In the Wake of Heller: A Campaign for "Shall Issue"

[szaino]

A problem with a ballot question would be it's likely defeat.

Great example is Question 1. It was soundly defeated, now the MBTA thugs are boosting parking and commuting fees, and the Turnpike Authority is increasing it's usage taxes too. ...

Not sure if that is a good analogy. What do you think would have happened if question 1 passed?

I can tell you without hesitation that the fees you mentioned above as well as just about every other revenue stream item the state has would have gone up even more.

 

[GSG]

The reality exists that there is a "give and take" in any law changes. Requiring more (some) hands-on training as part of the "shall issue" was what I was talking about.

I am very much opposed to the Govt regulating everything we do.

Having said that, I do not oppose all regulation. I still feel that people need to be adequatelty trained before being able to go and buy their own firearm. If that is done at the local, state, or federal level I could care less as long as it makes sense.

My issue with the training requirement is this: who sets the training standard? This is not a firearm friendly state, and every time we've given a little more control to the state WRT firearms, it has gotten further and further out of control. What's to stop them from saying that the only kind of training that meets the standard to own a gun is having attended a full-time police academy or military basic training?

I understand that you don't want dangerous people with guns. I've been muzzle swept on and off the range, seen people do stupid stuff with guns, etc. etc. It's very scary. I posted awhile back about the time someone accidentally fired a 12 gauge over my head while I was downrange. The idiots with guns do scare me, but again, it comes down to each individual.

I had a former boss point an empty pistol at my penis and pull the trigger, then laugh when I jumped. He had a Mass. LTC (requires the state safety course), was Army infantry and is now an auxiliary police officer. He had lots and lots of firearms training, passed it all with flying colors, but the fact remains that he pointed a gun at parts of me I don't want a gun pointed at, and he pulled the trigger as a joke. Absolutely idiotic of him, but he did, despite all that training and experience, plus 20 something years of gun ownership behind him.

Anyone can pass a test. Highly trained racecar and stunt drivers still get in car accidents. Highly trained gun users still make stupid mistakes sometimes.

If you're a single mom, a disabled veteran in a wheelchair on a fixed income, an old person on a fixed income, a poor college student, or just someone down on their luck, you still have a right to be able to defend yourself. Unfortunately in Massachusetts, there is a great cost already attached to gun ownership. $50-150 for a safety course, $100 for the license, and the cheapest new handgun you can buy once you have your LTC is what, a $300 Sigma? Manufacturers charge us more here anyway because they have to pay to have their guns "safety tested" to get them approved to be sold here.

In most other free states, if your life is in danger, you can get a gun faster as I wrote about before, but you can get a gun a lot cheaper. In NH, with a photo ID you can buy a Jennings, Raven, Kel-Tec, etc. brand new for exactly the cost of the gun and a box of bullets. No, they're not great guns, and yes, most of us would be ashamed to show up at the range with one.

However, when you're living hand to mouth, the difference in cost between a Jennings and a Sigma is a heck of a lot of grocery money. Or worse, if you're in the middle of a SHTF situation like the LA riots or post-Katrina New Orleans, any training requirement/license requirement/etc. is going to leave you defenseless.

Training is great. You can never have enough, for safety reasons, liability and just gun skills in general. But it doesn't mean it will generate intelligence or common sense in the trainee.

I saw a video on one of those shock television reality TV shows of a convenience store robbery in a free state (I just tried looking for it online but there’s too many convenience store robbery videos to search through). The female clerk didn't like guns, she'd never handled one before in her life and said so in this interview. When a robber came in with what seemed like a gun in his pocket, she gave him the money, and when he told her to come out from behind the counter and get on her knees (after he had the cash in hand), she felt that her life was in danger. Her boss kept a .357 magnum snub nosed revolver in a drawer behind the counter, so she drew the gun, aimed and shot the robber one time center-of-mass. He dropped, she called the police, he survived the gunshot to the stomach and served time for the attempted robbery.

My point is that this clerk didn’t need a safety course, 10 hours of Massad Ayoob approved live-fire training, or any of that to defend her life. She knew how to use the gun, she used it, and behaved in exactly the right way without any formalized firearms education.

