You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jesse C. Cohen, Esq. again.
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jesse C. Cohen, Esq. again.
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.
.........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
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.
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.
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
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?
Every part of responsibility qualifies or disqualifies someone from owning a gun.
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?
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.
It's called reality. Some people should look into it sometime. They may just find it refreshing.
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.
This is kind of arrogance undercuts whatever argument you are trying to make.
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.
Interesting view. It's quite pragmatic.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.
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.
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.
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?
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......
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?
Afraid, maybe not. This statement right here...
Is an example of you giving mouth love to the state.
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.
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
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?
Do you beleive that the RKBA exists without governments?
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.
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.
Can't/won't answer the question I see. I'm not surprised.
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.
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.
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?