this is the toughest gun law in america-huffpost

01906 said:
I agree, I know someone that held a license in Newton for 12 years was restricted. Move to Burlington unrestricted first time
Click to expand...
What.

Newton LTCs are restricted for the first year. Then you submit a written request for restriction removal and BING BAM BOOM you're unrestricted for ALP.
 
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'm fine with this line of thought as long as you understand completely, that background checks negate the second amendment. If you're one of those "reasonable restrictions fit within the constitution" type, your position is tragically flawed.
 
dragonballzz said:
What.

Newton LTCs are restricted for the first year. Then you submit a written request for restriction removal and BING BAM BOOM you're unrestricted for ALP.
Click to expand...
He's a co-worker I will ask tomorrow and see if there's a backstory. He seems like a pretty straight up guy though I don't think he's had any issues.
 
gamma19 said:
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).
Click to expand...


You are both right. It is okay to not want someone specifically to own guns. Poster one said his want .But than accepted the option of government enacting his want.

This is the same confusion causing this issue to explode .people are confusing their wants with need for gov to make their wants reality.

It is when we notice a proposed law matches something that we want that we should be MOST critical of that decision to vote for it/them/ or be accepting of a change .

Sure it may be awesome if MA gets to vote on throwing away the state license system. Or recalling MH for purjury. That want match is what flaming whiffle librs are seeing, so they jump for it.
 
01906 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending how Newton handles LTC's, but they did go through several different Chiefs in the last five years or so.

What I'd like to know is how many people have been charged and convicted under the Bartley-Fox law ???
This was touted as the "Nations Toughest Gun Law" when it went on the books in 1976, they even had signs along the highways at the state lines warning drivers "Massachusetts Year In Jail Gun Law - Nobody Can Get You Out".
That was 42 years ago and I still haven't heard of anyone actually getting convicted under it.
 
“Police records showed eight visits to his home from 2008 to 2012, each time in response to calls from family members concerned about his behavior. On one occasion, according to the police account, the man had punched a picture frame and lacerated his hand; another time, he had been wielding a knife and threatening to commit suicide. Officers took the man into protective custody after three of the visits, the reports said, and at nearly all of them he was intoxicated.’

Since many here refuse to read the article I thought I’d post the pertinent part. I don’t know the history w the Newton Police Chief and am sure the author of the article found the case most useful to promote his agenda, but is there really an argument against this clown getting denied a license?
 
Zappa said:
I'm not defending how Newton handles LTC's, but they did go through several different Chiefs in the last five years or so.

What I'd like to know is how many people have been charged and convicted under the Bartley-Fox law ???
This was touted as the "Nations Toughest Gun Law" when it went on the books in 1976, they even had signs along the highways at the state lines warning drivers "Massachusetts Year In Jail Gun Law - Nobody Can Get You Out".
That was 42 years ago and I still haven't heard of anyone actually getting convicted under it.
Click to expand...
I don't know the answer to that myself. In Massachusetts it seems if you're busted with drugs, and gun that numbers have been scrubbed . The possession of the firearm is the first charge that is dropped. If you're going through a divorce, and your ex says she's in fear for her life. They're taking your guns and good luck getting them back. (Not speaking from personal experience happily married)
 
buckfarack said:
“Police records showed eight visits to his home from 2008 to 2012, each time in response to calls from family members concerned about his behavior. On one occasion, according to the police account, the man had punched a picture frame and lacerated his hand; another time, he had been wielding a knife and threatening to commit suicide. Officers took the man into protective custody after three of the visits, the reports said, and at nearly all of them he was intoxicated.’

Since many here refuse to read the article I thought I’d post the pertinent part. I don’t know the history w the Newton Police Chief and am sure the author of the article found the case most useful to promote his agenda, but is there really an argument against this clown getting denied a license?
Click to expand...

Maybe he did turn over a new leaf. He’s been good for over 5 years and no problems since, I think he should be given a license. The facts of any of these phone calls haven’t been heard nor challenged in a cour and thats my problem here.

If we trust every police report then we don’t need courts and if no police has ever fabricated or embellished a police report, then why do we not give them judge status? That’s the problem. If he hasn’t been put in front of a court or sectioned he should not be denied his rights. I don’t agree with the visceral cop-hating seen in some NES threads and see them how I see anyone unless a-hole status is established. There’s a thread here that shows cops being in the wrong and doing some criminal shit; not to mention, police chiefs in MA are appointed and they can deny based on whoever is pulling their strings. Courts provide a venue for reports and allegations to be aired out at the very least.

Also from the article: “The man, who declined to comment for this article and whose name HuffPost is not publishing, challenged the police decision in court, as the law allows applicants to do. A written filing stated that he has completed treatment for alcohol addiction, as a physician independently confirmed. It also said that he has a steady job and noted that there have been no incidents since 2012.“

I’m very curious as to why the HP will not publish his name. Is it because that would be possible defamation or libel? The last two sentences of the quoted text pretty much say it all.
 
Last edited:
buckfarack said:
“Police records showed eight visits to his home from 2008 to 2012, each time in response to calls from family members concerned about his behavior. On one occasion, according to the police account, the man had punched a picture frame and lacerated his hand; another time, he had been wielding a knife and threatening to commit suicide. Officers took the man into protective custody after three of the visits, the reports said, and at nearly all of them he was intoxicated.’

