- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
If one were to believe a "no concealed carry" restriction meant open carry was ok, they deserve the problems it causes them
-
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***
Restricted LTC-A on Concealment
- Thread starter 97serpent
- Start date
- Status
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Precisely. And in reality No conceiled carry would alude that open carry is legal
There is no such notional of "LTCs that aren't LTCs" in the law. The fact that the license says "license to carry" on the front of it is meaningless- the law you just quoted basically says so. There is no law or case law that constrains what restrictions an issuing authority can place on an LTC. The IA can put "Only on sundays" on the license, or "Clown Suit Only" and it's legally binding. MA has a discretionary issue system, and that's basically the frosting on the turd cake that is discretionary issue.
You can believe whatever you want to believe... of course, even if it is wrong.
This topic has been beaten to death by at least two well known MA gun lawyers on this forum, among other people. You might want to do some searching for the 500 different discussions on this issue.
-Mike
Last edited:
Some towns issue unrestricted LTCs because the chiefs are either pro gun or have determined that method to be the easiest thing to do- some PDs take
the viewpoint licensing is either an all or nothing affair... either give the person an unrestricted A (if they qualify statutorily) or deny them.
The towns that issue restricted licenses, or B-ram, have anti gun chiefs, or the town "management" is anti gun and forces this sentiment down through
the PD. These restrictions are applied in an attempt to get people not to bother with licenses, or in a really vain attempt, to get it so that residents
won't carry guns in their town... (we all know how well that works, of course... )
-Mike
Hummm,,, now that you mention it, I suppose you could interpret it to mean that you can only carry, open and visible (i.e. not concealed) while your are hunting (assuming you are legally hunting) or are at a gun range or on your own property.
So then if that were the case, then we would have a license to carry firearms that really didn’t do anything except create a bureaucracy and to intentionally restrict the people of Massachusetts from exercising their rights as stated in the 2nd amendment,,, Who would do such a thing,,,
Who,,,
GH
There is no such notional of "LTCs that aren't LTCs" in the law. The fact that the license says "license to carry" on the front of it is meaningless- the law you just quoted basically says so. There is no law or case law that constrains what restrictions an issuing authority can place on an LTC. The IA can put "Only on sundays" on the license, or "Clown Suit Only" and it's legally binding. MA has a discretionary issue system, and that's basically the frosting on the turd cake that is discretionary issue.
You can believe whatever you want to believe... of course, even if it is wrong.
gun lawyers on this forum, among other people. You might want to do some searching for the 500 different discussions on this issue.
-Mike
Fortunately its not a problem for me as my LTC has no restrictions, but then it wouldn’t be a problem either way as I will not be denied my rights, even if that means throwing in the towel and leaving this bastion of personal rights.
I’m happy enough to be here are to do my part to preserve “my” way of life, but I will not be subjugated. That’s just my personal standard, and I will not compromise on whats important to me.
Oh sure I'll put up with the nuisance fees, endless paperwork and the more than occasional BS, but only up to a point, and categorical subjugation in not an option for me. Life is just too short to live under a oppressive tyranny.
gh
You're confusing the issue. That's ok. It's obvious that you haven't spent a whole lot of time reading and discussing the laws and getting familiar with the MA firearms climate.
Now, having said that, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. In other words, You're responding the truth which Mike shared with you by saying essentially "That's ridiculous. It can't be." Well, it is ridiculous. You're absolutely right there. But it is also true and you're wrong there.
There are myriad absolutely ridiculous and conflicting laws in this state. Using "sensibility as a framework for understanding MA laws re:firearms is like trying to reason with a goat. Wrong tool for the job.
It is absolutely possibly, that an LTC isn't an LTC if it's a B or an A with any restrictions.
Dupepost
Last edited:
The officer said the license will just say "No Concealed Carry". He didn't mention anything about target/hunting. Anyways he said to come back when I have a few months experience shooting, and he would lift the restriction. He was a nice guy, so I can only assume he meant what he said. Once I get it in the mail, I may just email him to ask for clarification on whatever it says.
On another note, will any gun shop give me shit about selling certain guns to me with a restricted Class-A?
On another note, will any gun shop give me shit about selling certain guns to me with a restricted Class-A?
No gun stores will bother you. Buy what you want /can afford. It looks like there is some light at the end of the tunnel for you if you have the ability to get restrictions lifted. Your luckier then a lot of folks.
