It’s just that there aren’t ENOUGH laws…..

[milktree]

I personally know someone that was driving, got a text, and pulled into a parking lot, to answer the text.

Cop pulled in behind him, and lit up the blues. Did not cite him, but told him, essentially, that since the parking lot connected to the street it was just as illegal for him to text there, as the street.

That’s just an outright lie.

It’s legal to text in a car in a public road if you’re not driving. “Parked” == “not driving”

Also, I was on jury duty (did not get empaneled), where the defendant was charged with OUI. He was arrested while sitting in a car with the ignition off, on private property.

Publicly accessible parking lot, or his own driveway? I think there’s a basis for this. The theory being that he had to get there somehow.

The way to avoid this (if I understand correctly) is to sleep it off in the back or passenger seat with the key out of the ignition.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

I personally know someone that was driving, got a text, and pulled into a parking lot, to answer the text.

Cop pulled in behind him, and lit up the blues. Did not cite him, but told him, essentially, that since the parking lot connected to the street it was just as illegal for him to text there, as the street.

Cops can and do accuse people of things which aren't infractions. But as is too often the case, Massachusetts wrote the law so that lawyers could get paid to argue about it.

The anti-texting statute reads:
"For the purposes of this section, an operator shall not be considered to be operating a motor vehicle if the vehicle is stationary and not located in a part of the public way intended for travel by a motor vehicle or bicycle."

But like many states, Massachusetts defines a "public way" as "a place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees." So many parking lots are considered public ways, but "being connected to the street" is not part of the test. But if your friend was in a parking space, that's arguably not a part that's intended for travel.

Also, I was on jury duty (did not get empaneled), where the defendant was charged with OUI. He was arrested while sitting in a car with the ignition off, on private property.

In many states, DUI/OUI/DWI laws apply on private property, even when a license is not required. You can get cited when driving a golf cart. And again, while it depends on state law, if you are seated in the driver's seat and conscious, you are typically deemed to be "in control" of the car. In Massachusetts, though, a residential driveway is not considered a "public way," but a driveway for a business or public accommodation is considered a public way, and unlike the texting law, it doesn't include the "intended for travel" requirement. Such minutiae is one reason such cases go to trial and lawyers earn their fees.

 

[42!]

Cops can and do accuse people of things which aren't infractions. But as is too often the case, Massachusetts wrote the law so that lawyers could get paid to argue about it.

The anti-texting statute reads:
"For the purposes of this section, an operator shall not be considered to be operating a motor vehicle if the vehicle is stationary and not located in a part of the public way intended for travel by a motor vehicle or bicycle."

But like many states, Massachusetts defines a "public way" as "a place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees." So many parking lots are considered public ways, but "being connected to the street" is not part of the test. But if your friend was in a parking space, that's arguably not a part that's intended for travel.

s clear that it does not include a breakdown lane or a parking space, so make sure you are actually in a parking space.

 

[fshalor]

Serious question:

How would you change laws/policy/regulations to prevent people who are prohibited from possessing guns or ammo from doing so?

I’m all in favor of enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones, but it’s clear in this case existing laws/enforcement didn’t work.

Tis simple. Make lawmakers (huge airquotes) have to remove one law from the books for every law they add.

This was tried and failed in UK. Case in point is all cabs are still required to carry a bail of straw in their trunks.

Lawmakers need to also remove and clean up their 200-300 year backlog of sheit.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

It's clear that it does not include a breakdown lane or a parking space, so make sure you are actually in a parking space.

You can still get with a "Breakdown Lane violation" unless it's an emergency or your car is disabled.

Texting from the breakdown lane? Not cool, state police say

State police are nabbing motorists for an offense few people know is illegal: Pulling over in the breakdown lane to send a text message or conduct a phone call.

www.boston.com

 

[42!]

You can still get with a "Breakdown Lane violation" unless it's an emergency or your car is disabled.