I’m not saying every beginner has all the skills they need to shoot wonderfully safe. But I am saying that when my life is on the line, I should have the right to self-defense, immediately, with no red-tape or other BS. Gun rights should not be limited to the highly trained spec-ops proffessional.

IMHO, trading off more training for shall-issue MA licensing wouldn’t be worth it to me. Florida has shall issue LTC’s, and you only need that to carry the gun on your person. Buy a gun on a driver’s license, and carry it in your glove compartment fully loaded with no LTC whatsoever. Their training requirements are much broader than Massachusetts are WRT what kind of safety course is acceptable for an LTC, and life goes on as usual.

We don’t need to trade anything off in Mass. We need full access to our rights, no questions asked, no CLEO discretion/suitability issues, no approved firearms roster, no incredibly long wait to prevent one from legal, inexpensive, ready availability of self defense. We need a state that recognizes the Constitution and that is taken to task every time they violate our rights.

And once again, my aim is to be pleasant and informative here, so please don’t take offense at what I say.

Whatever you do, stay safe out there, and encourage gun safety every chance you get.

 

[mikem317]

Not sure if that is a good analogy. What do you think would have happened if question 1 passed?

I can tell you without hesitation that the fees you mentioned above as well as just about every other revenue stream item the state has would have gone up even more.

I could tell you what I think would happen if Question 1 passed, but I don't want to hijack the thread.

Basically, a vote for Question 1 was a vote to end government mandated theft. 70% of the voters thought that government mandated theft was a good idea. And our legislative and authoritative governing bodies see it as open season on rising other taxes. Clear examples of this would be the recent MBTA and Turnpike Authority tax increases.

 

[NFD9]

We don’t need to trade anything off in Mass. We need full access to our rights, no questions asked, no CLEO discretion/suitability issues, no approved firearms roster, no incredibly long wait to prevent one from legal, inexpensive, ready availability of self defense. We need a state that recognizes the Constitution and that is taken to task every time they violate our rights.

Exactly!

 

[szaino]

How would you feel with the following hypothetical and who would upport this.

Let's suppose the law was going to be changed to "shall Issue" and the only other new requirement would be that the applicant must pass a gun use proficiency test to be conducted by the local PD.

Let's not get off on a tangent about the test. It would be a simple standardized test connducted at a range. The standardized test would be spelled out so that applicants could prepare for the test (on their own). Similar to a driving test to get a drivers license. It may simply require safe handling and knowledge of a couple of the more common firearms- .22 rifle, semi auto handgun, or shotgum. It could even allow applicants to choose which one(s) that they wanted to be tested on.

 

[Bassturd]

How would you feel with the following hypothetical and who would upport this.

Let's suppose the law was going to be changed to "shall Issue" and the only other new requirement would be that the applicant must pass a gun use proficiency test to be conducted by the local PD.

Let's not get off on a tangent about the test. It would be a simple standardized test connducted at a range. The standardized test would be spelled out so that applicants could prepare for the test (on their own). Similar to a driving test to get a drivers license. It may simply require safe handling and knowledge of a couple of the more common firearms- .22 rifle, semi auto handgun, or shotgum. It could even allow applicants to choose which one(s) that they wanted to be tested on.

I have been thinking of ways to deal with the Canton PD that might get them to alter their thinking. One of those ideas was to approach them and ask what kind of training and proficiency might sway them to allow people to apply for and receive Class A unrestricted licenses. I am planning on getting certified as an NRA instructor over the next several months and will approach them afterwards on the subject.

What's funny about the licensing process in Canton is that I was told that one of the reasons the CLEO wants residents to get a class B first (requires it really unless there is a professional need or other powerful reason to issue an A) is that the CPD doesn't "know" the applicant and how they will deal with firearms ownership. In a sense I understand the concept they are trying to communicate, but I disagree with it in general. My feelings on the subject are that if I have lived in the tow most of my life, as has the majority of my family from childhood to adulthood, and the PD doesn't know my last name, then that's the best credentials they could ask for. Obviously I have a different line of thinking than the Chief does.