Yup, I know of one! I had this argument with my chief who volunteered that this was exactly what he was willing to do for a female applicant that refused to accept it and was about to challenge him in court. I told him that it was nuts, that he'd be responding to "woman with a gun" calls all the time and he was just buying himself trouble.
Well, you posted the answer, but apparently didn't read it carefully enough to absorb the absurdity of the law. Important parts put in red for your benefit above.
Not looking to be a spoiler, just stating my experiences, and opinions and I stick by what I have come to understand as the “truth” which is that local issuing authorities are imposing inappropriate ”restrictions” on MA License to Carry Firearms
Fact is that are doing it (restricting law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms) by imposing restrictions that prevent the holders of License to Carry Firearms from actually carrying firearms, and they are getting away with it because they are allowed to.
So long as “we” accept this as reasonable, it will continue.
I’m not bold enough to say “we” can do anything about it, as who “we” are depends on the day of the week, the question of the day, and the way the wind blows,,, Remember “we” are the same people who elected these law makers who allow these atrocities to occur.
But when it becomes a question of “I” or “you” then we whine and complain, and we debate the matter in social circles that accomplish little, then maybe we go to the next level of formal inquiries about legalities and possibly take some superficial legal actions, and when all is said and done little changes and we accept what “we” don’t like or want.
My attitude is that the politicians, the law makers, the LE, the clerks and admin staff all work for me! I pay my taxes and as a citizen I’m entitled to certain rights AND privileges. And when I don’t get what I want, I try to consider if its what I’m actually due and it’s a reasonable expectation, if the answer is yes, then I voice my displeasure and do all I can reasonably do to change the situation.
In many cases my fellow citizens do not share my expectations or just cant be bothered to fight for their neighbors, or even themselves in some cases,,,
So call me the odd man out, I’ll happily wear that name tag, but when I go for an LTC renewal or a permit to do something to the house, or whatever, I go with the expectation that I WILL get it. If I don’t, there better be a real good reason or I’ll be very displeased with “my” employees!
I at some point I should find that my expectations are too often going unmet and I am not successful are correcting their behavior (my employees) and/or unable are to replace them, then I may have to shut down my operation and take my tax dollars elsewhere, and I have done that before.
So if you feel like its reasonable to go through the process of obtaining a License to Carry Firearms, and you pay the very high costs associated with that process, only then to have a local license authority to be issuing your license and it doesn’t allow you to actually carry firearms, well then all I can say good luck buddy and no wonder why the world, the country and the state are in the predicament were in today,,,,
Your all entitled to not only your opinions, but also your expectations, and if you have set them so low as to expect nothing, and you only take what you get, well why would you have any disappointment when you don’t get what you want,,,
Maybe me expectations are unreasonable, but so far they work for me and have served me well my whole life. So I don’t plan on making any changes to the way I conduct myself anytime too soon.
I truly hope that al Americans can all say the same,,,
Damn, that’s a whole lot of preachy banter,,,
GH
yanici
NES Member
Hey Automag. When i was a kid there used to be promotional ads on TV and radio that asked for your responce to the ad in "25 words or less."" Can you imagine that! ![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Ok now back on topic.
Ok now back on topic.Actually I did read it.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but to me the term “carry” means carry as in:
carry
Pronunciation [kar-ee]
verb, -ried, -ry⋅ing, noun, plural -ries.
–verb (used with object)
1. to take or support from one place to another; convey; transport: He carried her for a mile in his arms. This elevator cannot carry more than ten people.
2. to wear, hold, or have around one: He carries his knife in his pocket. He carries a cane.
3. to contain or be capable of containing; hold: The suitcase will carry enough clothes for a week.
Etc,,,
And the term concealed means:
Concealed
Con*cealed"\, a. Hidden; kept from sight; secreted. -- Con*ceal"ed*ly, adv. -- Con*ceal"ed*ness, n.
Concealed weapons (Law), dangerous weapons so carried on the person as to be knowingly or willfully concealed from sight, -- a practice forbidden by statute.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
concealed
adjective
1. not accessible to view; "concealed (or hidden) damage"; "in stormy weather the stars are out of sight"
2. hidden on any grounds for any motive; "a concealed weapon"; "a concealed compartment in his briefcase" [ant: unconcealed]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
And so to me the phrase “subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper;” means that the issuing authority can impose restrictions on the possession, use and carring of firearms, but not prevent it (i.e. an LTC that does not allow you to actually carry)
So we have a problem with the Kings English, with those who administer the License to Carry Firearms, and the people who actually apply for and receive them with illegitimate restrictions.
