I don't take anything for granted with the MA courts after that judge set aside the verdict on the cross-dressing child molester/abductor a few years ago.
-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Oh Boy here we go
- Thread starter Serapis
- Start date
I don't take anything for granted with the MA courts after that judge set aside the verdict on the cross-dressing child molester/abductor a few years ago.
Even better, actually, with the law in question. Lawful self defense is OK WRT 500 feet of a dwelling.
Interestingly enough, it allows defense of property for this law, while other areas of Mass. law clearly don't. It's great when morons write laws for you.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
You can easily get hosed (or Nifonged, as drgrant has so eloquently put it in the past, apropos Mike Nifong) by any laws if you get a zealous enough cop, prosecutor or judge, but thankfully those ordeals are less likely when the law is clearly written. But there's so many different Mass. and federal gun laws that you could unknowingly break it's not even funny, especially when Mass. and federal law combine to screw you (see post #18 in this thread [http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/85269-Possession/page2]).
On a side note....speaking of f'ed up prosecutors....my wife told me yesterday in conversation that Martha Coakley talked one of her good friends out of pressing rape charges several years ago. Why? Because the case was not a slam dunk. It was a good case, but not 100% assured a win. Now who doesn't care about rape victims???? Hmmm Martha? Oddly enough, one of my friends had the same experience. I know it's off topic, but something I thought was worth sharing.
Remember the Daniel Cotnoir case? [http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php/1114-Marine-Held-in-Shooting-Lawrence-MA] IIRC he had his shotgun stashed under his bed unlocked, and they didn't charge him with improper storage...just a random thought that occurred to me.
I think the biggest issue with any of these laws is that you can just have your LTC pulled by your chief for no reason if he thinks you did wrong, but that's a whole other topic.
Link?
On the judge, I was talking about the Latin one who has since been dismissed. Her name escapes me. My wife's friend was about college aged, so no, that could not be the one. However your post does show what a disgusting little woman Coakley is. She railroads innocent people on high priority cases and talks victims out of proceeding when it isn't a slam dunk. She is only concerned about her record and can never admit when her, the prosecutor's office, or police have clearly made a mistake. I hope Brown wins, just sucks we will be stuck with her for another year as the AG.
Titan
Banned
You're right, of course, it's just that my thoughts went to the surge of new owners and the likely spike in the problem.
It's absolutely a dilemma for all of us. I've learned a great deal here that's beneficial and i have the luxury of more available time, being retired. I don't know how working folks do it!
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,718
- Likes
- 11,996
I agree....the police don't make the laws...they have to enforce what's on the books. In your neck of the woods the law is very different. And police in your state probably don't tread on constitutional rights like.."some" law enforcement do in our state. I agree, the police can do this because the laws are vague, silly and a nice little form of entrapment.
To me there is some latitude here, they didn't need to take his guns and LTC away for having his house broken into......and any officer that would do so is not your friend.....
Dumb laws can be repealed and believe me...we try....this is MA....
Until the PD grows a set and says, "I'm gonna investigate this theft and warn the homeowner to lock his sh*t up, and then go away" I'm not gonna ever disagree with fubars comment.
RIP the America we used to know......
I agree they don't make the laws and are there to enforce them. However, don't you remember the days when the LEO exercised some discretion? If it was something they didn't feel was serious or "boys will be boys", they might cut you a break.
I think the prevailing problem with what people like fubar believe is that it it reinforced on a regular basis. The problem magnifies when "the few bad apples" are not taken to task by their own - "blue wall of silence" is not a fantasy cooked up by paranoids. I for one, happen to not share fubar's blanket beliefs about law enforcement. If I did, I would have fewer friends - one of whom is a close friend of mine. You are also absolutely right about dumb laws needing to be changed and a public vocal movement from the law enforcement community would be a good starting point. By the way, I write this after many of my own experiences where I was clearly given a break by both state and local law enforcement officers and being a passenger in a car on Saturday, where the LEO could have clearly made our night a long one, (nothing illegal - just could have been perceived that way). It turns out, he only pulled us over because he was concerned about a blinking brake light. There are indeed good, decent, dedicated and often heroic law enforcement officials out there - I'd dare say they are in a majority. However, much like the guy who ND's at the range gives the entire shooting community a black eye, so too does incidents like this one, where it becomes evident that a wedge of distrust exists between law enforcement and their fellow citizens......I am also not being sarcastic when I express my thanks for your service.....
namedpipes
NES Member
Well, if anyone is in the mood for burglary, we know ONE household that won't be able to defend itself tonight...
There are definitely good LEOs, but the bad ones get the attention. I can say among three LEOs I know, one of them is a VERY BAD one, one is so-so, and the other is excellent. I don't point it out, because like MassMark, I would have less friends.
That's basically it. I have a large number of friends in law enforcement. I understand the underlying desire to make excuses for people in your profession, particularly when it's constantly under attack. It's just that instead of entertaining the possibility that is most obvious, they often present other, less likely scenarios. They just come across as an apologist. When they are in such a powerful position, that rests uneasy with me. I'd much rather think they look MORE closely at possibly wrongdoing than keeping it quiet to avoid bad press. I think we deserve that.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,718
- Likes
- 11,996
Ummm....They are trying to take all the guns away....and the lock up law is just one of the many intruments they use to do it.....
