• 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.

this is the toughest gun law in america-huffpost

In this case I believe that the thirty something guy who brandished a knife and smashed a picture and had multiple police calls on him by his own family should not be issued a permit or own firearms. He is emotionally unstable.

Owning firearms requires great responsibility. I have no problem with background checks as long as the denial threshold set is appropriate and there is due process. Someone who beats their family should not have weapons.
 
Pretty much states how Newton's Chief is horrible when it comes to licensing. I think he was quoted a couple years back stating that he won't give a LTC to to anyone their first time. They're applauded for it and more municipalities should adopt their policies.
 
Sickening. Now we have "Tall Deval" in office. He probably has plans to further this legislation.

The Republican Party in Massachusetts is run by Democrats. They will not allow any real Republicans to run for office. Only wolves in sheeps clothing are acceptable.

I would like to know when it was decided that Massachusetts would be the official liberal testing ground to roll out anti-gun, anti-freedom and anti-American practices to the rest of the country. It was probably right after WWII when the Nazi globalists decided to infect America.

Let the sheep keep their teeth!!!
 
Sevenrats said:
In this case I believe that the thirty something guy who brandished a knife and smashed a picture and had multiple police calls on him by his own family should not be issued a permit or own firearms. He is emotionally unstable.

Owning firearms requires great responsibility. I have no problem with background checks as long as the denial threshold set is appropriate and there is due process. Someone who beats their family should not have weapons.
Click to expand...

Is? He was emotionally unstable. Also note that he successfully completed treatment for alcohol addiction and had been incident free and holding a steady job since 2012. D's seem to think that rapists and murderers can be rehabbed and sent back to society, yet someone with no arrest record loses 2A rights after treatment / rehab? And all this decided by local LEO, not the courts?

Not saying the guy is OK to have his FID / LTC, but the system is way too arbitrary to guarantee him his rights. If he is no longer a danger to himself and others, why is he a 'PP'? The whole 'red town' issue in Massachusetts is clear evidence of the arbitrary nature of the 'laws' here.
 
Yes, Massachusetts is run by liberals, and liberals are run by emotion, not reason. Laws are not followed in this state. The media makes their own laws, which the sheep in Massachusetts follow to the letter.
 
Mountain said:
Is? He was emotionally unstable. Also note that he successfully completed treatment for alcohol addiction and had been incident free and holding a steady job since 2012. D's seem to think that rapists and murderers can be rehabbed and sent back to society, yet someone with no arrest record loses 2A rights after treatment / rehab? And all this decided by local LEO, not the courts?

Not saying the guy is OK to have his FID / LTC, but the system is way too arbitrary to guarantee him his rights. If he is no longer a danger to himself and others, why is he a 'PP'? The whole 'red town' issue in Massachusetts is clear evidence of the arbitrary nature of the 'laws' here.
Click to expand...
 
I agree, I know someone that held a license in Newton for 12 years was restricted. Move to Burlington unrestricted first time
 
Sevenrats said:
In this case I believe that the thirty something guy who brandished a knife and smashed a picture and had multiple police calls on him by his own family should not be issued a permit or own firearms. He is emotionally unstable.

Owning firearms requires great responsibility. I have no problem with background checks as long as the denial threshold set is appropriate and there is due process. Someone who beats their family should not have weapons.
Click to expand...

What are your qualifications to determine that the Newton man is emotionally unstable?
 
The Newton guy actually has some history of violent behavior, so I doubt he has a chance at winning an appeal unless he has lots on money. On the other hand I have no history of violence, drugs, or alcohol use (one arrest dismissed charges 18 years ago) and yet I too am "unsuitable" in my former MA town. The law needs to be changed. If we can't get rid of suitability then it needs to be further defined, this was what was supposed to happen in 2014 with "threat to public safety", but the courts still cite "broad discretion". At the very least it should be tied to specific incidence(s) and they need to be time relevant, say within the past 5 years.
 
Sevenrats said:
In this case I believe that the thirty something guy who brandished a knife and smashed a picture and had multiple police calls on him by his own family should not be issued a permit or own firearms. He is emotionally unstable.

Owning firearms requires great responsibility. I have no problem with background checks as long as the denial threshold set is appropriate and there is due process. Someone who beats their family should not have weapons.
Click to expand...

So what?

Can he drive? Vote? Have children? Use a chainsaw? All of these require great responsibility, but no one makes a big deal of them being used wrong.

Heck, you can get a DUI after hurting someone, and get your driver license but not your LTC, WTF?

Guns are simple tools. If they’re used wrong, stop crying and say “so what?”, like we do with car crashes. Enough of castrating ourselves to stop AIDS being spread in Uganda. What we do as law abiding citizens doesn’t matter to what criminals do, so stop buying the pretense that the left will get off our back if we cave “this once”.

