yanici
NES Member
I wonder if Senator Timilty would like a copy for his committee to read? It might be better if it came from GOAL or someone that has some connection. It certainly would enlighten them on where the chiefs are coming from on 2259.
-
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.
MassChiefs.org Newsletter Mentions H2259
- Thread starter BenDover
- Start date
i see "tree hugging" and the need for power for my town, only i can decide.
i also see 351 license types.
there should be one set of standards and one license for this state.
Don't tell me that MCOPA didn't realize that this problem existed, they are simply full of it.
this is as mentioned a CYA. I think anyone that is familiar with this even in a small
can read between the pages.... its oh yah, we can adapt and get in line.
my reply is too bad, you lost it with your abuse.
i also see 351 license types.
there should be one set of standards and one license for this state.
Don't tell me that MCOPA didn't realize that this problem existed, they are simply full of it.
this is as mentioned a CYA. I think anyone that is familiar with this even in a small
can read between the pages.... its oh yah, we can adapt and get in line.
my reply is too bad, you lost it with your abuse.
This...
The most atrocious violations of civil rights by governments have most often been done with the force of law behind them.
Chief Glidden has been warning chiefs about such abusive practices backfiring on them for years.
I do not recall MCOPA providing a formal forum for his warnings, however. I think 2259, coming on the heels of Coakley's crushing defeat (remember MCOPA backed her) has them worried.
I do not recall MCOPA providing a formal forum for his warnings, however. I think 2259, coming on the heels of Coakley's crushing defeat (remember MCOPA backed her) has them worried.
Evidently not worried enough.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Umm...speak for yourselves, you lawless pricks. We're not cops, so we actually care about law and order. Those of us law-abiding citizens with restricted licenses do not carry because the law prohibits it.MCOPA said:
Your ignorant, asinine supposition that we're carrying regardless doesn't even make sense. Why would we be opposed to restrictions if we simply ignored them? Furthermore, why would we even bother getting licenses in the first place if we were simply going to go ahead and break the law just to carry?
I suppose if any of you were capable of rational thought, we wouldn't be in the mess in the first place, would we?
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
(Naturally no disrespect is meant towards any LEOs on the board...that statement I quoted simply infuriated me.)
They're admitting they want to abuse their power here. A criminal record shouldn't exist if there's no guilty plea and no conviction. If the person is acquitted, no criminal record should remain. A restraining order is not grounds for a police officer to lose their license. Why should it be for normal citizens? And as we all know, failure to cooperate in a police investigation means that you didn't allow the cops to illegally search your house, car, person etc, or wanting to speak with your lawyer before making a statement.
The only way, I'd even consider may issue to be acceptable would be if being denied or restricted required a letter from the chief explaining exactly what makes you unsuitable and what you can do to rectify the situation and be issued an unrestricted license. This would require the chief to actually think about it.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,500
Which can sometimes be described as "Exercising one's 5th amendment right to remain silent when questioned about a crime" - see Godfrey .v. Wellesley where exactly this form of non-cooperation was found by the district and appellate courts as a valid reason to revoke an LTC.
Actually, it is - though on the job carry without a license is still allowed.
I would expect the courts would be less likely to issue an RO against a police officer without any credible evidence - a protection not generally afforded to most members of the general public.
Last edited:
Where do LE"s get to keep thier firearms if they are slapped with a RO?
http://www.letswrap.com/legal/firearms.htm
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act contain federal firearms laws related to domestic violence. VAWA makes it a crime for a person who is the subject of a domestic abuse restraining order to transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition which have come across state or federal borders. The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 made several amendments to the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The amendments prohibit the possession of firearms and ammunition by persons convicted of state or federal misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence and the distribution of firearms and ammunition to such persons. Unlike the provisions in VAWA, law enforcement officers and other governmental officials are NOT EXEMPT from the amendments. As of the effective date, September 30, 1996, any person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition. This technical support packet includes information on these two federal laws.
Note that the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 1997 amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968. Also, legislation has been introduced to eliminate the retroactive application and add the exemption for the use of firearms for official purposes.
I'll go along with everything except for convicted violent offenders. I've seen way too many repeat offenders. Sure, ask me for citation, the prisons are filled with them.
This newsletter makes it obvious that one or more people at MCOPA lurk here on NES.
You're right, and it sickens me.
If you run for office, I'll vote for you.![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
I would be very interested to see a break down of the race & social/financial status of the people who are getting restricted, denied, B-rammed or otherwise deemed [STRIKE]untermensch[/STRIKE] "unsuitable." For some reason, I'm willing to bet that lilly white faces in good neighborhoods get a lot less scrutiny than poor minorities in Dorchester do.
