• 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

The GOAL bill would be DOA if it were not for chiefs finding new and more excessive ways to abuse their discretion. Cause and effect.

Interesting fact, however moderately relevant to my point and question.

So, you are saying that you would prefer to not have 2259 pass, and have the chiefs just fall in line?

Or are you stating that like I, you would prefer a completely objective, and legally binding process for permits?


Eta: Yes ideal is found in post #60, but at least H.2259 sets out objective, not subjective standards.
 
So, you are saying that you would prefer to not have 2259 pass, and have the chiefs just fall in line?

Or are you stating that like I, you would prefer a completely objective, and legally binding process for permits?

Obviously the latter. I simply noted that 2259 has the "traction" it does now because of the increasing number of abusive chiefs and practices in a political climate that is increasingly unwilling to tolerate them.
 
I will try to be wrong in the future if it makes you sick when I am right.

[laugh]

I thought Ron was on our side.

Nope, not at all really. He just knows the laws really well.

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.

More blatantly irresponsible than releasing violent criminals to walk among us every day?

Any restriction that you support on rights, including the GCA '68 prohibition for felons, is just a stepping stone for more restrictions. More laws to make illegal activity more illegal aren't in any way more responsible.

give guns the same legal status as hammers.

Sounds good to me.
 
In other words...

You had the power, you abused it, now the people are taking it BACK.
Seconded. If they're still trying to cling to power after all they've done, I'm outraged. Serves them right for giving me restrictions even though I've heard of other people in my town getting ALP. Then not letting me discuss the B.S. with the chief, only some sergeant. They should have no say in the legislation.
 
That's because "zero tolerance" is all about removing discretion from the person on the scene.

What ZT is all about is allowing administrators to give an excuse for not doing their jobs competently; i.e, viewing each incident on the facts and using (what passes for) their intelligence and experience to determine and impose a rational resolution.

The rough COP equivalent is hiding behind demands for superfluous documentation as an excuse for obstructing, if not denying, applications on the specious premise that those superfluities are needed to determine "suitability."
 
That's because "zero tolerance" is all about removing discretion from the person on the scene. What H.2259 is proposing is a "zero-tolerance" policy on restrictions, b-ramming, etc.
All they care about is being stripped of power. Institutional Jealousy at its finest.

What's ironic is how sensitive they have become to "liability" WRT to various discretionary powers. If one is concerned about the liability of discretion, then it behooves one to seek to escape the position of responsibility.

The best way to avoid liability is to defer to a higher authority for your decision making. The more rules you make, the more it is clear you are the one responsible for the outcome.

Of course, none of that matters since SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear that the police have no duty to protect or liability for failing to do so.

It really baffles me on a macro-level that MCOPA is making itself an adversary to law abiding citizens. I understand the the power and greed and progressive politics. This is just a colossal waste of time in the grand scheme of "fighting crime" and keeping our communities safe.

But then, progressive and liberals refuse to accept the reality that stringent gun regulation does not work and the history that shows that those who press for it are the oppressors, racists and despots of history.

Sorry, my bad for thinking rationally and thinking we lived in a free society.
 
Sorry, my bad for thinking rationally and thinking we lived in a free society.
*******
Massachusetts is not a FREE society. We are controlled by corrupt liberal politicians. The Police Chiefs who impose restrictions on law abiding gun owners are just enforcers of the liberal nanny state.
While this thought might be a little off topic an example is all the hoopla over Tiger Woods indiscretions. The Kennedy`s have done far worse and they are treated like saints in this state. Go figure. Bring up Teddy`s drunken debauchery or JFK`s many women and people in this state look at you as if you kicked their dog.
 
All they care about is being stripped of power. Institutional Jealousy at its finest.
...
Sorry, my bad for thinking rationally and thinking we lived in a free society.

I doubt one person in 100 has the personal strength to voluntarily surrender a long-held authority. That's why our government was constructed to keep them from accumulating that much power in the first place. If only it had worked.

