Standard Times of New Bedford LTC article

[Knob Creek]

Today's Standard Times front page lead is on LTC. Not a bad article. Not anti-gun anyway. Interviewed local PD and gun shop owners.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090927/NEWS/909270343

No connection
Law enforcement officials and gun sellers say they see little if any connection between licensed gun owners and the proliferation of illegal weapons on the street.

You might expect that we'd be finding guns that are stolen from house breaks in New Bedford, but that hasn't been our experience," Lt. Silva (NBPD) said. "It doesn't play out that way in reality. That's not where these guns are coming from."

"The (illegal) guns we come across many times are stolen from out of state or bought in other states that have fewer restrictions," he said.

"Typically, gun owners are the most law-abiding people. They're very responsible. They're taking the precautions to keep their guns safe."

Also article on Gun and ammo sales and interviewed local gun shops owners.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090927/NEWS/909270354

 

[jaypap]

Nice article, thanks for sharing.

If that was the Springfield paper it wouldn't have been so positive.

 

[Palladin]

I like the thinking of the Rochester Chief.

 

[commandcaddy]

LTC article

I think we are very fortunate to live in this area where the towns of Rochester, Marion, Mattapoisett, and Wareham are pretty much gun licensee friendly.....at least for now.. Same thought here about the article... considering the Standard Times liberal views... it seems like a very fair article.

 

[center442]

I like the thinking of the Rochester Chief.

Yep. Refreshing to read, especially in a paper like the Sub-Standard Times.

In Mattapoisett, "I pretty much provide the license they're requesting," Lyons said. "If they're looking for a license for target practice, that's what they'll get but, for the most part, the licenses are 'for all lawful purposes.' "

Rochester's McGee said that if someone is inclined to use a firearm illegally, it won't matter whether the license is restricted or not.

"If someone's suitable to have a firearm, we generally don't restrict them," he said. "We can give all the restrictions in the world, but whether people will follow them is another issue."

And as far as carrying a gun, we have this:

The chiefs make two other points about licensing.

First, while the sale of guns is highly regulated, it's the person, not the piece that's licensed. "We don't license guns," Freetown's' Abbott said. "We license people."

And just because a person has a license doesn't mean he's packing.

"Not everybody who has a license has a gun," Mattapoisett's Lyons said. "Some people just view it as their right and get a license even if they don't carry a gun."

Well, in the towns that only issue neutered licenses that's very true.

EDIT TO ADD:

I think we are very fortunate to live in this area where the towns of Rochester, Marion, Mattapoisett, and Wareham are pretty much gun licensee friendly.....at least for now.. Same thought here about the article... considering the Standard Times liberal views... it seems like a very fair article.

And there is the real crux of the problem in the PRM. All it takes is one person (the licensing authority) to change in a city or town and the situation for licensees can change dramatically.

 

[Fixxah]

I doubt that ANY gun control freak will agree with that article. In fact, there are more than likely wheels in motion to have Silva removed and somebody who wants more and tougher laws to replace him.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

so, from the sound of the article, it seems like to get "restrictions:none" you need to go and tell them you want a gun for personal protection. The guy in there quoted the chief as saying, "we issue what you ask for" (basically).


Hrmm, note to others, dont do a doing drawn out list of reasons for your permit, they will choose the most restrictive one. Tell them you want it for personal protection and cross your fingers.

 

[LTCRN]

Today's Standard Times front page lead is on LTC. Not a bad article. Not anti-gun anyway. Interviewed local PD and gun shop owners.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090927/NEWS/909270343

No connection
Law enforcement officials and gun sellers say they see little if any connection between licensed gun owners and the proliferation of illegal weapons on the street.

You might expect that we'd be finding guns that are stolen from house breaks in New Bedford, but that hasn't been our experience," Lt. Silva (NBPD) said. "It doesn't play out that way in reality. That's not where these guns are coming from."

"The (illegal) guns we come across many times are stolen from out of state or bought in other states that have fewer restrictions," he said.

"Typically, gun owners are the most law-abiding people. They're very responsible. They're taking the precautions to keep their guns safe."

Also article on Gun and ammo sales and interviewed local gun shops owners.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090927/NEWS/909270354

Finally the press interviews and prints the opinnions of the right people who have the control, who actually know what goes on in their communities, and recognizes what our rights as citizens are. Now if everyone who has control could think as rationally as these chiefs, the minority of us licensed gun owners who are restricted, wouldn't be.

 

[Pilgrim]

And the more rural the SouthCoast town, the more likely its residents are to hold a state license to carry.

Because the cities make it more difficult to get one.

 

[economist]

Walk down any street in New Bedford and the odds of running into a resident licensed to carry a gun are roughly 1 in 40.

...

In contrast, only 0.5 percent of New Bedford adults are licensed to carry.

1 in 40 is 2.5%, while 0.5% is 1 in 200. Now unless the reporter is doing some complicated conditional probability calculation (perhaps licensed people are more likely to be walking down the street?), we have basic math failure here.

 

[jcr]

giving police chiefs the authority to determine if the applicant "is a suitable person to be issued such license."

That's a broad power, one that chiefs don't take lightly.

And one that chiefs didn't take lightly in the past, either. When that language was first written into the law years ago, everyone knew that it meant that "negroes need not apply".

It still works great for biggoted chiefs. Just now they are not so much racially biggoted, but anti-gun biggoted.

 

[jcr]

Walk down any street in New Bedford and the odds of running into a resident licensed to carry a gun are roughly 1 in 40.

Beyond "economist" pointing out the arithmetic error, the framing of the proposition is faulty too.

When attempting to strike fear into the populous mind, it is not "residents" that are important. It is "people" walking down the street, wheterh residents or not.

