• 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.

Police: Woburn Man Who Just Received License To Carry Accidentally Shoots Friend While Showing New Gun

ScottS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
5,502
Likes
4,836
Location
Live Free or Die
Let's just cut the self delusional, hyperbolic BS and try to be honest with yourself. These may all be Rights but like everything else in the world they are not identical. Saying they are the same is the same as saying men and women are the same, they are equal in some ways and different in others. I know it requires more thought but give it a try.
The simple fact is that firearms ownership require more responsibility than free speech. And it's pretty hard to accidentally say something that immediately results in physical harm or death to a bystander.
The attitude that firearms ownership doesn't inherently require an understanding of the necessary responsibility is what leads to an NDs. And there are lots of gun owners out there that don't get it, those are the ones calling it an AD and saying it just happens sometimes, BS it doesn't just happen.
And if you want historical context, I find it highly unlikely that the authors of the BoR, who lived in a time where firearms ownership, knowledge, and use was universal could even imagine a time when a second generation basement dweller who's only knowledge of firearms came from Call of Duty would ever exist. And communities were small, so the local gunsmith would likely know who the village idiot was and not sell him a gun, all without the gov making a law.

I think I made it clear I wasn't looking for Gov. to put in a requirement, Gov. F's up everything. Just that I could understand where that position would come from intellectually and it makes for a harder fact based argument.

And it is a fact that we do restrict Rights. A training requirement would a restriction on a right, but we restrict Freedom of Religion in that if your religion preaches death to homosexuals, you still can't do that. And we restrict Freedom of Speech with the classic you can't yell fire in a theater. And I don't have a problem requiring an ID to vote, another restriction. So the argument that it's a Right and can't be restricted falls flat in the face of the facts. So you best have a better argument that that, and these BS NDs make that more difficult.

If you're going to fight the anti-gun agenda you need to have arguments that just might work on them and the undecided, and that means facts and understanding where they are coming from, and countering with an argument that works for you and against them. Just shouting "RIGHTS"is preaching to the choir, it hasn't worked so far and it's not going to magically start working.
Woof. Talk about hyperbolic BS. Where to start?

1. You can absolutely have a religion that preaches death to homosexuals. You just can't act on it. See: Westview Baptist Church.
2. You can absolutely yell "Fire" in a theater. This is the ultimate in stupid arguments. What, exactly, would you yell in a theater if a fire burst out? Rape? Speech with the result of intentionally harming others is not protected, but they don't muzzle everyone in the theater on the chance that someone will falsely yell "Fire."
3. Literacy tests for voting (which are the equivalents of mandatory training) were expressly prohibited as an example of an unconstitutional restriction on a right. Proving your identity is no such restriction.
4. No one said "rights cannot be restricted," but nice strawman, anyway. What I said (I'm not speaking for anyone but me) was mandatory training is not required for any other right to be exercised, so when you said "...I find it hard to argue my side...", that is the argument. No other right requires training to exercise it. A limitation on the exercise of a right is not the same as a incorporating a pre-condition to exercise that right
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
8,362
Likes
6,394
Between 1932 and 1945, Adolf Hitler was responsible for 24 million people dead, just by opening his yap. And that's just the casualties between Allied losses and the Holocaust- not including the additional millions of civilians, along with forces not directly aligned with the UK-US-USSR partnership.

Let's cut the hyperbole. Give a charismatic lunatic a microphone, and they can do more damage than the confirmed totals in Chris Kyle's logbook.
1 this has very little to do with my posts
2 it sounds like you are arguing against free speech
3 this show an inability to see beyond the most simplistic
A more accurate comparison would be if Hitler said "all Jews die now" and by the power of his voice ALONE caused them to drop in that instant. The situation was a bit more complicated.
Now if you have an actually relavent comment I'm all ears.
 

jpm

Rating - 100%
86   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
7,036
Likes
3,530
1 this has very little to do with my posts
2 it sounds like you are arguing against free speech
3 this show an inability to see beyond the most simplistic
A more accurate comparison would be if Hitler said "all Jews die now" and by the power of his voice ALONE caused them to drop in that instant. The situation was a bit more complicated.
Now if you have an actually relavent comment I'm all ears.

There's also nothing preventing the guy from owning a black powder revolver or rifle, so his 2nd amendment rights are still intact.
 

Freddy B

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
783
Likes
671
Location
Lexington
Generall I'm against the Gov adding restriction to gun ownership. But every time I hear about an incident like this, and someone brings up a training requirement with live fire, I find it hard to argue my side. It's easy for those like myself that had a decade of shooting experience before getting their LTC, to look at a completely inexperienced person just getting an LTC and wonder WTF. And frankly, what MA requires isn't really training in my mind, its just for show and to make another hoop to jump through. If it was real training it would take a lot more than one day.

