gun if I was on trial for a self-defense shooting. I'm sure you could count on the DA making hay of your "military-style assault weapon." And don't even get me started on what they'd say bout reloads "Especially designed by the defendant to kill people," as though that wasn't the purpose of ANY cartridge.

serious.jpg


Do you Ayoob glue sniffers ever have any evidence to back this stuff up? [rofl] (and yes, we already know of Gary McFadden's tale of woe with his machinegun- but guess what, he was still acquitted.... or are you going to bring up Mr. Fish's tale of woe involving about 9000 procedural errors that had nothing to do with the gun he was carrying... )

Come on, Bill... you should know better, frankly.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if there just aren't too many cases of citizens defending themselves and not being prosecuted or that's just the liberal media's intent not to show stories of that nature...

I would bet my bottom dollar that there are far more law-abiding self-defense stories not reported than anyone could calculate.
 
I would bet my bottom dollar that there are far more law-abiding self-defense stories not reported than anyone could calculate.

Yes, especially the cases where the gun came out and the BG ran off. A lot of those probably don't even make the police logs in the local papers.

-Mike
 
If you have a handgun that you positively, absolutely can't stand to lose or have damaged, they you don't want to carry it because a carry gun will show wear. another option: for almost any gun, you can buy a duplicate to carry.

The chances of some incident short of an actual shooting are much higher than the chances of a shooting incident.
 
My guns worth can only buy about 20 or so billable hours of a good criminal defense attorney. If I had to shoot for self-defense, losing my guns will be like the #3 or #4 things on the list of concerns.
 
My guns worth can only buy about 20 or so billable hours of a good criminal defense attorney. If I had to shoot for self-defense, losing my guns will be like the #3 or #4 things on the list of concerns.

Agreed, the loss of the firearm is going to be a drop in the bucket compared to all the other BS you may go through. A gun can be replaced, your family can't. Use what you are most familiar with.
 
Back
Top Bottom