Do any of you really believe that issuing a License to Carry Firearms with a restriction that you cannot actually carry firearms is reasonable? If so, then enjoy the restrictions and be done with any more responses on this matter as you will not convince me that it is reasonable, sorry I’m just not buying it. And please don’t confuse that with some concept that I don’t think its happening, I just don’t buy that it’s legit or reasonable.
And with regard to the issue of the penalties related to violation of these inappropriate restrictions, I have not made any comment about that, but I will now and that comment is your all right, it would be a difficult and costly battle to fight the system to prove that they have wrongfully enforced an illegitimate restriction. No easy answers for this one except bring lots of money and powerful lawyers. Fact is the wealthy get away with these types of things all the time, cus it really only takes money and connections and lawyers to change just about anything you don’t like.
GH
Hey Automag. When i was a kid there used to be promotional ads on TV and radio that asked for your responce to the ad in "25 words or less."" Can you imagine that!
Ya but that’s back when we had to dip feathers in inkwells,,, LOL
Sorry, I already admitted to being "preachy" tonight,,,
I guess I can get a bit agitated when I see people nonchalantly accepting what they know as wrong or worse yet, trying to justify it to me when they really know better (or should).
I’m ok with folks saying I fought the system and didn’t win, or even that they don’t like something/don’t agree with something, but don’t have any reasonable means to do anything about it.
But to not like something and then justify its right because someone told you so,,, well you get the picture and that’s more than 25 words,,,
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
GH
Last edited:
Auto mag don't fight the people on this forum because your upset with the laws. You should obey the laws until you can get them changed into a manner that pleases you. No one here is happy with MA ridiculousness so take it easy.
You obviously don't seem to accept what people are saying here in regards to restrictions on LTC and their enforceability. So, by all means be the one who violates it and takes the fight to court. At your own peril might I add.
P.S There is a difference between accepting and obeying.
You obviously don't seem to accept what people are saying here in regards to restrictions on LTC and their enforceability. So, by all means be the one who violates it and takes the fight to court. At your own peril might I add.
P.S There is a difference between accepting and obeying.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
WOW. reading Comprehension FAIL!
"License to Carry Firearms" is solely the name of the permit you get in order to own firearms in this state (barring the existence of an FID for a moment). It is not an automatic definition of allowing you to actually carry firearms (concealed). The restrictions field is what dictates what you can and cannot do with your permit.
Your argument that "it says it on the top of the permit" means nothing and holds no water whatsoever.
Better brush up and re-read the MGLs. You posted the part that contradicted your argument
OUCH,
Sorry, not "fighting" anyone,,, (I hope,,,)
As stated, I have my LTC many years now and NEVER had a problem in several different towns with imposing restrictions.
I think some folks are being wrongfully denied “their rights” not mine, so maybe there is a communication problem.
That said I’m disappointed in what I perceive as some accepting these restrictions as reasonable and legitimate. They are neither reasonable nor legitimate. Just because something happens (even at the hands of government) doesn’t make it right, or proper.
So if there are any I’ll feelings maybe its because I have struck a nerve?
You can accept these restrictions as being wrong, but beyond your ability to do anything about it. That’s not my personal philosophy, but were not all in the same position. But please don’t try to convince me that such restrictions are proper and would stand an ultimate test of our legal system.
Its ok by me that you folks have debated this before and that lawyers and/or LE may have offered up their opinions about why this is the law of the land and there is nothing you can do about it, but until someone actually brings a real legal battery to bear on this matter and pushes it to the US Supreme Court, then its all speculation and I for one remain unconvinced.
No hard feelings on my part as I am an uninjured party, but I do feel for the folks who have been cheated by the system and some individuals who have denied them their lawful rights.
Respectfully - GH
Well duh...that's what we've been talking about for several pages now.
You seem to be over the idea that, "because it's nuts, it can't be." Yet now you've moved on to believing that:
A. You're the only one upset about it.
B. That the rest of us are sheep who are "ok" with the law when the reality is that at 20 posts, you're walking into an ongoing discussion that we've been having here for years. The reason that we're not all in a twist like you are is that none of this is new info for us.
I'm sorry. I just went to go get some Cheetos. I'm back; is this going somewhere?
Yes, but again, you're mistaking familiarity for apathy.
My lord, you sound like Rodney King.
Hmmm....speak for yourself.Are you a member of GOAL, the NRA and/or the JPFO or GOA? Do you write letters? Do you volunteer your time? Do you teach people to shoot and walk them through the licensing process? Do you take new shooters out when you get the chance? Do you have an FFL 03? I'm not saying those are the end all be all, but If you're not doing any/all of those things, I take exception to your supposition.
