Is it possible for my buddy to get his ltc licence back

[Grimlock]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jesse C. Cohen, Esq. again.

 

[banned]

As long as he wasn't arrested, charged and convicted for his brain fart, he has some chance (a very slim one). It all depends on the CLEO.

If all else fails, he should at least be able to obtain an FID.

It's small consolation... but it is what it is.

Alot of people forget that while they are struggling to get their LTC back, in many cases they can get an FID card which at least keeps them in the shooting world to a limited extent, until they can get their LTC back.

 

[banned]

.........We need to stop this lameness about treating guns as being "special". LTC holders are not cops or anything like that
either, for crying out loud. It's not a license to own a nuclear weapon or anything like that either. You do a disservice to gun owners by ascribing "super special" powers to someone who simply happens to be carrying a gun.......

-Mike

Mike raises a very important issue which I think gets to the heart of the problem of how guns are thought of in Massachusetts. To most of us guns are tools like any others such as a knife, hammer, scissors etc. Responsibility is required when using all of these. Many of us feel that the law should treat these tools the same.

In Massachusetts, to a great many people, guns ARE like nuclear weapons and gun owners must have "super special" powers to carry gun. We must remember that this vast distance between the two poles exists and adjust our arguments for gun rights in such a way that it strikes a chord with those way off on the other side of the world. Until we do, we are really just "energizing the base".

 

[banned]

what we're trying to point out to you is that what you tolerate you validate.

you should be as angry about the bullshit law and the bullshit punishment as we are--but you are not, and instead you are fighting us on it and making a case as to why the OP's buddy is a horrible person-lawbreaker-baby-killer and unsuitable. you actually believe this. you said it earlier in the post.

"What you tolerate you validate, what you validate you deserve!" Keith G. Langer a.k.a. "Scrivener" The legendary and mysterious barrister loved by many, and feared by all.

 

[banned]

Had a friend of mine do exactly the same thing , chief of police called him in to the office and chewed him out big time but he didn't revoke his LTC. So basically it depends on the Chief of Police and one never knows what they will do . I hope your friend has good luck and wont leave any weapons lying around next time.

2 cases I've seen. Nearly identical facts. Case #1, slap on the wrist with brief suspension of license. Case #2, felony charge, revocation of LTC.

 

[banned]

The problem is that, at the core, there is often a fundamental worldview problem with status quo advocates. They see "government as a source of good" and that sort of thing, rather than viewing it as, even on its best day, a "necessary evil that must be controlled in size and scope". The pro authoritarian, pro nanny-state arguments/mindsets are often very hard to decontaminate, even despite the fact that evidence of out of control government resulting from such policy is everywhere.

It falls outside their comfort zone to get rid of, or at a minimum, not support malum prohibitum laws and the like. They think things like "Well, it must have been important if they went through all that trouble to make it a lawr! " without realizing that's not usually the case. They also never, or rarely bother to consider the unintentional consequences of such laws.

-Mike

+1. Great analysis of the problem.

 

[flintoid]

What part of the bill of rights is not regulated by the rule of law? This guy violated a law that's extremely easy to comply with in one of the most difficult firearms states in the country. That's pretty stupid. What other stupid things would he do?

It may be "stupid" because he lapsed in what would be his better judgement, but making the assumption that doing one dumb thing is equivalent to doing many dumb things is a terrible logic path.

Have you ever done something "stupid?" I'll answer that for you: yes. Now what other dumb things could you possibly do? By your logic, you'd be "dumb" enough to have your 2A rights taken away. So tell me, how does that feel?

Every part of responsibility qualifies or disqualifies someone from owning a gun.

I understand what you are saying here. Unfortunately, leaving a gun in a locked car does not hurt, harm, or violate anyone's natural rights. Therefore I don't believe that this trends on the wrong side of "being responsible." Which is why I personally think it's ****ing bullshit that he lost his ability to own and bear arms.

How about the parolee who was released from three life sentences who shot the Woburn cop? Should he have been free to roll up to Four Seasons and purchase guns? Would you oppose his naturally given rights as a human being?