Texting from the breakdown lane? Not cool, state police say

State police are nabbing motorists for an offense few people know is illegal: Pulling over in the breakdown lane to send a text message or conduct a phone call.

www.boston.com

I told them only to text me if it was an emergency, so I thought it was, turns out it wasn't. Oh well.
Or do what I do when I need to stop, pull all the way onto the grass, not in the breakdown lane, heck not even on the public roadway.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

The intent of the dealer background check, and the NH law where in a private sale the buyer must be know to the seller (P&R generally accepted to be sufficient) was to address this.
In a private sale this put the liability on the seller and as long as a revoked P&R is taken back (and there is enforcement) this is about as good as it gets for private sales. And I doubt there is more that can be done.
With dealer sales and the 4473 and background check, in most states this accomplishes the same thing. But NH is one of a very few states that do not include the adjudication as mentally ill (the prohibiting factor in this case) in the info submitted to the database. So if he went to a dealer and simply lied on the 4473, the background check would not stop him from getting a gun.

I know background checks are a touchy issue, and certainly what NH does for FtF is enough. And since we are not hearing about sellers being charged we can assume it is working.
As for the instant checks at dealers, well, I think we are stuck with them. They aren't going away. So it's best to refine the process to make it less onerous and more accurate. NH should include a mental health prohibitor. Before you go all hyperbolic, this is only when adjudicated as mentally incompetent (after a trial), it does not need to include any details just a yes or no. And there are processes for it to be removed should the person be deemed recovered.
Other refinements should be, an easier and quicker appeal process, liability on the reporters if they provide false information or fail to update changes, there should also be liability on the Gov for legal fees if an appeal uncovers a mistake. And absolutely keep the default proceed, require that 90% of inquiries must be determined in 1 hour or less during 8am to 10pm local time 7 days a week excluding Fed holidays, with any "delayed" timing out at 3 days (real days not business days, excluding Fed holidays).

Like I said, I don't see these going away, and if we can lock the process down to something not too bad, then we can focus on the underlying reasons and other issues. Like non violent felons, do they really need a lifetime PP. Even felons in general, after they serve their sentence, and a suitable grace period, shouldn't they get their rights back. Or reciprocity, and a preemption clause preventing states from having more restrictions than the Fed. Small changes add up.

You're already suggesting compromise. Absolutely not. Not in NH. And I asked Atty. Sean List this question at his training class. The "license" requirement applies to a dealers license, not an individual P&R license.

That's a very good question.

One distasteful answer is a registry. It wouldn't prevent it, but it would surely discourage it.

Another distasteful option (but not nearly as bad as a registry) would be a shall-issue licence that's as easy and trivial to get as... actually, as it is in NH. My non-resident NH licence took like two weeks, and that included USPS in both directions. It wouldn't PREVENT illegal sales, but it would make them a lot less likely simply because the vast majority of gun owners (of people, really) would rather follow the law.

I'd be absolutely shocked if the guy who sold the guns to John Madore knew or suspected he was a prohibited person.

NH already has a "shall issue law" for permits. And we got rid of the requirement for them but instituting Con-Carry.

In NH it's the requirement of a FtF seller for the buyer "to be known" to him.

Not really, or more accurately, it can be self regulation. Consider this, if the gun did go through a number of private sales before getting into the hands of the shooter, there is still a dealer sale at the beginning of the trail, so that first buyer can be found. And when the cops ask him who he sold it to, he better be able to tell them because if the buyer isn't known to him he has admitted to a violation of the law. If they enforce this, very quickly common sense will dictate that private sellers do know who they sell to, since not knowing not only makes them liable for the actions of who they sold it to, but to all the unknown buyers down the line. You do not want to be the last known owner of the gun, when the law requires you to know who you sold it to.

In this case we are talking about someone adjudicated mentally ill, and in many cases this will be before the crime occurs, so it could be looked at as pre-crime. You are correct from a criminal conviction standpoint, but that won't work the same on the mentally ill side.

Atty. List recommended seeing a P&R license and getting a BOS. He said if you don't, and the person is a PP, that's on you, the seller.

 

[42!]

The intent of the dealer background check, and the NH law where in a private sale the buyer must be know to the seller (P&R generally accepted to be sufficient) was to address this.
In a private sale this put the liability on the seller and as long as a revoked P&R is taken back (and there is enforcement) this is about as good as it gets for private sales. And I doubt there is more that can be done.
With dealer sales and the 4473 and background check, in most states this accomplishes the same thing. But NH is one of a very few states that do not include the adjudication as mentally ill (the prohibiting factor in this case) in the info submitted to the database. So if he went to a dealer and simply lied on the 4473, the background check would not stop him from getting a gun.