That's lovely. We're all very proud of you. All I hear is talk though. What are you doing about the way you feel?
Perhaps. Alternately they may well be doing far more than you but since you've got them "pegged" you'll never know.
Calling yourself a rebel doesn't make it so. You keep trying to position yourself as fighting the machine but we're not the machine. We don't disagree with you (except on fact based issues).
?
Again with this bullshit rebel stance...No one here, least of all me, thinks its at all reasonable. You saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
What do you know about my expectations? You know nothing. You're simply another internet tough guy trying to create opposition to offset your own lack of impact on the world.
Ohhh...you are a rebel.
Doubtless, without your panache; your firm grip on the inane.
Or a whole lot of self-serving bullshit.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
Well duh...that's what we've been talking about for several pages now.
You seem to be over the idea that, "because it's nuts, it can't be." Yet now you've moved on to believing that:
A. You're the only one upset about it.
B. That the rest of us are sheep who are "ok" with the law when the reality is that at 20 posts, you're walking into an ongoing discussion that we've been having here for years. The reason that we're not all in a twist like you are is that none of this is new info for us.
I'm sorry. I just went to go get some Cheetos. I'm back; is this going somewhere?
Yes, but again, you're mistaking familiarity for apathy.
My lord, you sound like Rodney King.
Hmmm....speak for yourself.
That's lovely. We're all very proud of you. All I hear is talk though. What are you doing about the way you feel?
Perhaps. Alternately they may well be doing far more than you but since you've got them "pegged" you'll never know.
Calling yourself a rebel doesn't make it so. You keep trying to position yourself as fighting the machine but we're not the machine. We don't disagree with you (except on fact based issues).
?
Again with this bullshit rebel stance...No one here, least of all me, thinks its at all reasonable. You saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.
What do you know about my expectations? You know nothing. You're simply another internet tough guy trying to create opposition to offset your own lack of impact on the world.
Ohhh...you are a rebel.
Doubtless, without your panache; your firm grip on the inane.
Or a whole lot of self-serving bullshit.
damn! you dont need the rep points, but +2 is coming your way!
Well duh...that's what we've been talking about for several pages now.
You seem to be over the idea that, "because it's nuts, it can't be." Yet now you've moved on to believing that:
A. You're the only one upset about it.
B. That the rest of us are sheep who are "ok" with the law when the reality is that at 20 posts, you're walking into an ongoing discussion that we've been having here for years. The reason that we're not all in a twist like you are is that none of this is new info for us.
I'm sorry. I just went to go get some Cheetos. I'm back; is this going somewhere?
Yes, but again, you're mistaking familiarity for apathy.
My lord, you sound like Rodney King.
Hmmm....speak for yourself.
That's lovely. We're all very proud of you. All I hear is talk though. What are you doing about the way you feel?
Perhaps. Alternately they may well be doing far more than you but since you've got them "pegged" you'll never know.
Calling yourself a rebel doesn't make it so. You keep trying to position yourself as fighting the machine but we're not the machine. We don't disagree with you (except on fact based issues).
?
Again with this bullshit rebel stance...No one here, least of all me, thinks its at all reasonable. You saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.
What do you know about my expectations? You know nothing. You're simply another internet tough guy trying to create opposition to offset your own lack of impact on the world.
Ohhh...you are a rebel.
Doubtless, without your panache; your firm grip on the inane.
Or a whole lot of self-serving bullshit.
Damn looks like I struck a real sensitive nerve,,,
And a pissy responded too,,,
Again maybe we have a communication problem, but no heartache on my end, just disappointment that some are being cheated, or maybe you disagree???
And so my saying that I set expectations and deal with them as I see appropriate makes me a “rebel” ??? No wonder this state is so screwed up.
So what should I do?
Say that I go around asking for whats available and taking what given to me??? Dear sir, what kind of License to Carry Firearms do you offer? Oh only a license that doesn’t actually allow me to carry a gun,,, Sure I’m a nobody, I’ll take it. You must be kidding, right???
Stand on your own 2 feet and take care of yourself, that’s not a rebel, that’s just a regular joe, nothing more, so get a grip or get a life, but dont whine to me that I’m some rabble-rouser, just because I’m not jumping on the bandwagon saying that’s just the way it is and so live with it.