What ZT is all about is allowing administrators to give an excuse for not doing their jobs competently; i.e, viewing each incident on the facts and using (what passes for) their intelligence and experience to determine and impose a rational resolution.

The rough COP equivalent is hiding behind demands for superfluous documentation as an excuse for obstructing, if not denying, applications on the specious premise that those superfluities are needed to determine "suitability."

I've also seen administrators use ZT to strip their staff of discretion, generally in response do a difference of opinion regarding the merits or the rules.
 
I doubt one person in 100 has the personal strength to voluntarily surrender a long-held authority.
Very true, but given that a COP is 1 man among thousands, to ten's of thousands or more in his community with extraordinary powers. I don't think it too much to ask that he be as good as "1 man in a 100"...
 
I've also seen administrators use ZT to strip their staff of discretion, generally in response do a difference of opinion regarding the merits or the rules.

Here's an example of ZT for you:

Documents: Bullied teen sought help from school

4/9/2010 11:31:00 AM
Associated Press/AP Online

By STEPHANIE REITZ

NORTHAMPTON, Mass. - Phoebe Prince, the Massachusetts high school freshman who took her own life after what prosecutors called relentless bullying by classmates, spoke to a school administrator one week before her death about a threat of physical violence, court documents reveal.

The documents, filed in connection with charges against six South Hadley High School students, raise new questions about how much school officials knew about the bullying. They also provide a glimpse into the final, tortured hours of Prince's life shortly before the 15-year-old hanged herself at home Jan. 14.

On Jan. 7, according to the documents, Prince went to a school administrator after learning that one of the defendants, Flannery Mullins, had told fellow students that she was going to "beat Phoebe up" and that she "needed to watch out at break after second block."

The documents do not reveal the official to whom Prince spoke or provide details of the conversation.

A witness who was interviewed by investigators said Prince had gone to administrators because she was "scared and wanted to go home." After the meeting, the witness said Prince returned to class, and said that no action was going to be taken and that "she was still going to get beat up."

In a recent interview, Superintendent Gus Sayer said school administrators were not aware of the bullying until Jan. 7, a week before Prince committed suicide. On that day, two teachers reported separate bullying incidents to the principal, Sayer said.

In one incident, a student walked into Prince's classroom and yelled at her. In the other, a teacher overheard several students in the cafeteria making remarks about Prince "that appeared to be threatening."

"Even though they weren't made to her directly, he reported that to the principal," Sayer said.

The principal "took immediately disciplinary action against both students," Sayer said. He would not say what kind of action was taken, citing school privacy rules.

A message left with Sayer on Friday was not immediately returned. The six charged teens and their families have not commented.

District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel has said the inaction of school officials was troublesome but not criminal.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told WTKK Radio on Friday that "adults did not seem to have acted like adults" in the case. He did not distinguish between school administrators and the parents of the teens charged.

Prosecutors said Prince, an Irish immigrant, endured months of verbal assaults and threats after she briefly dated a popular boy. She was harassed mostly in school, but also on Facebook and through other electronic forms.

The documents detail in length the final 24 hours of the girl's life. On Jan. 13, Prince told a confidant that school "has been close to intolerable lately."

On the day of her death, according to the documents, Prince was in the school library at the same time as three of the charged teens - Sean Mulveyhill, Kayla Narey and Ashley Longe. Witnesses told investigators that Prince was subjected to crude sexual taunts from Longe, including "whore" and "Irish slut."

At the end of the school day Jan. 14, witnesses said Prince was again subjected to verbal abuse as she walked out of the building. After Prince had left school grounds, a witness said Longe, as she rode by in a friend's car, threw an empty beverage can at Prince and started laughing.

According to the documents, Prince was crying as she walked home. Investigators said she exchanged several text messages with a friend about two hours before her death, in which she discussed the verbal abuse she had received that day and the ongoing taunts.

Later in the day, Prince's body was found hanging in a rear stairwell of her family's apartment [by her sister].

