So far all I have seen you do in this thread is defend the status quo by giving example after example of where the local PD chief knows better than some objective state board who should or who should not get an LTC or whatever you call that permission slip.
Am I wrong?
And why would anyone even defend the concept of a state board that does what the chiefs do now? Why is not a NICS check enough? And why should the .gov regulate the sale of private property between two individuals? As long as there is no fraud, what business is it of any government branch at any level?
IMO, I don't think JonJ or anyone else in this thread is really "defending"
the BS that goes on here..... we're just being realists.
"NICS only/free by default" is a pipe dream in MA and will -NEVER- be reality
here, so forget about that. (at least it won't be reality as long as this state
is like 75% democrap). Most of us would like to buy/sell/own guns without ANY
restrictions, but that's not happening anytime soon. That is reality
here. In MA, gun ownership is a PRIVLEDGE, not a RIGHT. (I obviously
don't agree with that conceptually, but if one wants to own guns legally in the
state, one -must- accept that concept at least in the context of the requirements
at hand...)
The ideas being floated around in this thread are based on realism given
the circumstances, not "what it should be". We all know what it
should be. There's a big difference in between that and what is reality
in this god awful state. Reality in MA means having to compromise... and
having to do some chip-trading/shell gaming to get improvements. We don't
have the votes in this state to flamethrower the establishment, so the
only inroads we really can make are through incrementalism.... by cultivating
common sense improvements to gun laws that are harder for the antis or
their cohorts to resist. Sometimes that means making tradeoffs. If it
means that a habitual drunk can't get a gun license, but a clean man
can now GET a license, that wasnt able to get one before, because of
his a**h*** chief, that's an improvement I think most of us would
agree with. The improvement outweighs the costs, if it's implemented
right. There are far more people denied licensing or ALP in MA
that have 110% clean records, than there are public drunks/gang bangers
that have difficulty getting a gun license. And further, the problem is
exacerbated with the existing system because there is no clean mechanism
of due process, especially not in the case of something like a restricted
license.
Don't get me wrong... I'd rather not make compromises AT ALL. But if it
means getting a ton of people a license that wouldn't have one otherwise,
and denying a few miscreants, then I'm all for it.
-Mike