If he had done something wrong to deserve three life sentences, then I don't think he should have been released. I am not familiar with the details of this example, so I can't really elaborate on what rights this person should retain. However, comparing a LEO shooting ex-con to a man who left a gun in a locked car is a far stretch that is ridiculous. And yet you are using this example to explain to me that rights should be limited for bad people. I get that. But please explain to me how the man reference by the OP is remotely as "bad" as your cop shooting ex-con?

He is not.

Which is why your logic is tragically flawed.

 

[Rick Roma]

Thanks bud, I was hoping you would clear up your post a little, and you did with this state falating, precrime prosecuting, straw man post. Way to be.



Overall, I like this thread, it is a good reminder that even the 2A "supporter's" in MA are no friend to the 2A (not everyone, you know what I mean). It is just more fuel to my I-gotta-move fire.

You're welcome.
Overall, I also like this thread, it is a good reminder that one can't have a reasonable discussion with the rabid "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand" types. Here's the way I see it. On the far left you have those who want a total ban on guns. They don't want anyone to have any guns-period. On the far right you have those who want any and every gun law eliminated. Then you have people like me somewhere in the middle who do want people to be able to own guns and who do understand that the people on the far ends of the spectrum will never, ever get their way in most states or the country as a whole. It's called reality. Some people should look into it sometime. They may just find it refreshing.
In the case of the OP you have a person who vilolated a law that's extremely easy to comply with in a hard core anti state. That's pretty stupid and I have no sympathy for the guy. If he just slipped it under the seat, although that's still obviously not compliant with the law, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[M1911]

It's called reality. Some people should look into it sometime. They may just find it refreshing.

This is kind of arrogance undercuts whatever argument you are trying to make.

 

[Rick Roma]

It may be "stupid" because he lapsed in what would be his better judgement, but making the assumption that doing one dumb thing is equivalent to doing many dumb things is a terrible logic path.

Have you ever done something "stupid?" I'll answer that for you: yes. Now what other dumb things could you possibly do? By your logic, you'd be "dumb" enough to have your 2A rights taken away. So tell me, how does that feel?



I understand what you are saying here. Unfortunately, leaving a gun in a locked car does not hurt, harm, or violate anyone's natural rights. Therefore I don't believe that this trends on the wrong side of "being responsible." Which is why I personally think it's ****ing bullshit that he lost his ability to own and bear arms.



If he had done something wrong to deserve three life sentences, then I don't think he should have been released. I am not familiar with the details of this example, so I can't really elaborate on what rights this person should retain. However, comparing a LEO shooting ex-con to a man who left a gun in a locked car is a far stretch that is ridiculous. And yet you are using this example to explain to me that rights should be limited for bad people. I get that. But please explain to me how the man reference by the OP is remotely as "bad" as your cop shooting ex-con?

He is not.

Which is why your logic is tragically flawed.

Of course I've done stupid things and I've suffered the consequences and paid the price just like the guy in the OP is. The way I see it is the guy broke a law that's easy to comply with fully knowing the consequences. I have no sympathy for him.

I'm not comparing someone shooting a cop to someone leaving a gun in a car. Whether he should have been released or not is irrelevant because he was released. Should he or should he not be able to own guns after being released? What I'm trying to do is establish whether you believe that everyone is entitled to the same natural rights that you are speaking of or whether you think you can pick and choose as you see fit. So which is it?

For the record I don't think he should have been released either but neither of our opinions on that are relevant because he was released.

 

[Rick Roma]

This is kind of arrogance undercuts whatever argument you are trying to make.

Since your opinion is coming from someone who challenged a total stranger to a fight over a post on an internet forum (a post that wasn't even bad but just a simple joke about lawyering up) the opinion means absolutely nothing to me. That kind of ignorance undercuts any opinion you may have now or at any point in the future. You're lucky I did what was reasonable and sane and declined or you may have been in the same position as the guy in the OP: wishing you hadn't lost your LTC. Have a nice day.....


BTW: You wanna step outside????? ROFLMMFAO

 

[Rob Boudrie]

In the case of the OP you have a person who vilolated a law that's extremely easy to comply with in a hard core anti state. That's pretty stupid and I have no sympathy for the guy.