Sure glad your not representing me in government,,,
Look I got no beef with you or anyone here and no ones forcing you to read or respond, so if you don’t like that someone doesn’t agree with an asinine acceptance of something that’s just common sense wrong, then turn the computer off. Its just one button, just press it once and it all goes away,,,
So save your harsh words for the politicians and those who administer these programs that cheat honest people out of their rights, cus I’m not in the market for misdirected anger.
Hugs and Kisses,,,
GH
I'm not angry. ![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Your post was simply nonsensical and self serving. That made it annoying. I called you on it. ![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
End of story.
Your post was simply nonsensical and self serving. That made it annoying. I called you on it. End of story.
Last edited:
FWIW just to be perfectly clear- I certainly DO NOT accept any of those restrictions as reasonable and legitimate. That wasn't my point at all.
The fact of the matter is though, you're not going to invalidate those restrictions, legally speaking, by pretending they don't exist (or making up a bunch of logical fallacies to
support a loophole which doesn't exist... ) which is basically what you have insinuated earlier on in this thread. If you want the restrictions to actually go away, the only way this is going to happen is if a law is passed which basically invalidates discretionary issue- EG, remove authority from the chiefs entirely... which is something a ton of us would love to see happen, however improbable it might be to actually pull off.
-Mike
Last edited:
A good little citizen
Sorry I guess I missed how my being disappointed for others was self-serving or that my sharing that I had been advised that putting a no concealed carry restriction on an LTC was not legit is somehow nonsensical.
Or maybe it was the part about setting expectations and taking care of my own business,,, Ya that put a lot of $$ in my pocket and bought me a whole lot of NES web site capitol,,,
And God forbid the concept that the politicians, LE, etc work for us,,, who would dare say such a thing,,, Guess thats why we abolished the concept of civil service,,, To protect and serve and like,,, Cant have people running around thinking crazy thoughts like that,,, Gotta march in lockstep, right ???
But now that I’ve been called on it I’ll behave like a good citizen and abandon all personal standards and any thought of common sense,,,
Too funny, are we drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon, or Colt 45? Maybe Boones Farm or possibly Wild Turkey,,, got any extra???
Its all good, just please keep your keyboard unloaded and pointed away from me,,, we wouldn’t want any accidental (or premature) discharges,,,
But seriously, if you got any blues over this whole matter, vent to the guys who are responsible, not those who argue against it. Not sure how I become the bad guy because I say its wrong to restrict LTC’s and make my case for it,,,
GH
I'm not angry.
Sorry I guess I missed how my being disappointed for others was self-serving or that my sharing that I had been advised that putting a no concealed carry restriction on an LTC was not legit is somehow nonsensical.
Or maybe it was the part about setting expectations and taking care of my own business,,, Ya that put a lot of $$ in my pocket and bought me a whole lot of NES web site capitol,,,
And God forbid the concept that the politicians, LE, etc work for us,,, who would dare say such a thing,,, Guess thats why we abolished the concept of civil service,,, To protect and serve and like,,, Cant have people running around thinking crazy thoughts like that,,, Gotta march in lockstep, right ???
But now that I’ve been called on it I’ll behave like a good citizen and abandon all personal standards and any thought of common sense,,,
Too funny, are we drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon, or Colt 45? Maybe Boones Farm or possibly Wild Turkey,,, got any extra???
Its all good, just please keep your keyboard unloaded and pointed away from me,,, we wouldn’t want any accidental (or premature) discharges,,,
But seriously, if you got any blues over this whole matter, vent to the guys who are responsible, not those who argue against it. Not sure how I become the bad guy because I say its wrong to restrict LTC’s and make my case for it,,,
GH
Sorry Mike, I never insinuated any such thing, I’m asserting that its just wrong and probably not legal.
A very different argument.
My argument is that people need to know its not legit so they can have an expectation that they are entitled to a Class A LTC without restrictions and fight for whats right.
But make no mistake about it, if you have an LTC with a listed restriction (legit or not) and you get caught violating it you will suffer the consequences! Don’t do it!!!
Sadly I think it would take the whole of Harvard Law School to get this wrong righted, and we all know no such support will come from Cambridge,,,
I’m certainly on board with the idea that there should be no local authority to deny or restrict the license, it needs to be standardized like a drivers license.
Fact is there should be no license required but thats another whole thread,,,
So I think we are on the same page (I hope)
GH
Damn, considering were all on the same side (I hope) we sure beat this horse to death,,, Hate to see what would happen if someone stood up for restrictions, we would probably crash the server,,,
Last edited:
Wrong? Yes... it sure as hell is wrong. Legal? Yes, unfortunately so... and that is the part you're having a difficult time grasping.