No. What we need is H2259 to get even more momentum to push the legislation through so that human being have their rights as human recognized. I don't give a sh** what someone's opinion on it is, and how many forms they filled out to document their opinion. A system like this still subjects the rights of 6 million residents of Massachusetts to 351 different chiefs, and the rights of the other 300 million people living in America to the person at CHSB in charge of Non-Resident LTC's.
As one of the 300 million American's who's rights in Massachusetts are in the hands of one paper pushing cubicle dweller, I will not bend over for an idea like this, no matter how well meaning it is.
Correct. No one wants to surrender power, not even the "good" chiefs.
What I'm sure they're referring to is the tendency for the courts to plea a charge down to a CWOF on "put it on file" or other procedural BS that allows them to keep criminals flowing in and out of the courthouse without seeing a jail cell until they've been caught convicting a bakers dozen or so of crimes.
I'm not saying it's right, but if you read in the Mass. gun laws section of the forum, there's a ton of posts where people want to know if their CWOF will disqualify them.
Apparently the prisons aren't filled with them, if they're walking the streets of the US and able to apply for LTC's.
For the record, I think most felons are POS, which is why I want to see them stay in prison. The system needs to be simplified, we don't need two or three or seven classes of citizen in the US.
You're right, and it sickens me.
If you run for office, I'll vote for you.
I would be very interested to see a break down of the race & social/financial status of the people who are getting restricted, denied, B-rammed or otherwise deemed [STRIKE]untermensch[/STRIKE] "unsuitable." For some reason, I'm willing to bet that lilly white faces in good neighborhoods get a lot less scrutiny than poor minorities in Dorchester do.
No. What we need is H2259 to get even more momentum to push the legislation through so that human being have their rights as human recognized. I don't give a sh** what someone's opinion on it is, and how many forms they filled out to document their opinion. A system like this still subjects the rights of 6 million residents of Massachusetts to 351 different chiefs, and the rights of the other 300 million people living in America to the person at CHSB in charge of Non-Resident LTC's.
As one of the 300 million American's who's rights in Massachusetts are in the hands of one paper pushing cubicle dweller, I will not bend over for an idea like this, no matter how well meaning it is.
Correct. No one wants to surrender power, not even the "good" chiefs.
What I'm sure they're referring to is the tendency for the courts to plea a charge down to a CWOF on "put it on file" or other procedural BS that allows them to keep criminals flowing in and out of the courthouse without seeing a jail cell until they've been caught convicting a bakers dozen or so of crimes.
I'm not saying it's right, but if you read in the Mass. gun laws section of the forum, there's a ton of posts where people want to know if their CWOF will disqualify them.
Apparently the prisons aren't filled with them, if they're walking the streets of the US and able to apply for LTC's.
For the record, I think most felons are POS, which is why I want to see them stay in prison. The system needs to be simplified, we don't need two or three or seven classes of citizen in the US.
That data would indeed be interesting, but may not be as telling as you'd like it to be. First, I don't believe any of the useful data is captured by MIRCS. Social/financial status certainly isn't and "complexion" is as close to race as you're going to get.
Secondly, the number of permits issued vs. denied is misleading as I suspect many people are just simply discouraged from applying in the first place or are denied upfront without ever submitting an application.
However, some data like this from Cali might be interesting in MA if it should that communities with a relatively high minority minority population also don't issue permits.
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/ccwdata.html
Shark_Cage
NES Member
I hear ya. As I read the article, I felt as if I was reading somewhat of a recap of a few threads on here.
I agree with you, and I know there's not really any way to check, especially considering the way that many chiefs bully people into not even applying. But the first gun laws written in the US were put in place to deny non-whites their RKBA, and the laws we currently have in place are essentially doing the same thing, although on a smaller scale. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that there is ethnocentrism or sociocentrism involved in the process.
Heck, the cost of licensing alone is sociocentric, and leaves the poor outside in the cold.
I'm not suggesting that it is in every town. Some towns just restrict everyone, or it's a coin toss. See my above reply.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
I thought Ron was on our side. From what I`ve read in the newsletter he supports the Chiefs right to continue issuing "restricted" licenses based on their bias towards citizens carrying concealed weapons.
Default Attleboro "No LTC ALP for ANYONE ages 21-24"
I was working in Attleboro yesterday and had to stop in at the P.D. I was kind of surprised to see a sign hanging on the window in the foyer that said "No ALP for ANYONE ages 21-24".
Can't rent a car, can't protect yourself. Oh, but go right ahead and defend the country for me, would ya? And don't forget to vote.
******
HUH! This is exactly why we need to take the discretionary issuing policy away from local Chiefs. The Attleboro policy is outrageous.