The problem is that the penalty is excessive, and not dependent on the totality of the circumstances. For example, if you forget to spin the dial after closing the door on your safe and get nailed for a storage violation, it's "prohibited for life", with no consideration as to the overall circumstances or chances of re-offending.

Other offenses that are similar in nature (i.e., presenting a possible danger, but not resulting any real injury - for example, a DUI without an accident) have consequences, but those consequences are not generally a "lifetime penalty". Even a second offense DUI offender can expect to eventually get his/her license back.

A doctor who does something medically improper that injures someone (for example, getting lost in the gut and taking a kidney rather than a gall bladder as happened in Milford) can expect to have his/her license restricted in some manner for a period of time, but will not generally lose their medical license for life absent either blatant intentional conduct or evidence of incompetence to the point where remediation is considered unlikely.

 

[atilla]

The problem is that the penalty is excessive, and not dependent on the totality of the circumstances. For example, if you forget to spin the dial after closing the door on your safe and get nailed for a storage violation, it's "prohibited for life", with no consideration as to the overall circumstances or chances of re-offending.

Other offenses that are similar in nature (i.e., presenting a possible danger, but not resulting any real injury - for example, a DUI without an accident) have consequences, but those consequences are not generally a "lifetime penalty". Even a second offense DUI offender can expect to eventually get his/her license back.

A doctor who does something medically improper that injures someone (for example, getting lost in the gut and taking a kidney rather than a gall bladder as happened in Milford) can expect to have his/her license restricted in some manner for a period of time, but will not generally lose their medical license for life absent either blatant intentional conduct or evidence of incompetence to the point where remediation is considered unlikely.

excellent explanation and better than what i was just about to post with a less cool head.

+1 for you.

but in other news: the outings continue in this thread somehow. i didn't realize how many people here will willingly fellate the state and then bend over for more as soon as they finish round one. i don't know what's so hard to see about how ridiculous these laws are and that they need to be fought by the people who are NOT afraid of the state, NOT afraid to contact elected representatives, and NOT afraid to have our names named when we donate to GOAL, comm2A, etc.

 

[HTRN]

You're welcome.
Overall, I also like this thread, it is a good reminder that one can't have a reasonable discussion with the rabid "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand" types. Here's the way I see it. On the far left you have those who want a total ban on guns. They don't want anyone to have any guns-period. On the far right you have those who want any and every gun law eliminated. Then you have people like me somewhere in the middle who do want people to be able to own guns and who do understand that the people on the far ends of the spectrum will never, ever get their way in most states or the country as a whole. It's called reality. Some people should look into it sometime. They may just find it refreshing.
In the case of the OP you have a person who vilolated a law that's extremely easy to comply with in a hard core anti state. That's pretty stupid and I have no sympathy for the guy. If he just slipped it under the seat, although that's still obviously not compliant with the law, we would not be having this discussion.

Interesting view. It's quite pragmatic.

Do you beleive that the RKBA exists without governments?

Of course I've done stupid things and I've suffered the consequences and paid the price just like the guy in the OP is. The way I see it is the guy broke a law that's easy to comply with fully knowing the consequences. I have no sympathy for him.

I'm not comparing someone shooting a cop to someone leaving a gun in a car. Whether he should have been released or not is irrelevant because he was released. Should he or should he not be able to own guns after being released? What I'm trying to do is establish whether you believe that everyone is entitled to the same natural rights that you are speaking of or whether you think you can pick and choose as you see fit. So which is it?

For the record I don't think he should have been released either but neither of our opinions on that are relevant because he was released.

This scumbag should have never been released. But I don't see how his rights should be denied if we don't think he should be incarcerated. Rights aren't, if they are at the mercy of the king.

I guess it comes down to if someone believes in self ownership and the concept that that the initiation of force is wrong. Those that don't beleive that you have full ownership of yourself often think its okay for the government to do things "for the greater good," while violating the natural rights of the individual. Especially property rights.

The other point that no one put up here is that LEOs have discretion. The sane think that would have happened in this statist commonwealth is that the LEO would have given the OP some advice..

"Hey bud, its not a good idea to leave valuable property hanging out in plain view..."

End of story. That would have been the sane thing, nut the barn yard thing.

