• 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.

"Licensing Problem Areas" - MCOPA

Hmmm...

"Since 1994 we have observed several chiefs leave their jobs partially and in some cases specifically because of their licensing practices. In some cases those chiefs or licensing officers were replaced by people whose views
were 180 degrees different and those communities started issuing unrestricted licenses. Some chiefs who made that change look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. No change in gun crimes, and no wild west. Nothing changed except those licensing officials have fewer headaches because they chose not to fight that particular battle."
 
It can even get messed up when the judicial branch handles it.

Terraformer said:
Oh, let me play. I want to pile on. It can even get screwed up when the legislature controls it. Let's face it, they created this mess of discretionary licensing in the first place.
Yes, of course it can...

In NY, as mentioned, its the courts that are violating the constitution rather than the CLEOs...

The reality is that separation of powers never solves all the problems. It it prevents some abuses, it also makes other problems more obvious to the system itself when they occur...

I never claimed that we'd have have a pro-gun nirvana in MA had the judiciary been given this power...

Though I would point out that it is ultimately the judiciary that will solve this problem as well. Not the legislative or executive... (by virtue of MacDonald/Heller/whatever is coming next in SCOTUS)

IMHO, the judiciary is the least bad arbiter of this Constitutional right if one is going to pick one because, as I said, your unsuitability is a "finding of law" requiring due process... Ultimately, even if 2A had been upheld as written "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" rather than the watered down version we have, the judiciary would still be able to take it away by conviction as a felon based on English Common Law. Whether we disagree or not, the ability to abridge rights after conviction is "understood" even to phrases as extreme as "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" or we would not be able to imprison people for breaking the law...

So, in the end you are back to what I said... The least bad arbiter here is ultimately the judiciary.
 
Back
Top Bottom