In any event, this would be the chance to put together a program through which the town PD could get to know the individual and give them a chance to qualify for the Class A as opposed to uniformly downgrading/denying.

 

[wmccurdy53]

First of all Mass is not a free state and regulations are something that today, we all will have to deal with.

I disagree with with you on a couple of counts.

1. I would rather know that someone carrying a gun knows how to use it. How many times have people here shot at a range next to a novice. It can be pretty scary.

2. Comprehensive training will require more of a commitment than currently exists. The current training costs may go up a little but this is a relatively small amount, by anyone's standards.

I think that a system which requires not only more training but a level of achievement before earning your license will actually serve as more of an attraction to the sport.

I agree with those statements. The problem, as I see it, is that Mass requires a person to obtain a license to carry in order to obtain a firearm even when that person has no intent of ever carrying it. They only want it for personal protection at home and to have the ability to transport it to/from the range.

 

[Pilgrim]

How would you feel with the following hypothetical and who would upport this.

Let's suppose the law was going to be changed to "shall Issue" and the only other new requirement would be that the applicant must pass a gun use proficiency test to be conducted by the local PD.

Let's not get off on a tangent about the test. It would be a simple standardized test connducted at a range. The standardized test would be spelled out so that applicants could prepare for the test (on their own). Similar to a driving test to get a drivers license. It may simply require safe handling and knowledge of a couple of the more common firearms- .22 rifle, semi auto handgun, or shotgum. It could even allow applicants to choose which one(s) that they wanted to be tested on.

as someone once said, very eloquently:

"What part of 'shall not be infringed', do you not understand?"

 

[wmccurdy53]

How would you feel with the following hypothetical and who would upport this.

Let's suppose the law was going to be changed to "shall Issue" and the only other new requirement would be that the applicant must pass a gun use proficiency test to be conducted by the local PD.

Let's not get off on a tangent about the test. It would be a simple standardized test connducted at a range. The standardized test would be spelled out so that applicants could prepare for the test (on their own). Similar to a driving test to get a drivers license. It may simply require safe handling and knowledge of a couple of the more common firearms- .22 rifle, semi auto handgun, or shotgum. It could even allow applicants to choose which one(s) that they wanted to be tested on.

I vote NO.
Although the argument is made that it is a reasonable requirement for the purpose of carry, such a requirement infringes on the right of the people to bear arms.
Operation of a motor vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, and thereby subject to whatever requirements the state wishes to impose.

 

[GSG]

How would you feel with the following hypothetical and who would upport this.

Let's suppose the law was going to be changed to "shall Issue" and the only other new requirement would be that the applicant must pass a gun use proficiency test to be conducted by the local PD.

Let's not get off on a tangent about the test. It would be a simple standardized test connducted at a range. The standardized test would be spelled out so that applicants could prepare for the test (on their own). Similar to a driving test to get a drivers license. It may simply require safe handling and knowledge of a couple of the more common firearms- .22 rifle, semi auto handgun, or shotgum. It could even allow applicants to choose which one(s) that they wanted to be tested on.

No, I wouldn't support it. Would shall issue be good? Yes. Would Vermont/Alaska/NH style laws be better? Yes.

 

[drgrant]

How would you feel with the following hypothetical and who would upport this.

Let's suppose the law was going to be changed to "shall Issue" and the only other new requirement would be that the applicant must pass a gun use proficiency test to be conducted by the local PD.

I wouldn't support this, as it still leaves considerable vehicles in play for abuse- especially the whole "test conducted by the local PD bit"- it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they can game the piss out of that to aggravate applicants into not bothering. (Remember, this is MA we're talking about here- and merely changing the rules will not cause the anti chiefs to go away. ) I can see it now- anti gun douchebags like Gemme in Worcester would go out of their way to make the process onerous as possible. (EX- only running tests one day a week during some small window of time, and only have one officer assigned for the job, which is busy most of the time and as a result is always overbooked, leaving applicants to wait forever just to get tested.... In the end we're still back at square one, if local control is involved. You know as well as I do that there would be no punishment for the IA for this crap, either. (seen it too many times before. )

Besides, the whole idea is still too pie in the sky- if we could pull this off politically we could probably get rid of licensing altogether, or at least get rid of licensing for basic ownership and possession.