Are there circumstances where I could support a, real, training requirement, maybe. It would have to be a once-in-a-lifetime thing. It would need to be paid 100% by the gov. and available to everyone. It would have to be made available on a flexible schedule so anyone could make it fit into their life (not just held Tues-Thurs at 2:30). Basically make sure it isn't a burden on anyone who wants to exercise their 2a right.
Agree. A compromise would be live fire training required but then *shall* issue.
 

G Port

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2019
Messages
2,752
Likes
4,906
Let's just cut the self delusional, hyperbolic BS and try to be honest with yourself. These may all be Rights but like everything else in the world they are not identical. Saying they are the same is the same as saying men and women are the same, they are equal in some ways and different in others. I know it requires more thought but give it a try.
The simple fact is that firearms ownership require more responsibility than free speech. And it's pretty hard to accidentally say something that immediately results in physical harm or death to a bystander.
The attitude that firearms ownership doesn't inherently require an understanding of the necessary responsibility is what leads to an NDs. And there are lots of gun owners out there that don't get it, those are the ones calling it an AD and saying it just happens sometimes, BS it doesn't just happen.
And if you want historical context, I find it highly unlikely that the authors of the BoR, who lived in a time where firearms ownership, knowledge, and use was universal could even imagine a time when a second generation basement dweller who's only knowledge of firearms came from Call of Duty would ever exist. And communities were small, so the local gunsmith would likely know who the village idiot was and not sell him a gun, all without the gov making a law.

I think I made it clear I wasn't looking for Gov. to put in a requirement, Gov. F's up everything. Just that I could understand where that position would come from intellectually and it makes for a harder fact based argument.

And it is a fact that we do restrict Rights. A training requirement would a restriction on a right, but we restrict Freedom of Religion in that if your religion preaches death to homosexuals, you still can't do that. And we restrict Freedom of Speech with the classic you can't yell fire in a theater. And I don't have a problem requiring an ID to vote, another restriction. So the argument that it's a Right and can't be restricted falls flat in the face of the facts. So you best have a better argument that that, and these BS NDs make that more difficult.

If you're going to fight the anti-gun agenda you need to have arguments that just might work on them and the undecided, and that means facts and understanding where they are coming from, and countering with an argument that works for you and against them. Just shouting "RIGHTS"is preaching to the choir, it hasn't worked so far and it's not going to magically start working.

the dem's, with their inclination to curtail free speech (hate speech must be suppressed) apparently feel words are as dangerous as bullets.

mandatory training in anything is nothing more than an excuse to implement a licensing scheme, which is nothing more than a revenue stream for the state.

I see no evidence that the state is trying to restrict the freedom of religion of muslims, a religion rather outspoken regarding their anti Semitism and anti homosexuality.

The argument SOUNDS good, I'll grant you that, until you compare automotive deaths to firearms deaths. Both require training and licensure. How many people we know who can barely drive to save their life. Heck, our stupid states wants to grant licensed to illegals, and gives the test in 53 different languages.

Reality is nobody ever overthrew a government with cars.
 

Freddy B

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
783
Likes
671
Location
Lexington
Disagree. Once that door is opened, they can and will drive a truck through it. What good is "shall issue" when I can make the training onerous enough that no one can complete it?
Fair point. Careless people like this guy really put us in a tough spot. FWIW, the live fire training offered in the classes at Woburn Sportsman's is excellent. I insisted my kids take it when they got their LTC's.
 

ScottS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
5,502
Likes
4,836
Location
Live Free or Die
Fair point. Careless people like this guy really put us in a tough spot. FWIW, the live fire training offered in the classes at Woburn Sportsman's is excellent. I insisted my kids take it when they got their LTC's.
The thing to keep in mind is many (all?) people in this conversation think training is a good idea. I don't think the argument is against training, just mandatory training before you can exercise a right.
 

In God We Trust

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
11,696
Likes
7,374
Location
Emmond's Field in the Two Rivers
the dem's, with their inclination to curtail free speech (hate speech must be suppressed) apparently feel words are as dangerous as bullets.

mandatory training in anything is nothing more than an excuse to implement a licensing scheme, which is nothing more than a revenue stream for the state.

I see no evidence that the state is trying to restrict the freedom of religion of muslims, a religion rather outspoken regarding their anti Semitism and anti homosexuality.

The argument SOUNDS good, I'll grant you that, until you compare automotive deaths to firearms deaths. Both require training and licensure. How many people we know who can barely drive to save their life. Heck, our stupid states wants to grant licensed to illegals, and gives the test in 53 different languages.