I know background checks are a touchy issue, and certainly what NH does for FtF is enough. And since we are not hearing about sellers being charged we can assume it is working.
As for the instant checks at dealers, well, I think we are stuck with them. They aren't going away. So it's best to refine the process to make it less onerous and more accurate. NH should include a mental health prohibitor. Before you go all hyperbolic, this is only when adjudicated as mentally incompetent (after a trial), it does not need to include any details just a yes or no. And there are processes for it to be removed should the person be deemed recovered.
Other refinements should be, an easier and quicker appeal process, liability on the reporters if they provide false information or fail to update changes, there should also be liability on the Gov for legal fees if an appeal uncovers a mistake. And absolutely keep the default proceed, require that 90% of inquiries must be determined in 1 hour or less during 8am to 10pm local time 7 days a week excluding Fed holidays, with any "delayed" timing out at 3 days (real days not business days, excluding Fed holidays).

Like I said, I don't see these going away, and if we can lock the process down to something not too bad, then we can focus on the underlying reasons and other issues. Like non violent felons, do they really need a lifetime PP. Even felons in general, after they serve their sentence, and a suitable grace period, shouldn't they get their rights back. Or reciprocity, and a preemption clause preventing states from having more restrictions than the Fed. Small changes add up.

You're already suggesting compromise. Absolutely not. Not in NH. And I asked Atty. Sean List this question at his training class. The "license" requirement applies to a dealers license, not an individual P&R license.

What compromise, any change I've suggested is in our favor, it all further limits the Gov and makes them accountable. There is no compromise, its all in our favor. Your fanaticism is blinding you.

The mental health issue is already a prohibiting factor, only 3 states refuse to comply, not sure of the legal basis for them not having to. But it's inclusion by NH would not change anything about if it was a prohibiting factor, I even specified that the ifo should only include the adjudication, nothing else.

42! said:
In NH it's the requirement of a FtF seller for the buyer "to be known" to him.

Not really, or more accurately, it can be self regulation. Consider this, if the gun did go through a number of private sales before getting into the hands of the shooter, there is still a dealer sale at the beginning of the trail, so that first buyer can be found. And when the cops ask him who he sold it to, he better be able to tell them because if the buyer isn't known to him he has admitted to a violation of the law. If they enforce this, very quickly common sense will dictate that private sellers do know who they sell to, since not knowing not only makes them liable for the actions of who they sold it to, but to all the unknown buyers down the line. You do not want to be the last known owner of the gun, when the law requires you to know who you sold it to.

In this case we are talking about someone adjudicated mentally ill, and in many cases this will be before the crime occurs, so it could be looked at as pre-crime. You are correct from a criminal conviction standpoint, but that won't work the same on the mentally ill side.

In the above quote attributed to me you have combined my post of;

Maybe. It depends on how many private sales it went through since it was shipped from the manufacturer.

The only way your statement is true is with registration of guns. I'm pretty sure you're not advocating for that.

Not really, or more accurately, it can be self regulation. Consider this, if the gun did go through a number of private sales before getting into the hands of the shooter, there is still a dealer sale at the beginning of the trail, so that first buyer can be found. And when the cops ask him who he sold it to, he better be able to tell them because if the buyer isn't known to him he has admitted to a violation of the law. If they enforce this, very quickly common sense will dictate that private sellers do know who they sell to, since not knowing not only makes them liable for the actions of who they sold it to, but to all the unknown buyers down the line. You do not want to be the last known owner of the gun, when the law requires you to know who you sold it to.
With my post of

I'll answer your honest question with another honest question.... In a Constitutional Carry state, such as NH, how does one prevent a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm in a PRIVATE sale where no background check and no Federal Forms are involved?

Aren't we just relying upon the honesty of the criminal in such a case? That feels foolish... I'm not proposing policy or law. I'm just asking the question... What controls exist to keep such a transaction from occurring..