 

[Rick Roma]

The problem is that the penalty is excessive, and not dependent on the totality of the circumstances. For example, if you forget to spin the dial after closing the door on your safe and get nailed for a storage violation, it's "prohibited for life", with no consideration as to the overall circumstances or chances of re-offending.

Other offenses that are similar in nature (i.e., presenting a possible danger, but not resulting any real injury - for example, a DUI without an accident) have consequences, but those consequences are not generally a "lifetime penalty". Even a second offense DUI offender can expect to eventually get his/her license back.

A doctor who does something medically improper that injures someone (for example, getting lost in the gut and taking a kidney rather than a gall bladder as happened in Milford) can expect to have his/her license restricted in some manner for a period of time, but will not generally lose their medical license for life absent either blatant intentional conduct or evidence of incompetence to the point where remediation is considered unlikely.

I don't disagree. The penalty is excessive. However, knowing what the penalty is would you agree or disagree that it's extremely stupid to violate the law when it's very easy to comply? I would certainly have sympathy for someone who forgot to spin the dial on the safe but I have a real hard time sympathizing with someone who leaves a loaded gun in a car in plain view in Mass.

 

[Rick Roma]

excellent explanation and better than what i was just about to post with a less cool head.

+1 for you.

but in other news: the outings continue in this thread somehow. i didn't realize how many people here will willingly fellate the state and then bend over for more as soon as they finish round one. i don't know what's so hard to see about how ridiculous these laws are and that they need to be fought by the people who are NOT afraid of the state, NOT afraid to contact elected representatives, and NOT afraid to have our names named when we donate to GOAL, comm2A, etc.

So would you say that I'm afraid of the state because I comply with a law that carries a penalty of a lifetime firearms ban for a violation? Is complying with an existing law to avoid becoming a felon an example of giving fellatio to the state?

 

[atilla]

did i say break the law? i said fight the law, encourage others to do the same. if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. see above post "what you tolerate you validate".

 

[ChevyGuy91]

So would you say that I'm afraid of the state because I comply with a law that carries a penalty of a lifetime firearms ban for a violation? Is complying with an existing law to avoid becoming a felon an example of giving fellatio to the state?

Afraid, maybe not. This statement right here...

No, but everyone who leaves a loaded gun unattended in plain view in their car in a very non-free state is incredibly stupid and therefore might not be responsible enough to own a gun......

Is an example of you giving mouth love to the state.

 

[Rick Roma]

Interesting view. It's quite pragmatic.

Do you beleive that the RKBA exists without governments?



This scumbag should have never been released. But I don't see how his rights should be denied if we don't think he should be incarcerated. Rights aren't, if they are at the mercy of the king.

I guess it comes down to if someone believes in self ownership and the concept that that the initiation of force is wrong. Those that don't beleive that you have full ownership of yourself often think its okay for the government to do things "for the greater good," while violating the natural rights of the individual. Especially property rights.

The other point that no one put up here is that LEOs have discretion. The sane think that would have happened in this statist commonwealth is that the LEO would have given the OP some advice..

"Hey bud, its not a good idea to leave valuable property hanging out in plain view..."

End of story. That would have been the sane thing, nut the barn yard thing.

Do you beleive that the RKBA exists without governments?

What kind of question is that? Without government every day life would be like Mad Max The Road Warrior where I could run you over with my car because I don't like this post. What kind of life would that be? Like it or not we need government and law and order.
As I said before earlier I agree the the scumbag should not have been released. Here's where we continue to disagree: I can't possibly see how someone like that should or could have the right to bear arms.
I also don't disagree that LEO's have discretion and he could have given the guy a pass. Knowing how things are here in mass and knowing that you're highly unlikely to get a free pass on a gun violation would you or would you not agree that it's extremely stupid to leave a loaded gun in plain view in a car?

 

[Rick Roma]

Afraid, maybe not. This statement right here...



Is an example of you giving mouth love to the state.

ROFL- thanks for reminding me to come here more often.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

What kind of question is that? Without government every day life would be like Mad Max The Road Warrior where I could run you over with my car because I don't like this post. What kind of life would that be? Like it or not we need government and law and order.