Remember, the gun laws in MA are not about safety- they're about civilian disarmament and trying to reduce the amount of lawful gun owners. Therefore, trying to reason with the antis in regards to "safety" is a false prophecy- the people who created these laws could give a shit about safety, they just want to ban guns and reduce/eliminate ownership.

-Mike

 

[Bassturd]

I vote NO.
Although the argument is made that it is a reasonable requirement for the purpose of carry, such a requirement infringes on the right of the people to bear arms.
Operation of a motor vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, and thereby subject to whatever requirements the state wishes to impose.

Except that the right to CCW is not guaranteed in the MA State Constitution, which is the relevant law. The US Constitution is not the relevant law in this regard. All 2A does is prevent the US Congress from infringing. Not that it always works...

 

[wmccurdy53]

Except that the right to CCW is not guaranteed in the MA State Constitution, which is the relevant law. The US Constitution is not the relevant law in this regard. All 2A does is prevent the US Congress from infringing. Not that it always works...

I was not referring to CCW, I was objecting to the requirement of obtaining CCW in order to own a firearm, which Heller affirmed is an individual right guaranteed by 2A and is abridged by Mass law which also violates the 14th Amendment, which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

 

[Bassturd]

I was not referring to CCW, I was objecting to the requirement of obtaining CCW in order to own a firearm, which Heller affirmed is an individual right guaranteed by 2A and is abridged by Mass law which also violates the 14th Amendment, which states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

What you are saying here has not really been nailed down by the courts.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I stand my my earlier statement. Heller is relevant in DC because it falls under Federal Law. The point I was trying to make in this thread was that I think now would be a good time to try and market the line of thinking you are talking about. I am all for it, but I also have to recognize that it is not the case quite yet.

 

[wmccurdy53]

What you are saying here has not really been nailed down by the courts.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I stand my my earlier statement. Heller is relevant in DC because it falls under Federal Law. The point I was trying to make in this thread was that I think now would be a good time to try and market the line of thinking you are talking about. I am all for it, but I also have to recognize that it is not the case quite yet.

We are in agreement.
Aside from Alaska and Vermont, I feel that the restrictions in New Hampshire are reasonable. The time to work toward lifting the unreasonable restrictions for ownership in Massachusetts is upon us.

For those who may be wondering why this is an issue for me, I would like to become a member of Harvard Sportsmen but the added expense of a non-resident permit excludes that possibility. Current Mass law allows me to take my pistols there to participate in competition but I cannot do so for the purpose of practice.

 

[AtlasShrugging]

...Deep down all people want some kind of security, and when there is violence afoot most people want an armed man available to protect them...

How true. Look at how popular firemen, policemen, and even (gasp!) soldiers suddenly became after 9/11. The only problem is, 5 minutes later when everyone feels all warm, fuzzy, and safe again, you're back up against the wall, the enemy of peace. Until the next time they need you.

Not that I'm cynical or anything.

 

[Raoul Duke]

This discussion was over months ago my friend. But welcome to the board anyway.

 

[AtlasShrugging]

Hey, you're still here, right?

If I see something that prompts a response, I respond. If I end up talking to myself, so be it. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[GSG]

Hey, you're still here, right?

If I see something that prompts a response, I respond. If I end up talking to myself, so be it. Wouldn't be the first time.

Hey, it's not a bad thing, at least the "use the search feature" Nazi's will know that people do it sometimes.

 

[rchap36]

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS


Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

 

[AtlasShrugging]

Hey, it's not a bad thing, at least the "use the search feature" Nazi's will know that people do it sometimes.

Hmm .. somehow I still feel "damned by faint praise." But I know what you mean about the "use the search feature" crowd. Not that I don't see that point of view too.
_____
"5 day waiting period?? But I'm mad now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[GSG]

Hmm .. somehow I still feel "damned by faint praise."

Just because people don't respond doesn't mean that they aren't reading. There's plenty who lurk here.