Since many here refuse to read the article I thought I’d post the pertinent part. I don’t know the history w the Newton Police Chief and am sure the author of the article found the case most useful to promote his agenda, but is there really an argument against this clown getting denied a license?
Click to expand...

Yes, since many here refuse to read the entire article, I thought I'd post the pertinent part:

The man, who declined to comment for this article and whose name HuffPost is not publishing, challenged the police decision in court, as the law allows applicants to do. A written filing stated that he has completed treatment for alcohol addiction, as a physician independently confirmed. It also said that he has a steady job and noted that there have been no incidents since 2012.

OK, from 2008 to 2012 the guy probably should have been kept away from weapons and rooftops of tall buildings. A court hearing to remove his 2A rights, with the opportunity for him to defend himself if deemed fit to do so, would have been in order. At least now he has the ability to defend his 2A rights in a court of law instead of having to abide by the decision of his friendly local CLEO. Good thing the law allows him to do that. He may lose, but he deserves the ability to fight for his rights. Sad that there are so many selective readers that would deny him that right.

***

Here's a cue card for those who are so quick to judge. Please stand at attention, click your heels together, and...

guns21.jpg
 
Here's the ultimate question: Was he a federally prohibited person? No? Go f*** yourself NPD, he can do as he pleases so long as he doesn't break the law.

Should he have been arrested during one of those 8 incidents? Maybe. Should he have been brought up on some domestic violence charges? Maybe. Was he? No.

Where's the ambiguity in this?
 
OK, so let me get the laws straight.

I get blotto drunk, stink of booze and drive down the street and get stopped after hitting another car. No guns, I'm completely unarmed. I'm smart enough to not take the breathalyzer, and my lawyer explains I stink of booze because of the broken, sealed, bottle of whisky in the car that broke during the accident. Everyone "knows" I'm drunk, but you can't prove it.
After 6 months, I get my license back - but the licensing officer remembers me and denies my license on suitability.

Or I get convicted, and get my license back after a couple years, but I'm now prohibited from owning a gun.

How does gun ownership and drinking and driving tie together? Can I lose my driving license if I get drunk a shoot myself in the azz?
 
tuna said:
OK, so let me get the laws straight.

I get blotto drunk, stink of booze and drive down the street and get stopped after hitting another car. No guns, I'm completely unarmed. I'm smart enough to not take the breathalyzer, and my lawyer explains I stink of booze because of the broken, sealed, bottle of whisky in the car that broke during the accident. Everyone "knows" I'm drunk, but you can't prove it.
After 6 months, I get my license back - but the licensing officer remembers me and denies my license on suitability.

Or I get convicted, and get my license back after a couple years, but I'm now prohibited from owning a gun.

How does gun ownership and drinking and driving tie together? Can I lose my driving license if I get drunk a shoot myself in the azz?
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with it, the connection is poor decision making and/or self control.
 
42! said:
Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with it, the connection is poor decision making and/or self control.
Click to expand...

I see that. And just between you and I, and the rest of NES (except Maura, Dimples can step on a lego and get an infection), I agree that some people shouldn't own guns. But when we admit this to the antis and start agreeing to "common sense restrictions" we only get screwed. It's time to stop with this apologetic mindset.

17 kids got killed in a school shooting - so? How many died texting and driving?
14,000 people were murdered - so? Millions of gun owners didn't.

We are NOT going to win them over to our side, and they're NOT going to listen to reason, and they're NOT going to be happy until we're just like the UK and cutting our soyburgers with a spoon. It's time to just tell them "so what?" What do we have to lose?
 
Al458 said:
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
Click to expand...

It was not just based on a drinking problem from years ago. My line is that if indeed someone has thenpolice coming to his house numerous times because his family fears for theirs or his safety, he’s wielding a knife around threatening to kill himself and the was taken into protective custody several times. The guy lacks judgement and control and no I don’t think he should have a license or permit for a firearm. Should at sometime in the future he receives treatment and has a span of time where he is not running into the same problems I do believe he should have the right to reapply. So yes there are some people who are not responsible or lack control and should not have a firearm. That’s not a bad thing.
 
Woodsy said:
It was not just based on a drinking problem from years ago. My line is that if indeed someone has thenpolice coming to his house numerous times because his family fears for theirs or his safety, he’s wielding a knife around threatening to kill himself and the was taken into protective custody several times. The guy lacks judgement and control and no I don’t think he should have a license or permit for a firearm. Should at sometime in the future he receives treatment and has a span of time where he is not running into the same problems I do believe he should have the right to reapply. So yes there are some people who are not responsible or lack control and should not have a firearm. That’s not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I'd say, if we have to have suitability, it would be better this way, with a clearly defined timeline and specifically stated incident(s).
 

Similar threads

Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
363
hminsky
H
Concerns Grow Over ISIS-K Attack in the US; Former Top General Says, 'I Think This Is Inevitable'
Replies
18
Views
440
G4Y4HK
G
What is “law enforcement technology?
Replies
14
Views
440
dcmdon
dcmdon
Groton is next in line
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
501
LittleCalm
L
Back
Top Bottom