Reality is nobody ever overthrew a government with cars.
This is a good logic exercise honestly. Saying that you should be knowledgeable on how to safely handle something as potentially dangerous as a gun before messing with one sounds like common sense. And I mean REAL common sense, not what we always hear from the left. Now you compare it with other potentially dangerous activities (and plain old rights) that require no such training and the logic gets kind of fuzzy.

I think what I see here is one side of the argument trying to visualize the absurdity of handing someone they know and care about a loaded gun and saying “Have fun! ‘Mercia!” While knowing the person has no f***ing clue how to safely handle it. It’s a tough pill to swallow and I think most of us would jump in and put a stop to this. It’s when that safety measure of a responsible individual intervening is removed that the whole thing gets scary And otherwise rational people make the mistake of looking to government for not nanny state over reach, but an actual solution.

Safety Training in school would be a good start at minimum, but we know that’s never going to happen. Government and your lefty neighbors would rather their kids get shot by mistake than admit they can own a gun.
 

ScottS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
5,502
Likes
4,836
Location
Live Free or Die
This is a good logic exercise honestly. Saying that you should be knowledgeable on how to safely handle something as potentially dangerous as a gun before messing with one sounds like common sense. And I mean REAL common sense, not what we always hear from the left. Now you compare it with other potentially dangerous activities (and plain old rights) that require no such training and the logic gets kind of fuzzy.

I think what I see here is one side of the argument trying to visualize the absurdity of handing someone they know and care about a loaded gun and saying “Have fun! ‘Mercia!” While knowing the person has no f***ing clue how to safely handle it. It’s a tough pill to swallow and I think most of us would jump in and put a stop to this. It’s when that safety measure of a responsible individual intervening is removed that the whole thing gets scary And otherwise rational people make the mistake of looking to government for not nanny state over reach, but an actual solution.

Safety Training in school would be a good start at minimum, but we know that’s never going to happen. Government and your lefty neighbors would rather their kids get shot by mistake than admit they can own a gun.
I look at the same way I look at The Jab: It should be free, available to anyone who wants it, and mandatory for no one.
 

jkelly1229

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
8,899
Likes
6,790
Not an easy place to get a LTC. Wife and I both got "sporting" restrictions and we are not inexperienced gun owners. I held an Illinois FOID firearms license for many years. I also had to prepare a typed written letter that I had to get notarized and signed under penalty of perjury, explaining my 1985 felony arrest in Long Beach, CA for carrying what a judge ultimately determined was a perfectly legal lockblade folding knife. Morons like this guy will make the process of getting a LTC even more difficult there.
Wait how was it felony arrest if the case was dismissed
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
389
Likes
304
Wait how was it felony arrest if the case was dismissed
The charge was carrying a dangerous weapon (switchblade knife). Felony under California penal code. Actually, the knife was a Gerber FS2 that I mail-order from Cutlery Shoppe in Boise, Idaho. It was my EDC and I used it often for outdoor activities. I added a Flickit, which clamped to the back of the blade, allowing for smooth and easy one handed opening. I was fishing at the pier at Long Beach when two women pulled up in a marked unit, questioned why I was carrying a knife and arrested me right then and there. My attorney pointed out that the knife was not a switchblade but rather a lockblade. Judge agreed. Case dismissed. Arrest stayed on the book at CA DOJ and a copy was forwarded to the FBI in Clarksburg. WV because it was a felony. CA never told FBI that the charges were dismissed, so my FBI rap sheet shows an open felony arrest.
 

jkelly1229

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
8,899
Likes
6,790
The charge was carrying a dangerous weapon (switchblade knife). Felony under California penal code. Actually, the knife was a Gerber FS2 that I mail-order from Cutlery Shoppe in Boise, Idaho. It was my EDC and I used it often for outdoor activities. I added a Flickit, which clamped to the back of the blade, allowing for smooth and easy one handed opening. I was fishing kn the pier at Long Beach when two women pulled up in a marked unit, questioned why I was carrying a knife and then arrested me right then and there. My attorney pointed out that the knife was not a switchblade but rather a lockblade. Judge agreed. Case dismissed. Arrest stayed on the book at CA DOJ and a copy was forwarded to the FBI in Clarksburg. WV because it was a felony. CA never told FBI that the charges were dismissed, so my FBI rap sheet shows an open felony arrest.
Ah that's some bs
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
389
Likes
304
Ah that's some bs
I agree. An attorney in CA wanted a $5,000 retainer (lot of money back in the 1980s) and told me that we would likely lose. He said that FBI records remain forever, so no chance of getting it removed. CA law makes it difficult and very expensive to expunge, if it can be expunged at all. I am stuck with the damn thing for life!
 