Wow.

 

[Rick Roma]

did i say break the law? i said fight the law, encourage others to do the same. if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. see above post "what you tolerate you validate".

if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem

Love it. I haven't heard that one since my last seminar in corporate America when they hired one of those Tony Robbins types to come in and inspire us.

 

[Rick Roma]

Wow.

Elaborate if you're capable. So you'd enjoy a world free of all government where I could come by and kill you because I don't like your attitude?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Elaborate if you're capable. So you'd enjoy a world free of all government where I could come by and kill you because I don't like your attitude?

You could try.

The question posed to you was...

Do you beleive that the RKBA exists without governments?

If you can't grasp the point of that question with driving off the zOMG I NEED GOV TO LIVE cliff, it is not really worth playing patty cake with you anymore.

 

[Rick Roma]

You could try.

The question posed to you was...



If you can't grasp the point of that question with driving off the zOMG I NEED GOV TO LIVE cliff, it is not really worth playing patty cake with you anymore.

Can't/won't answer the question I see. I'm not surprised.

 

[HTRN]

Without government every day life would be like Mad Max The Road Warrior where I could run you over with my car because I don't like this post. What kind of life would that be? Like it or not we need government and law and order.

If you like to read, I will send you a copy of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...inkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0300169175

Anyway, my question is, does the state give you that right, or would it exist with out a state?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Can't/won't answer the question I see. I'm not surprised.

[video=youtube_share;rIoqc8SooF8]http://youtu.be/rIoqc8SooF8[/video]

 

[flintoid]

Of course I've done stupid things and I've suffered the consequences and paid the price just like the guy in the OP is. The way I see it is the guy broke a law that's easy to comply with fully knowing the consequences. I have no sympathy for him.

I disagree on the basis that he did not harm anyone. He didn't hurt anyone's rights, property, health, or was a menace to society. On this basis I don't think he should lose his rights. You, on the other hand, disagree. What you are condoning is the loss of someone's rights due to the fact that they didn't live by the rules handed down to him, no matter how just or unjust they may be, disregarding their morality.

I'm not comparing someone shooting a cop to someone leaving a gun in a car. Whether he should have been released or not is irrelevant because he was released. Should he or should he not be able to own guns after being released? What I'm trying to do is establish whether you believe that everyone is entitled to the same natural rights that you are speaking of or whether you think you can pick and choose as you see fit. So which is it?

You are putting words in my mouth. Read what I am typing. If the man that was released from jail is still a menace to society, I don't think he should be out of jail, thus not having the same rights as everyone else.

The man leaving a gun in his locked car is not a menace to society.

The cop killer is a menace to society.

They should not have the same rights. Unfortunately, you talk like they both shouldn't have rights. And since you've "done something stupid" I think that you shouldn't have rights, either, if I were to think like you.

For the record I don't think he should have been released either but neither of our opinions on that are relevant because he was released.

agreed. But if he were fully rehabilitated and released, I think that he should have the same rights as us. Unfortunately, I don't believe that what is broken in that man is fixable by any means.


You still haven't provided an argument as to why you think the man referenced in the OP should have his rights taken away beyond the argument that you "feel" that he should have them taken away. Thankfully for you, the liberal state of massachusetts agrees with your personal assessment. You still haven't told me how he's harmed anyone or obstructed anyone's right to live happily. Which is why your logic is liberal, tragically flawed, and harmful for gun owners everywhere.

One day, when someone "feels" that you don't deserve to own a gun, your eyes may finally open. Until then, you're hurting our cause.

 

[atilla]

Love it. I haven't heard that one since my last seminar in corporate America when they hired one of those Tony Robbins types to come in and inspire us.

what i mean is that you're an enemy to free men with your thought process in that natural rights are something that your government gives you. your logic is completely flawed as others have pointed out and you simply are unable to "get" what makes a man free and you continue to defend the state and their oppressive laws which can ruin someone's life, take away their hobby, and in some cases their lives--over petty bullshit.

 

[Rick Roma]

If you like to read, I will send you a copy of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...inkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0300169175

Anyway, my question is, does the state give you that right, or would it exist with out a state?

I'm not sure. What would exist without a state?