Article: Right and Wrong
You can view the page at http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/content/96-Right-and-Wrong
You can view the page at http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/content/96-Right-and-Wrong
-
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***
Right and Wrong
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
- Messages
- 3,520
- Likes
- 340
Great write up. Fortunately for me, I don't live in any of those city's/towns. It is upsetting to know that I can exercise my Rights more freely than some in this state. Your Right to Bear Arms should not be decided based on where you live. We need to stop this Unconstitutional process and pass H. 2259.
Note, the list does not, and should, include Boston.
It's amazing to me that people can't tie in the correlation between inner city violence and the disarming of inner city residents.
Why isn't the ACLU, or any of the "Reverends" discussing this, it is a huge civil rights issue. The people of the inner city are getting gunned down, the police can't stop it, and they have no means of protecting themselves.
It is no coincidence that MA has the most restrictive gun laws and the most violent crime.
Stop the madness, let's pass H.2259 and take the CLEOs power to abuse individual civil liberties away.
It's amazing to me that people can't tie in the correlation between inner city violence and the disarming of inner city residents.
Why isn't the ACLU, or any of the "Reverends" discussing this, it is a huge civil rights issue. The people of the inner city are getting gunned down, the police can't stop it, and they have no means of protecting themselves.
It is no coincidence that MA has the most restrictive gun laws and the most violent crime.
Stop the madness, let's pass H.2259 and take the CLEOs power to abuse individual civil liberties away.
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 230
- Likes
- 25
Derek you're absolutely right in your article, couldn't have said it better myself. I love it here in weymouth and especially enjoy my target and hunting restrictions on my license, especially since the weymouth news (our towns' paper) has now added a section to it called "break ins around weymouth in the police blotter section".
Argh. As one who lives in Waltham, it infuriates me. I have told the licensing officer that I am unhappy with being issued T&H, and he said there's no option, that's what the chief wants.
Well, it's not what *I* want!
Well, it's not what *I* want!
Great article, thanks Derek! This is going to be a handy list when I'm choosing a new town to move to.
Last edited:
For the CLEOs reading this, I would like to know why you think your residents should be unable to defend themselves while residents of other towns can. An LTC is a state-wide permit in Massachusetts, and those of us who can carry legally are free to do so all over the state. Without question, people carry concealed weapons legally in towns like Worcester. Local law enforcement is powerless to control it. So given that concealed carry is happening in your town, why deny your own citizens the right to carry as well?
Of course, there is little need to discuss the obvious fact that criminals carry guns regardless of the opinions of law enforcement. Permitting only controls the actions of law-abiding citizens.
The good news, on a national level, is that Massachusetts is in the minority. 40 of 50 U.S. states have shall-issue carry permits. The offending 10 are no surprise. Six, along with DC, are east coast bastions of liberalism (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, and New Jersey). Two are in that odd little "progressive" pocket in the upper midwest (Illinois, whose politics is driven by Chicago, and its northern neighbor Wisconsin). California and Hawaii, no surprise, complete the list.
In the rest of America, gun rights are expanding. The shall-issue carry movement has come a long way in recent years, removing Jim Crow era gun restrictions in states like Missouri, and eliminating local discretion in previously may-issue states like Iowa (which just passed a shall-issue law). Today, the minority of states who choose to deny their citizens legal right to self defense is itself on the defensive. Congress is afraid even to discuss gun control on a national level, with the ridiculous "assault weapons ban" of 1994 sun-setting ten years later in 2004 with little more than a few whimpers from the far left.
America today understands the value of gun rights more than ever. And that gives us in Massachusetts a little hope.
Of course, there is little need to discuss the obvious fact that criminals carry guns regardless of the opinions of law enforcement. Permitting only controls the actions of law-abiding citizens.
The good news, on a national level, is that Massachusetts is in the minority. 40 of 50 U.S. states have shall-issue carry permits. The offending 10 are no surprise. Six, along with DC, are east coast bastions of liberalism (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, and New Jersey). Two are in that odd little "progressive" pocket in the upper midwest (Illinois, whose politics is driven by Chicago, and its northern neighbor Wisconsin). California and Hawaii, no surprise, complete the list.
In the rest of America, gun rights are expanding. The shall-issue carry movement has come a long way in recent years, removing Jim Crow era gun restrictions in states like Missouri, and eliminating local discretion in previously may-issue states like Iowa (which just passed a shall-issue law). Today, the minority of states who choose to deny their citizens legal right to self defense is itself on the defensive. Congress is afraid even to discuss gun control on a national level, with the ridiculous "assault weapons ban" of 1994 sun-setting ten years later in 2004 with little more than a few whimpers from the far left.
America today understands the value of gun rights more than ever. And that gives us in Massachusetts a little hope.
interesting that some of the cities on that list have the highest violent crime rates in all of Massachusetts...
I'm fortunate to live in Westford, where
Chief Tom McEnaney treats residents like adults. What so many of these other chiefs are either too slow to realize or too caught up in their little control freak agendas to admit, is that
Chief Tom McEnaney treats residents like adults. What so many of these other chiefs are either too slow to realize or too caught up in their little control freak agendas to admit, is that
- anyone with an unrestricted LTC from another place can legally carry in their city or town, despite their policies;
- their policies relegate residents of their city or town to the status of second-class citizens in other cities or towns where residents and others with unrestricted licenses can carry legally;
- their policies have absolutely no impact on criminals, except by reassuring them that their victims will be unable to defend themselves.