The idiotic fallacy that chiefs make is that if they restrict guns, there will be fewer of them nearby -- whether legal or not.

You don't have to be a resident to walk down the street. Boston hands out few LTCs. Vistors to Boston do have LTCs and they can carry in Boston -- even if Menino & Davis don't like it.

 

[zeppelinfromled]

1 in 40 is 2.5%, while 0.5% is 1 in 200. Now unless the reporter is doing some complicated conditional probability calculation (perhaps licensed people are more likely to be walking down the street?), we have basic math failure here.

I was also going to quote those 2 lines. And they're only a handful of sentences apart from each other.

 

[derrick_lui]

"Rochester's McGee said that if someone is inclined to use a firearm illegally, it won't matter whether the license is restricted or not."

Someone figured?

 

[Realtor MA]

Hrmm, note to others, dont do a doing drawn out list of reasons for your permit, they will choose the most restrictive one. Tell them you want it for personal protection and cross your fingers.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

 

[berooobeee]

please delete

 

[jenlynn724]

I doubt that ANY gun control freak will agree with that article. In fact, there are more than likely wheels in motion to have Silva removed and somebody who wants more and tougher laws to replace him.

Silva has nothing to do with firearms licensing here.. He is our PR guy..

 

[red87930]

so, from the sound of the article, it seems like to get "restrictions:none" you need to go and tell them you want a gun for personal protection. The guy in there quoted the chief as saying, "we issue what you ask for" (basically).


Hrmm, note to others, dont do a doing drawn out list of reasons for your permit, they will choose the most restrictive one. Tell them you want it for personal protection and cross your fingers.

I would not even mention personal protection. I have my LTC for all legal purposes.

 

[xEnDoNx]

I would not even mention personal protection. I have my LTC for all legal purposes.

In New Bedford you have to provide a letter as to why you would like an ALP license... If your a new license holder and you do not have what they consider a "good enough reason" you will be denied an ALP license regardless of your record, and get a sporting restriction.

 

[DickWanner]

I thought New Bedford was regarded as a RED town? Oh, he must be talking about 1 in 40 criminals in NB have a gun on them walking down the street...

 

[Mike S]

We have to get H.2259 passed so we can let these chiefs get back to fighting crime instead of treating us citizens like criminals.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

I thought New Bedford was regarded as a RED town?...

seems to have gotten greener according to recent applicants.

 

[DickWanner]

seems to have gotten greener according to recent applicants.

That's a good thing then. If Fitchburg tries to downgrade me I'll just reapply in NB.

 

[berooobeee]

yea...1 in 40 have class A but the question is how many of those are restricted (the majority i'm sure) which the sub-standard fails to address.

hate to give bad news but i don't think new bedford is 'greener'. i was upgraded a few months ago from target and hunting to unrestricted for my job. the firearms sgt. told me if i lost my job or quit i'd be downgraded to target and hunting. so i'm qualified now but if i loose my job i'm all of a sudden not a suitable person? so does the chief do the same to the members of the NBPD when they retire or get laid-off??

 

[DickWanner]

yea...1 in 40 have class A but the question is how many of those are restricted (the majority i'm sure) which the sub-standard fails to address.

hate to give bad news but i don't think new bedford is 'greener'. i was upgraded a few months ago from target and hunting to unrestricted for my job. the firearms sgt. told me if i lost my job or quit i'd be downgraded to target and hunting. so i'm qualified now but if i loose my job i'm all of a sudden not a suitable person? so does the chief do the same to the members of the NBPD when they retire or get laid-off??

Well he could but that wouldn't do a damn thing because they're protected under LEOSA...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Well he could but that wouldn't do a damn thing because they're protected under LEOSA...

When police are laid off, it's generally by seniority. LEOSA requires an extended period of service (I think it's 15 years), and chances are anyone laid off will have less than that.

 

[ASHDUMP]

In regards to New Bedford:

If you do your homework and maybe put in a little extra effort as to getting recommendation letters along with a brief description of yourself you shouldn't have a problem getting a ALP. Now I obviously cannot speak for the chief or his departments but seems to me that most chiefs understand that people who can actually own a firearm legally are responsible people.

 

[DickWanner]

When police are laid off, it's generally by seniority. LEOSA requires an extended period of service (I think it's 15 years), and chances are anyone laid off will have less than that.

Yea, didn't think of that. I was more responding to the 'retired' comment.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well he could but that wouldn't do a damn thing because they're protected under LEOSA...

Not necessarily.

For LEOSA to kick in, one must obtain an ANNUAL "Retired ID" as well as the qualification card.

GCAB INTENTIONALLY wrote the CMR to NOT REQUIRE any chief to issue said "Retired ID" card. It was a very heated topic of discussion, but bottom line was that GCAB (and the resultant CMR) used the position that the chief should determine "suitability" of his/her retirees on an annual basis wrt issuing IDs . . . and we all know how well that works wrt civilian LTCs, don't we!

I am aware of retirees where the chief refused to issue any "Retired ID"! And it is probably more political than anything else.

 

[DickWanner]

Not necessarily.

For LEOSA to kick in, one must obtain an ANNUAL "Retired ID" as well as the qualification card.

GCAB INTENTIONALLY wrote the CMR to NOT REQUIRE any chief to issue said "Retired ID" card. It was a very heated topic of discussion, but bottom line was that GCAB (and the resultant CMR) used the position that the chief should determine "suitability" of his/her retirees on an annual basis wrt issuing IDs . . . and we all know how well that works wrt civilian LTCs, don't we!

I am aware of retirees where the chief refused to issue any "Retired ID"! And it is probably more political than anything else.

Did not know that. Wow, so even retired LE are told to go screw in this state