Again, just because something is "legal" doesn't make it "right". That's not the issue here.
For example, highway speed limits are mostly pure, malum prohibitum bullshit, but unfortunately, those limits are still the law. whether we like it or
not. The only way to get rid of laws we don't like is to change them (well, or overthrow the government, which enables this easier... pick one.
) Here's where you go off the rails...
Legally speaking, no, they're not entitled to it. MA is a "May Issue" state, meaning that nobody is entitled to a license to carry. The only shall issue permit in MA is an FID card. Legally speaking, the chief can pretty much do whatever he/she wants to do to you, WRT licensing with an LTC, with a few limited exceptions. (For example, an outright denial based on purely "capricious and arbitrary" terms is often legally contestable, but that has nothing to do with restrictions. )
Your argument would have a point if this was a shall issue state (EG, like NH for example ) where basically the issuing authorities are compelled by FORCE OF LAW to issue
carry permits to all those who are statutorily qualified-eg, they meet the well-defined metrics.. MA is not one of those states. I don't know if I can make that any clearer to you.
Morally, Ethically... yes... I agree everyone should be able to get an unrestricted license.... further, frankly, the fact that a permit is required AT ALL is a clear violation of ones rights. That I don't take issue with. Again- what is right, and "What is the law in MA" are two different things. MA law is anti gun; and the SJC (our supreme court
basically) has legally invalidated the RKBA provision in the state constitution. Is that right? No... but guess what... they are the law.... )
Agreed. Every state should be like Vermont in this regard. Period, end. No permit should ever be required to assert a basic/fundamental human right.
Mostly... but it helps if you understand the law properly (and how it is applied) so you actually know what we're dealing with- as opposed to making stuff up that clearly isn't true, or legally valid within the legal framework in MA.
-Mike
Last edited:
Wrong? Yes... it sure as hell is wrong. Legal? Yes, unfortunately so... and that is the part you're having a difficult time grasping. Again, just because something is "legal" doesn't make it "right". That's not the issue here. For example, highway speed limits are mostly pure, malum prohibitum bullshit, but unfortunately, those limits are still the law. whether we like it or not. The only way to get rid of laws we don't like is to change them (well, or overthrow the government, which enables this easier... pick one.
Hi Mike,
There all kinds of ways to slice this up, but the fact is that we have rights provided by the founding fathers and bestowed in the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights.
Those rights are being trumped by poorly written state laws and by people who are exercising inappropriate authority over us because they can.
How do you correct this, sadly it would probably take a ton of $$ and a battery of New York lawyers to fix this, so we deal with it on a case by case basis as best we can and armed with what information we can amass. And hopefully the information includes some foundational writings from the founding fathers addressing what individual gun rights were intended to be and setting expectations that we will be treated like respectable citizens by those who are employed from our tax dollars.
If you can somehow muster kinds of legal support that Microsoft, or Raytheon, or Mobil/Exxon enjoy (on the order of 10 or 20 million dollars or basically what ever it takes) you could correct this for everyone with one fell swoop. But then you would have the Hollywood money putting up a counter, and the process would start again. Either way I don’t see this happening, so we are stuck taking care of ourselves and drawing a line in the sand where we will not be pushed across.
Not a lost cause, but there doesn’t seem to be a single easy answer, just perseverance and standing up for what’s right and then if you should ultimately find yourself in an unacceptable place, knowing when to say enough is enough and moving to higher ground.
It aint rocket science, and if things are that bad pack up and move on,,
Fortunately that’s not my experience, I have been bogged down in the red tape and been taxed and charged fees than leave me saying WTF, but I really cant say that I have been denied my rights. So I sympathize, but I’m not a victim.
So I will continue to stand by the position that some have been cheated, and its not right or legal, but like so many laws that are misinterpreted or unconstitutional, this one remains a point of contention and burden that some live with.
GH
Hummm,,, Not sure where your going with this, but if you must know, late 40's
Been shooting since early teens, and having had the good fortune to live elsewhere and in some rural areas, I have a more broadened view on guns than some of my neighbors who have never been outside of the 128 beltway. I often liken shooting to bowling, its just recreational fun to me. For those who are offended, too bad, worry about yourself.
Oh sure it (Guns/shooting) can be more; serious competition, or self-defense, or preservation of tradition like hunting, but I never feel the need to justify. The fact that I enjoy and no one is harmed by it is sufficient for me.
To each his own, so long as you don’t try to impose your will on me.
GH
- Status