I'm fortunate that Chief Curtin of Tyringham "gets it". So too do most of the small town chiefs in the Berkshires. I understand Chief Wynn of Pittsfield who replaced the almighty 'LTC-A Restricted God Chief Riello' gets it as well. I have had people come to the gun counter who have had their long-restricted licenses reissued as they should have been in the first place.
The problem beyond the CLEO's who see themselves as above those they serve, are the people who have become accustomed to just rolling over and taking it. In the state where revolution was born - the state where people rose up against tyranny and sacrificed for liberty - the citizenry have slowly eroded into subjects. We barely deserve to speak the names of those who gave so much for our freedoms - we bastardize their memory.
The Chief Law Enforcement Officers of Massachusetts have a unique opportunity before them: To at last form together and begin to take back Massachusetts from the power-brokers and elitists on Beacon Hill, return it to the people they have sworn to protect and serve and to at last uphold the 2nd Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America...
For those of you who choose to continue to play God - perhaps it's time to reassess the oath you took to honor the Constitution, for you continue to disgrace that to which you swore and oath...
The problem beyond the CLEO's who see themselves as above those they serve, are the people who have become accustomed to just rolling over and taking it. In the state where revolution was born - the state where people rose up against tyranny and sacrificed for liberty - the citizenry have slowly eroded into subjects. We barely deserve to speak the names of those who gave so much for our freedoms - we bastardize their memory.
The Chief Law Enforcement Officers of Massachusetts have a unique opportunity before them: To at last form together and begin to take back Massachusetts from the power-brokers and elitists on Beacon Hill, return it to the people they have sworn to protect and serve and to at last uphold the 2nd Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America...
For those of you who choose to continue to play God - perhaps it's time to reassess the oath you took to honor the Constitution, for you continue to disgrace that to which you swore and oath...
s4mt3k
NES Member
All this boils down to in my humble opinion is an ego and power trip that some CLEOs are on. It makes absolutely no "logical" sense that they would decide to limit residents who pass all background checks and meet all criteria to a T&H or even flat out deny them in some cases. I am lucky enough to live in the Town of Milford where the chief understands that constitutional right.
To those who like to play God; think about the founding fathers and how much more significant and intellectual they were compared to you, think about the bill of rights, and then picture yourself spitting in their faces and stomping on the bill of rights because that's exactly what you are doing.
Please stop this nonsense.
To those who like to play God; think about the founding fathers and how much more significant and intellectual they were compared to you, think about the bill of rights, and then picture yourself spitting in their faces and stomping on the bill of rights because that's exactly what you are doing.
Please stop this nonsense.
I am also fortunate that our chief is a shall issue chief. I'm kinda surprised to see Southampton's chief isn't a shall issue there on that list. Most of the small towns are around us. Then again Southampton leo's are good at revenue enhancing for some really stupid things.
I dream of a day when all men are created equal. That each man is judged not by the city they live in but by
equal application of the law. That all men will be given LTC's for All Lawful Purpose. That no man is denied his right to defend himself and family. That no man is forced to lay in bed at night worrying about the safety of his family. I have a dream.
equal application of the law. That all men will be given LTC's for All Lawful Purpose. That no man is denied his right to defend himself and family. That no man is forced to lay in bed at night worrying about the safety of his family. I have a dream.
Lets not forget when MA changed the non resident licensing authority. Now anyone visiting MA has that much harder of a time getting their non res LTC without restrictions!!!
![[crying]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/006.gif "Crying [crying]")
God I hope the CLEOs are all reading this. Unfortunately I'm willing to bet that the ones on the list don't care enough to bother.
CRSIII
NES Member
Thanks Derek. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
How Ironic is it that the Birth of Our Country started here in Massachusetts because the British were trying to seize Our arms.
History repeating itself.
History repeating itself.
Haven't heard anything negative about Warren C.O.P Bruce D. Spiewakowski. My license was issued by Glenn McKeil, who gave me an ALP sight unseen.
Derek,
You forgot to add Attleboro. Chief Peice will not reconize "All Lawfull Purposes" unless the applicant is 25-years old or older. He will restrict them Target Shooting and Hunting. Very good peace though.
You forgot to add Attleboro. Chief Peice will not reconize "All Lawfull Purposes" unless the applicant is 25-years old or older. He will restrict them Target Shooting and Hunting. Very good peace though.
A very good article indeed. But I will take issue with the idea that any green town chief "gets it". The fact that they don't usually abuse their authority and discretion doesn't change the fact that they should not have it in the first place. I would be very surprised if more than a handful of chiefs in MA support 'shall issue' licensing that would remove their power to determine who can and who cannot own handguns.
The chiefs are not the problem. The law is the problem.
The chiefs are not the problem. The law is the problem.
xtry51
NES Member
Great article. It's always aggravating to see people who carry a gun everyday for their own protection tell others they can't have the same safety. [sad2]
+1. The fact that local authorities can arbitrarily restrict a right enshrined in the constitution is mind boggling.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
we need to go after the AG's unacceptable harassment of gun manufacturers and ammunition dealers, and get rid of the the AWB/EBR restrictions.
Please add Revere Police Chief, Terence Reardon to this list. Chief Reardon refuses to issue anything but a class B to new applicants for no other reason than it is his personal rule.
Similar threads