This is like going to the range with safety nuts who treat a 10/22 with more care than I’ve seen with live 2,000 pound bombs. It’s a freaking rifle, don’t shoot me and we’re good we don’t need two person interlock keys to fire it. Sheesh, it ain’t magic people.
 
So the article says this system makes Mass gun incidents low, but not the lowest? So let me guess, there are a bunch of states that have lower incidents that don't have the restrictions that Mass has. So automatically that means that the Mass system isn't effective at all. At least, that how a logical mind works.
 
"This is like going to the range with safety nuts who treat a 10/22 with more care than I’ve seen with live 2,000 pound bombs. It’s a freaking rifle, don’t shoot me and we’re good we don’t need two person interlock keys to fire it. Sheesh, it ain’t magic people."

TURN YOUR KEY SIR!!1!

turnyourkeysir.gif
 
Sevenrats said:
In this case I believe that the thirty something guy who brandished a knife and smashed a picture and had multiple police calls on him by his own family should not be issued a permit or own firearms. He is emotionally unstable.

Owning firearms requires great responsibility. I have no problem with background checks as long as the denial threshold set is appropriate and there is due process. Someone who beats their family should not have weapons.
Click to expand...

Oh boy another out yourself thread. What are your credentials that make you an expert on why this person should or should not be allowed to exercise his Constitutional right?

MA’s system gives way too much leeway to police chiefs, many of whom are rabidly anti-2A, to determine “suitability.” Some people get denied for having speeding tickets, or an arrest for something minor that happened decades ago. Hell, one town refused to grant an LTC to a woman who didn’t renew her dog license (because her dog had died).
 
Sevenrats said:
In this case I believe that the thirty something guy who brandished a knife and smashed a picture and had multiple police calls on him by his own family should not be issued a permit or own firearms. He is emotionally unstable.

Owning firearms requires great responsibility. I have no problem with background checks as long as the denial threshold set is appropriate and there is due process. Someone who beats their family should not have weapons.
Click to expand...

I’d agree. Sounds like he has some serious issues and doesn’t show he is able to take on the responsibility for owning a firearm. Sure people will chime in with all kinds of BS that he can vote, work etc. but that’s a line a of crap. Not only would him getting a license be a risk to the public he also know represents gun owners and we don’t need another dipsh*t with a firearm screwing up and then making the lefts goal of limiting firearms an even easier task
 
I think we have to realize that there were controls on firearms at the time 2a was written that were not laws. Things were different then, communities were smaller and travel to an area where you were unknown, outside of the frontier, took longer. So a community would self regulate anyone who acted irrationally or erratically, and members of the community would simply deny firearms to someone who behaved violently. It wasn't about laws or rights.

But as times change we have to come up with a solution that works. So laws were passed and those that showed themselves to be violent were locked up. But we can't keep people locked up forever, can we? So they started trying to come up with a solution. The problem is we can't agree on what to do, or to what extent.

I think most would agree that we don't want people who would use guns for violence to have them. But until we can read minds and predict the future we can't know who these people are. I do think past behavior is an indication of possible future behavior. I also believe people can change. So how do we account for this? It's not an easy question.

So how would you solve the problem? And be realistic, we can't just lock up everyone who gets drunk and gets into a fight forever. Or is that your solution? On the other hand, if someone is behaving irrationally do we really need to wait until the hurt someone? What if it ends up being your daughter they hurt? Or are we going to lock up everyone who behaves strangely...just in case?

In life there are no easy answers.
 
Woodsy said:
I’d agree. Sounds like he has some serious issues and doesn’t show he is able to take on the responsibility for owning a firearm. Sure people will chime in with all kinds of BS that he can vote, work etc. but that’s a line a of crap. Not only would him getting a license be a risk to the public he also know represents gun owners and we don’t need another dipsh*t with a firearm screwing up and then making the lefts goal of limiting firearms an even easier task
Click to expand...

Honest question, judging by your response can I take that to mean that you are in support of the current shall issue licensing scheme? Though you agree that denying this person his constitutional rights based on the fact of a drinking problem 10 yrs ago and the assumption that he would maybe harm himself and or others, does that "assumption" outweigh the thousands of people who were denied ltc's for arbitrary reasons or the unknown number of people who just never tried to get one because they figured it's too difficult? I am not defending this person, I just don't know where the line is for trying to predict and prevent future events and how that affects your personal liberties, but I think under the current system of somone being able to strip someone else of a constitutional right for no reason isnt the way to do it, I don't care if the overlords tell me it will make me feel safer the bar should be set substantially higher than that
 

Similar threads

Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
341
hminsky
H
Concerns Grow Over ISIS-K Attack in the US; Former Top General Says, 'I Think This Is Inevitable'
Replies
18
Views
420
G4Y4HK
G
What is “law enforcement technology?
Replies
14
Views
424
dcmdon
dcmdon
Groton is next in line
Replies
13
Views
320
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
438
LittleCalm
L
Back
Top Bottom