I am a law abiding citizen , a property owner , a parent of a good kid , I follow politics , I participate. I am by every definition of the word - a Good Guy. I can list a dozen constitutional violations of my freedoms that are " The Law. " I am licensed & permitted to death. I now need a license to catch a flounder.
And for me - and every other person in this State - the interface of the Powers that Be , the actual brute lethal force of Martha Coakley , of Duvall Patrick , of the Tax collector , the Dog Officer , the Parking Clerk ... the organization who represents the Government - the Government who sees me as a potential domestic terrorist , a threat - is the Police.
If the crazies decide to nationalize my 401k , it will be the police who stop me from demanding my local nice guy banker give me back my own money. If I decided to get a 4th dog it will be the police who enforce the law requiring me to have a kennel license , if Nancy Pelosi convinces the Congress to confiscate a category of scary guns it will be the police who knock on my door with a list. God help me if my spent brass isn't in a locked container.
I draw a distinction between " Police " & " Policeman. " You - yourself - are an individual man. We've never met so I have no idea if we could be friends. But I am willing to bet you treat your friends better than people you don't know - am I right ? I do. It's the definition of " Friend." But if you discriminate between friend - citizen - scumbag ... on the job , I imagine you are in violation of your duties.
I realize the dangerous work you do , I am aware of the emotional stress your job costs you. I apologize if I have offended you , your co-workers - & especially the Chief of Police in Swampscott. ...
Sometimes I wonder , when I see a police officer , if they have sorted out for themselves the line they will not cross regarding " The Law ."
I won't ask you , but wonder where the line is for every cop , and if they have sorted it out for themselves.
There is a pretty big movement , OathKeepers , who swear they will not engage in certain Unconstitutional acts - like disarming the citizens in the event of dramatic federal power grabs. And at the other end of the spectrum but so closely related - is the disarming of a citizen because he doesn't have trigger locks in his own home - and a mistaken idea that the police are on his side.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,718
- Likes
- 11,996
I'm not questioning that. My point is....... Are all these little laws designed for actual criminals or just to entrap the normal citizenry in a way to make it a gun free society.
Moving somewhere restrictive is more like it......I will always try to get the laws changed while I'm here...but to me this state is a lost cause.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
Which happens everyday... in my area there are a couple of houses a week broken into with guns stolen (unsecured) and I have yet to see one homeowner charged...
The officers in this case were asshats.... the general principle that I was taught long ago is to not turn a victim into a criminal. The officers here were wrong.....but their actions should not be reflective of the masses.
As far as inviting the officers into the house..... it is pretty hard to report a break in and not have the officers look around the house to conduct a proper investigation.
Many times we find unsecured guns, drugs etc..... but it is expected of us to not forget the task at hand and look at the big picture and not just settle for the easy way out.
The problem is this particular law, as it stands, is constitutional (lower case 'c'). Would I have made the same decision? Probably not, but I wasn't there so who can say. The one good thing is maybe another Heller type case could be pushed dealing with what is a 'locked container'. I'd think, and most would agree, a locked house is as secure as a pistol in a small lockbox that could easily be removed from a 'legaly storedl' unlocked house. Even the 400 lb case in my house could easily be removed in a matter of minutes. I've lost faith in people I once thought HAD to be smarter than me writing these laws regarding subjects they know nothing about, for example the California lawmakers and the visually 'evil' aspects of sporting rifles.
On the bright side, I'm crossing my fingers with the election in Mass and what it could signify for this country, and that state in particular. I'm not saying Brown is the stellar conservative he's trying to protray himself as, but it's a hell of a move in the right direction. I'm doing what I can to do the same in Maine when the time comes. I'm hoping (hopeing?) the 2nd will someday soon get the same attention as the 1st and 4th Amendments have. If 'unreasonable' can be turned into 'only with a warrant'', then I'm sure they can deal with 'shall not be infringed' in the same manner.
I've thought about Oathkeepers a lot. They seem to be a stand up group of people. I can't quite get a solid feeling about what they are really doing vs what they say they are doing. I'm still doing my research.
From what I understand, they are a good organization. The issue I have heard is that you are promising not to take any action or make any arrest that violates the constitution. If you don't have buy in from your chief, I can imagine your job might be in jeapordy.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
Titan
Banned
They would love for you to move.
One of the points of enacting restrictive legislation is to force people unhappy with the outcome to move. It's almost as good a mechanism as 'redistricting' to alter future elections and ensure single party dominance far into the future. The more onerous the laws passed, the more the 'if you don't like it, move-crowd' help to drive the CHANGE the leftists can believe in!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,718
- Likes
- 11,996
Your absolutely right.....which is why I said, while I'm here I wil continue to vote and be active at trying to change the laws. But there will be a day when I say enough's enough....besides 1/2 hour from where I live, there is no income tax, sales tax,pension tax, and I'm not paying a fee to own a gun or worrying about my constitutional rights being violated.
I can only hope the tide is turning with the Scott Brown type activism we are seeing today......it's a glimmer of light.
Last edited:
Similar threads