In NH it's the requirement of a FtF seller for the buyer "to be known" to him.
To result in a different meaning, I assume this was not intentional, please whatch the quotes.

Qwikdraw45:
Atty. List recommended seeing a P&R license and getting a BOS. He said if you don't, and the person is a PP, that's on you, the seller.

As myself and many others have said

 

[StevieP]

Thomas Jefferson said:
"The laws that forbid carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit such crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage rather than prevent homicides. An unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"

=========================================================================

What these people fail to realize is, laws were never intended to control people, behavior or crime! Laws were intended to give the Judicial system a means to punish people who violate the Rights and Freedoms of others! No law will ever prevent a crime or stop a criminal.

When they start trying to write laws that control people or prevent crimes the only thing they accomplish is violating the Rights and Freedoms of the law abiding, the very people that would have never committed the crime in the first place!

If laws prevented crime, the one banning assault is all we'd ever need.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Thomas Jefferson said:
"The laws that forbid carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit such crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage rather than prevent homicides. An unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"

No he didn't say that.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...(Spurious Quotation)

www.monticello.org

 

[StevieP]

No he didn't say that.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...(Spurious Quotation)

www.monticello.org

thanks for the clarification. I do not know who wrote that he did. It seems to ring true regardless

 

[Qwikdraw45]

What compromise, any change I've suggested is in our favor, it all further limits the Gov and makes them accountable. There is no compromise, its all in our favor. Your fanaticism is blinding you.

The following statement that was part of your post "sounds" like compromise: "Like I said, I don't see these going away, and if we can lock the process down to something not too bad, then we can focus on the underlying reasons and other issues. "

I may be misunderstanding it, but it sounds as if you feel adding something (other than the MH aspect) is good. To me, adding "any other burden" on those of us who are law-abiding is compromise (where, as history in other states has shown, we get nothing and the grabbers get something they want. If I mis-read/mis-interpreted your statement, I apologize.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

thanks for the clarification. I do not know who wrote that he did. It seems to ring true regardless

Like everything else about Jefferson, “it’s complicated.” As a draft to the Virginia Constitution, he did write “"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].” Note the caveats.

On the other hand, when he and Madison sat on the Board of the University of Virginia, that board barred students from keeping or using weapons of any kind.

University of Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 6-7 (October 4–5, 1824)

firearmslaw.duke.edu

 

[42!]

The following statement that was part of your post "sounds" like compromise: "Like I said, I don't see these going away, and if we can lock the process down to something not too bad, then we can focus on the underlying reasons and other issues. "

I may be misunderstanding it, but it sounds as if you feel adding something (other than the MH aspect) is good. To me, adding "any other burden" on those of us who are law-abiding is compromise (where, as history in other states has shown, we get nothing and the grabbers get something they want. If I mis-read/mis-interpreted your statement, I apologize.

I specifically listed the changes I'm suggestion, and every one of them makes the existing law better for us. Read the dam thing. More premature than quickdraw.


The death by 1000 cuts that the anti-2a use works the other way as well. So make some "refinements", just to make it easier to understand and work smoother, that it works in our favor doesn't even need to be brought up. Rinse and repeat.

 

[MaverickNH]

After Sandy Hook, they voted no. Now these senators want new gun laws - Reflecting on a decade of mass killings and surging AR-15 sales, four current and three former senators recant some or all of their 2013 positions on gun laws in emotional interviews with The Post

Loading…

wapo.st

Over 2.7k comments on this WaPo article in < 8hr - many wishing suffering to elected officials not supporting gun control, Republicans, Conservatives, NRA, gun owners, etc. There’s a lot of sickos on the liberal side…

”The six others [the featured Senator in the story is Heidi Heitkamp] who described to The Post their changed perspectives on gun policy were Sens. Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), as well as former senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

 

[jkelly1229]

If he bought the guns via a private sale, that seller(s) is frucked, at the very least he/she will have hefty lawsuits against him/her.

Nah... the atf calls for confirmation and that's about it.

Don't make a habit of it... but first time they're pretty chill.

As long as the person isn't like heyyyy i can't buy a gun at a store can i have yours.