jkelly1229

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
8,899
Likes
6,790
I agree. An attorney in CA wanted a $5,000 retainer (lot of money back in the 1980s) and told me that we would likely lose. He said that FBI records remain forever, so no chance of getting it removed. CA law makes it difficult and very expensive to expunge, if it can be expunged at all. I am stuck with the damn thing for life!
Jesus even now 5k for getting a bs knife charge dismissed I'd be pissed
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
17,672
Likes
10,545
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
I agree. An attorney in CA wanted a $5,000 retainer (lot of money back in the 1980s) and told me that we would likely lose. He said that FBI records remain forever, so no chance of getting it removed. CA law makes it difficult and very expensive to expunge, if it can be expunged at all. I am stuck with the damn thing for life!
It is just plain nuts that a letter from a lawyer and prove of the dismissal from a court record is not good enough to have BS removed. At both the state and fed level
complete BS
 

allen-1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
10,705
Likes
23,812
Location
GA; (CT escapee)
It's still an arrest even if the charges get dismissed so it has to be explained for suitability.

That's the major reason I have not applied for a gun permit in Massachusetts. I had an arrest for which the charges were nolled. My CT gun permit was revoked at the time. When applying for permits I now walk a very fine line between "have you ever been arrested?" and "have you ever had a permit denied or revoked?".

I can legally state that I've never been arrested; (yes I absolutely confirmed that with my attorney) - but that "denied or revoked" still has to be answered. And then you get into "why was it denied or revoked?"

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pass the suitability test in Mass, (despite the fact that I have permits in five states) - so I really don't want another "denied or revoked" to explain.
 

nstassel

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
3,846
Likes
10,748
Location
Middlesex County
That's the major reason I have not applied for a gun permit in Massachusetts. I had an arrest for which the charges were nolled. My CT gun permit was revoked at the time. When applying for permits I now walk a very fine line between "have you ever been arrested?" and "have you ever had a permit denied or revoked?".

I can legally state that I've never been arrested; (yes I absolutely confirmed that with my attorney) - but that "denied or revoked" still has to be answered. And then you get into "why was it denied or revoked?"

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pass the suitability test in Mass, (despite the fact that I have permits in five states) - so I really don't want another "denied or revoked" to explain.
I don't think that's true. You've demonstrated safe gun ownership and a high degree of proficiency. They would have a very hard time justifying a decision that you're unsuitable.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
389
Likes
304
Jesus even now 5k for getting a bs knife charge dismissed I'd be pissed
Case was dismissed at arraignment after 3 days in jail. I had a public defender and he was good! Problem is the felony arrest record itself, which remains forever. They never go away. A few years later, after I graduated, I had a wonderful job offer from Thiokol withdrawn after a background check revealed my record. I tried to explain, but they dropped me like a sack of shit. I didn't want this record to destroy my career before it even got started, so I tried, unsuccessfully, to get it removed.
 

andrew1220

NES Member
Rating - 100%
136   0   0
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
16,498
Likes
13,510
Location
North Shore
Disagree. Once that door is opened, they can and will drive a truck through it. What good is "shall issue" when I can make the training onerous enough that no one can complete it?
Agree. A compromise would be live fire training required but then *shall* issue.
I dunno. I think training is a great idea obviously. But I think we’re kidding ourselves if we think this guy would have been some sort of skilled ultra safe gun owner after firing 50 rounds in a class?
 

jkelly1229

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
8,899
Likes
6,790
Case was dismissed at arraignment after 3 days in jail. I had a public defender and he was good! Problem is the felony arrest record itself, which remains forever. They never go away. A few years later, after I graduated, I had a wonderful job offer from Thiokol withdrawn after a background check revealed my record. I tried to explain, but they dropped me like a sack of shit. I didn't want this record to destroy my career before it even got started, so I tried, unsuccessfully, to get it removed.
Sorry man that is some bull....but I gotta ask were the 2 chick's hot at least?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
389
Likes
304
Sorry man that is some bull....but I gotta ask were the 2 chick's hot at least?
Two brunettes. Young, very fit. One had collar-length hair and the other a short pony tail. Their Crown Vic had Federal Signal siren/loudhailer, Motorola multi-channel two way radio with scanner and MDT data terminal. For firepower, there was an extended mag Remington 870 and an Armalite 180 in a twin mount, bolted to front of the prisoner cage. Suffice it to say, they were well-equipped. Hard to remember it all. So many years ago. As a 19 year old guy getting his first (and only!) arrest, you can imagine the stress this caused for me.
 

Admin

Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
40,210
Likes
20,925
Location
Monadnock area, NH
I see the unconstitutional mandatory classes to get your LTC in MA are working.

ALEC-AUGUSTINO-BRAZ.png

Amazing...
 
Top Bottom