I was working in Attleboro yesterday and had to stop in at the P.D. I was kind of surprised to see a sign hanging on the window in the foyer that said "No ALP for ANYONE ages 21-24".
Can't rent a car, can't protect yourself. Oh, but go right ahead and defend the country for me, would ya? And don't forget to vote.
******
HUH! This is exactly why we need to take the discretionary issuing policy away from local Chiefs. The Attleboro policy is outrageous.
A beautiful summation of what I believe lies at the core of our problems in MA.
Ron is NOT on our side. However, he is an advocate of LTC-A/NO restrictions ONLY . . . you either get a "real license" or NONE (under chief's discretion). He doesn't believe in adding additional requirements either. But he fights a losing battle with many chiefs who believe that they need to be King and set all the rules.
I suppose that it's a good thing that even this organization recognizes that there are problems with the current licensing system. Like another poster said, I am troubled by this paragraph:
If you are accused of a crime, but found not guilty = possible denial.
Someone files a bogus restraining order against you which is vacated = possible denial.
You fail to cooperate in a police investigation (whatever the hell that means) = possible denial.
Mental health issues (note the "etc." after the word "suicide) = possible denial.
I don't even want to think about what "internal police records" might consist of. Suppose you've been having a running argument with your neighbors over noise issues, boundary lines, or something else. Your neighbor keeps calling the police to complain about you. Whether you are wrong or right, there is likely to be a file with several references naming you. Does that make you unsuitable?
That paragraph articulates precisely why the licensing discretion needs to be removed from the chiefs. I'm tired of feeling like a slave in the "Massachusetts Plantation System" of gun laws. Sure, it's better to have a kind master than a cruel one; it's far better to have no master.
If you are accused of a crime, but found not guilty = possible denial.
Someone files a bogus restraining order against you which is vacated = possible denial.
You fail to cooperate in a police investigation (whatever the hell that means) = possible denial.
Mental health issues (note the "etc." after the word "suicide) = possible denial.
I don't even want to think about what "internal police records" might consist of. Suppose you've been having a running argument with your neighbors over noise issues, boundary lines, or something else. Your neighbor keeps calling the police to complain about you. Whether you are wrong or right, there is likely to be a file with several references naming you. Does that make you unsuitable?
That paragraph articulates precisely why the licensing discretion needs to be removed from the chiefs. I'm tired of feeling like a slave in the "Massachusetts Plantation System" of gun laws. Sure, it's better to have a kind master than a cruel one; it's far better to have no master.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Those would be statistical anomalies or outliers.
Not quite (otherwise, they would advocate that the Association support the "GOAL Bill"). What this advocates is getting more reasonable in exercising the discretionary "suitable" requirement so that that requirement (and discretion) will be maintained.
I am not sure what "our side" consists of. A wide range of positions have been asserted as to licensing, up to and including "if you're not in prison you should be eligible," which I consider not merely absurd, but blatantly irresponsible. The mere fact that one is not presently incarcerated is hardly proof of suitability - as the recidivism rate for parolees so eloquently attests.
The bottom line is that the article was written FOR a chiefs' organization by a chief and the counsel to the chiefs' organization. Expecting a "shall issue" position from such a source is, to be charitable, unrealistic. ALL organizations seek, first and foremost, to protect their power; MCOPA is no different.
In THIS state, with its virulently anti-gun laws, law makers and chiefs, such a fair and forthright position is Enlightenment. IF the bully chiefs would adopt the policies set forth in the article, the bulk of the abuses we suffer from would immediately cease.
IF............
And that "IF" is a rather large "if", we're talking of the magnitude of thing that usually have smaller bodies orbiting them large "if"
Are you stating that you would be satisfied with this outcome?
I do not prefer "adoption" as you put it, but the legislation H.2259.
Not that it matters, practically or politically, but we can either have a national, state, and local infrastructure for gun control, complete with background checks and other rules and regulations, or we can lose it all and give guns the same legal status as hammers. Seriously, which would you prefer? Even knowing, statistically, that some subset of the population may pose a greater risk if armed, is it worth the cost to the rest of us to try to limit their behavior? And do we really think that, at the margin, these rules truly limit the actions of those with the intent to commit a crime? And, finally, should we regulate and control the actions of free men in order to compensate for an existing failure of regulation and control (namely, incarceration, rather than release, of convicted felons)?
We live in a world of risk, and those of us who value freedom are constantly pushing back on a society that wants to trade liberty for safety. We have way too much government, way too much regulation, and way too many laws. Freedom is messy, risky, even dangerous. And more of it is always better than the alternative. You can call this "not only absurd, but blatantly irresponsible". But the world as it is strikes me as absurd, and I am not interested in being responsible for anybody but myself.
Last edited:
