Squirrel Rage

[amm5061]

I think someone here ratted me out. I've never seen the Chief leave TM so fast. He was out of his seat and across the room even before the motion to adjourn was made. He can't hide forever, then again he only has to hide until Jan. 1.

Good luck cornering him. I hear he's a slippery bastard.

 

[MisterHappy]

First, those houses are way to close to be shooting in that neighborhood, Second, it's unlawful to discharge a firearm in the town (soon to be city) of Framingham.

I'll be seeing the chief tonight, I'll ask him why they withheld his name and didn't arrest. Maybe he has a legit reason.

Not precisely correct, see section 10.3:

http://www.framinghamma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/268

Though the "range" exemption admittedly does not apply in this case.

 

[cbrxx]

Do you really think arresting the guy was necessary in this situation? I certainly think a summons is sufficient when the only "crime" is only violation of the 500 ft rule.
What probably should have happened was something like "hey Bob, you're not really allowed to do that, your scaring your sissy neighbor, don't do it again.

This is the text of the section of Framingham bylaws. I think this can be read as allowing on your own property. It says " on a range approved by police", OR "with consent of property owner".
Doesn't have to be a range on your own property. It would make sense, they are not charging him with "discharge within town limits", but rather under the state 500ft law.

"No person shall fire or discharge any firearm or explosive of any kind within the limits of theTown of Framingham, except on a range or in an area designated for such purpose and approvedby the Chief of police in writing, or with the written consent of the owner or legal occupantthereof, which written consent shall be dated not more than one year prior to the act complained of."

As far as I'm concerned, the 500ft rule is vague. If you're on your own land, you can shoot within 500ft of your own dwelling. Why should you need permission from every house around you?

[h=2]Section 12E: Discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or other building in use; exceptions
Section 12E. Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property; (b) any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty-nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight.

[/h]

 

[Fixxah]

Username?[/QUOTE]

Lot of stupid in here lately.

 

[whacko]

Do you really think arresting the guy was necessary in this situation? I certainly think a summons is sufficient when the only "crime" is only violation of the 500 ft rule.
What probably should have happened was something like "hey Bob, you're not really allowed to do that, your scaring your sissy neighbor, don't do it again.

This is the text of the section of Framingham bylaws. I think this can be read as allowing on your own property. It says " on a range approved by police", OR "with consent of property owner".
Doesn't have to be a range on your own property. It would make sense, they are not charging him with "discharge within town limits", but rather under the state 500ft law.




As far as I'm concerned, the 500ft rule is vague. If you're on your own land, you can shoot within 500ft of your own dwelling. Why should you need permission from every house around you?


[/h]

See bold above:

Did you read the article and not comprehend or just not read it at all?

QUOTE "Police seized the gun, but did not arrest the 63-year-old man"


Also.......you say "As far as I'm concerned, the 500ft rule is vague. If you're on your own land, you can shoot within 500ft of your own dwelling. Why should you need permission from every house around you?"

well you don't need permission of EVERY house only if the occupied dwelling is closer than 500 feet form where you are shooting.....but again this may be a comprehension issue.

as far as why you need the permission its a simple answer........if my neighbor is standing 10 feet from my house while standing on his property.....and shooting a gun we are going to have a proper ****ing problem. I'll say maybe 500 feet is excessive but the law is far from vague.

 

[42!]

Do you really think arresting the guy was necessary in this situation? I certainly think a summons is sufficient when the only "crime" is only violation of the 500 ft rule. ...[/h]

My point isn't about what is or isn't appropriate, or even what's legal for that matter. My point is the inconsistency of releasing information and enforcement of the law. They refused to release the persons name to the press but that is a common practice as long as it's an adult. It's typical to make an arrest in a firearms incident particularly when the person admits to violating the law. It is also typical to seize ALL firearms and search the house. It's also typical to immediately revoke any FID/LTC. This last wasn't mentioned either way, although it is often specifically mentioned by the authorities.

So there are several points that show special treatment.

Special treatment of potentially influential people can have many goals. One is that those influential people won't "see" the behaviors, policies, and laws that others complain about. They can then simply take a "there is no problem", "we don't need to change anything" attitude.

This is actually very similar to gun owners who don't get involved in the AWB or Suitability (used to enforce extralegal requirements) simply because it doesn't affect them. In their world "there is no problem".

 

[cbrxx]

My point isn't about what is or isn't appropriate, or even what's legal for that matter. My point is the inconsistency of releasing information and enforcement of the law. They refused to release the persons name to the press but that is a common practice as long as it's an adult. It's typical to make an arrest in a firearms incident particularly when the person admits to violating the law. It is also typical to seize ALL firearms and search the house. It's also typical to immediately revoke any FID/LTC. This last wasn't mentioned either way, although it is often specifically mentioned by the authorities.

So there are several points that show special treatment.

Special treatment of potentially influential people can have many goals. One is that those influential people won't "see" the behaviors, policies, and laws that others complain about. They can then simply take a "there is no problem", "we don't need to change anything" attitude.

This is actually very similar to gun owners who don't get involved in the AWB or Suitability (used to enforce extralegal requirements) simply because it doesn't affect them. In their world "there is no problem".

I certainly agree there should be no preferential treatment, but seriously, seize firearms and search the house for violating the 500ft rule? Let's not even get into the suitability BS which shouldn't even be an issue. In most of the country he would get the summons, pay a fine, and be on his way.

 

[cbrxx]

See bold above:

Did you read the article and not comprehend or just not read it at all?

QUOTE "Police seized the gun, but did not arrest the 63-year-old man"


Also.......you say "As far as I'm concerned, the 500ft rule is vague. If you're on your own land, you can shoot within 500ft of your own dwelling. Why should you need permission from every house around you?"

well you don't need permission of EVERY house only if the occupied dwelling is closer than 500 feet form where you are shooting.....but again this may be a comprehension issue.

as far as why you need the permission its a simple answer........if my neighbor is standing 10 feet from my house while standing on his property.....and shooting a gun we are going to have a proper ****ing problem. I'll say maybe 500 feet is excessive but the law is far from vague.

Yea, I read and understood he was not arrested, my response was in regard to the questioning of why not.

Big problem is all the BS laws we have. Nobody can use common sense.
Sure, I wouldn't want the neighbor lighting off the .50 BMG, but I have no issue with popping some squirrels with a .22.

 

[amm5061]

Yea, I read and understood he was not arrested, my response was in regard to the questioning of why not.

Big problem is all the BS laws we have. Nobody can use common sense.
Sure, I wouldn't want the neighbor lighting off the .50 BMG, but I have no issue with popping some squirrels with a .22.

You don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with it, either. However, there are a few million people in this state who, through ignorance or sheer malice, do have problems with it. One of these is who called the cops on this guy.

 

[greencobra]

Nobody can use common sense.

probably the reason why we have the laws.