• 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.

Spitballing Lowell Restrictions

DarthRevan

DarthRevan

NES Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
9,598
Likes
11,684
Location
SE New Hampshire
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
Lets assume maybe that the current lawsuit against the city, and yesterdays council meeting fail to net positive results....

Could a potential compromise be that they require live fire testing to get unrestricted?
I dont agree with this for the record but a friend pointed it out as a potential avenue that we could try to overturn later.

Sooooo, thoughts?
 
I hope the lawsuit is enough to do it, but if all it took was live fire to get them to allow unrestricted I'm almost okay with it
FWIW, I'm drunk.
 
DarthRevan said:
I hope the lawsuit is enough to do it, but if all it took was live fire to get them to allow unrestricted I'm almost okay with it
FWIW, I'm drunk.
Click to expand...
The "other side" is not negotiating in good faith. So, there is zero to be gained by offering anything at this point...

Tell them to shove it and like it.
 
cekim said:
Don't negotiate with yourself.
Click to expand...
^This.

I actually think that the two-pronged approach of civic engagement and litigation, although uncoordinated, may actually help in a big way. It's really important to look beyond the gun rights vs. gun control paradigm. That is not what's going to inform whatever the Lowell City Council decides to do. Assume that most or all of the Council members are not knowledgeable about guns and gun laws. They make broad generalizations based upon the narrative to which they've become accustomed.

You're going to get their attention by having passionate people show up in numbers as happened last night. They'll respond to perceptions if inequity in the issuance of license. They'll notice that Lowell is an outlier compared to their peers. They don't want to be hung out to dry because their CLEO is reprising Don Quixote while his peers have moved on.

Some of the Councilors stayed on and spoke to people after the meeting and listened. The police chief is also none to happy to have Council breathing down his neck. And yes, he works for them. Stay tuned. One way or another, this is going to get interesting.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
^This.

I actually think that the two-pronged approach of civic engagement and litigation, although uncoordinated, may actually help in a big way
Click to expand...

It is actually important they be uncoordinated, as the negotiators can then in good faith be the "good guys" in a classic good guy/bad guy negotiation (something the police will understand, even if only from bad detective movies).

That's why it's important GOAL and COMM2A be separate. It would not be productive for GOAL's lobbyist to also be the representative of the group suing the state over the legislative acts.

An important point to hammer home: "Over 90% of all LTCs issued in this state are unrestricted. People in Lowell are in the 10% of those who are restricted solely by nature of their zip code."
 
DarthRevan said:
Implying an LTC holder did it?
Click to expand...

I don't believe so.

Witnesses at the scene told police it appeared a male was “running for his life” up Smith Street as someone was shooting at him, according to police radio broadcasts.
Click to expand...

A couple who answered the door at the home struck by gunfire, pictured above at the corner of Smith and Liberty streets, confirmed for me that their 6-year-old was nearly struck by a bullet that entered the home, but they were too shaken to comment further right away.
Click to expand...

More here: 2015/02/24/shots-fired-on-smith-street
 
Last edited:
DarthRevan said:
Lets assume maybe that the current lawsuit against the city, and yesterdays council meeting fail to net positive results....

Could a potential compromise be that they require live fire testing to get unrestricted?
I dont agree with this for the record but a friend pointed it out as a potential avenue that we could try to overturn later.

Sooooo, thoughts?
Click to expand...

They kerp moving the carrot. If you offer compromise, they'll take that space and move for more. You won't win they over with honey, you need the stick.

Also, you make that suggestion and you will get an asshat like linsky push to make it statewide.
 
What needs to happen is the "May Issue" be found unconstitutional.
Criminals, by definition, have unrestricted carry because they don't care what the law is.
Making carry a "privilege" subject to the whims of the local police chief or city council should not be allowed. Imagine the uproar if MA decided to make freedom of speech dependent on your zip code.
Everyone that has an LTC in MA knows that they will only have it until they city council changes their mind and orders the chief not to renew any permits or a new chief decides on his own to not renew or issue any permits.
 
DarthRevan said:
Lets assume maybe that the current lawsuit against the city, and yesterdays council meeting fail to net positive results....

Could a potential compromise be that they require live fire testing to get unrestricted?
I dont agree with this for the record but a friend pointed it out as a potential avenue that we could try to overturn later.

Sooooo, thoughts?
Click to expand...

Boston requires a live firing test of new and renewing LTC applicants. They still restrict LTC's. One could score 299/300 and still get restricted.
 

Similar threads

New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
293
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Former Dick's Sporting Goods CEO defends stance on gun restrictions despite backlash
2
Replies
32
Views
964
Goodandtight
G
Basic Firearms (LTC Requirement) Training Course near Lowell
Replies
7
Views
418
CATI
CATI
Pro Tip: Beware of Gun-Related Deed Restrictions When Buying Property
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Edek Kasica
E
Massachusetts (Lowell) Judge Rules Law Against Carrying Guns Across State Lines Unconstitutional
Replies
27
Views
3K
42!
42!
Back
Top Bottom