The same educational luminaries that suspend a child for bringing a little toy gun from his GI Joe, pointing a chicken finger at another kid and going "Bang!" and drawing a picture of his uncle serving in Iraq to promote the facade of "school safety" ignore reported threats, pleas for help and allow a girl to be hounded to death - literally.

This, in the HOME TOWN of Mt. Holyoke College; originally a female seminary and part of the "Five College Community." Truly a seat of educational enlightenment.
 
Last edited:
Here's an example of ZT for you:

The same educational luminaries that suspend a child for bringing a little toy gun from his GI Joe, pointing a chicken finger at another kid and going "Bang!" and drawing a picture of his uncle serving in Iraq to promote the facade of "school safety" ignore reported threats, pleas for help and allow a girl to be hounded to death - literally.

This, in the HOME TOWN of Mt. Holyoke College; originally a female seminary and part of the "Five College Community." Truly a seat of educational enlightenment.

I think I may have been misinterpreted:
In every case that I have seen, ZT policies are enacted by administrators unwilling or unable to either exercise or relinquish the authority of their position, usually for fear of being held accountable for either their own discretion, or that of their underlings.

H.2259 is about removing discretion that has no reason to exist in the first place, and cannot be used without being abused.

I was merely pointing out that both involve removal of discretion.
 
Very true, but given that a COP is 1 man among thousands, to ten's of thousands or more in his community with extraordinary powers. I don't think it too much to ask that he be as good as "1 man in a 100"...

Most of that 1% wouldn't have take the job of COP in the first place.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask, but I'm not surprised they didn't measure up.
 
I think I may have been misinterpreted:
In every case that I have seen, ZT policies are enacted by administrators unwilling or unable to either exercise or relinquish the authority of their position, usually for fear of being held accountable for either their own discretion, or that of their underlings.

Understood.

And I was pointing out that those who tout ZT often employ it against harmless action; yet, when a real threat is present, are too invertebrate or incompetent to act.
 
It really baffles me on a macro-level that MCOPA is making itself an adversary to law abiding citizens. I understand the the power and greed and progressive politics. This is just a colossal waste of time in the grand scheme of "fighting crime" and keeping our communities safe.
Why do you think fighting crime and keep our communities safe are priorities for civil serpents?
 
Why do you think fighting crime and keep our communities safe are priorities for civil serpents?
Sorry, unicorns again - I'll get back on my meds... [laugh]

Seriously though, it's because most of the ones I've met in person or on the phone are reasonable people who mean well.
 
First best: no license at all. If you are not in prison, you can buy, sell, and carry concealed or open. Done. Anything else is inferior. And allowing a chief to decide whether someone is suitable is a horrible idea.

Exactly, neither the state or chiefs are above the Constitution and their little power trip needs to end. So does the ATF's.
 
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.

I'm on the fence on the whole suitability issue. On one hand I'm not fond of the idea of current or former criminals getting their hands on guns, but to deny a citizen the right to self defense after paying his debt to society may be going a bit too far. It might be best to put "former" criminals(non violent) on a set period of probation where they can not own/carry a weapon. Does being a former non violent offender mean that one loses the right to defend their life, or that of their family?
 
It might be best to put "former" criminals(non violent) on a set period of probation where they can not own/carry a weapon.
We could call it a "prison term".

Does being a former non violent offender mean that one loses the right to defend their life, or that of their family?

Anyone who can be trusted with a car, or a hammer, or a kitchen knife can be trusted with a gun.
 
We could call it a "prison term".
The problems that I have with that philosophy, though I respect your opinion, are that a lot of "beefs" are caused by or are created in prison; it might be best to give a cooling off period after release. Also a lot of ex cons are sociopaths as well(these are the ones who are pretty likely to re-offend).
 
I doubt one person in 100 has the personal strength to voluntarily surrender a long-held authority. That's why our government was constructed to keep them from accumulating that much power in the first place. If only it had worked.
...
It DOES WORK, by voting. We are outvoted in Massachusetts.
 
Back
Top Bottom