Thug Attempts to Take MBTA Agents's Weapon

[the_doctor]

Really?

Last time I looked at the statute, it was silent on the subject of open carry and explicitly states that a Class A is required for concealed carry.

You and Snapshot must have gone to the same law school.......

You are absolutely amazing! The other week you asked someone why their spouse was not a citizen due to an apparent assumption of automatic operation in the installation of citizenship due to marriage. You made accusations in the prior week that police are profiling. I find your posts fascinating.

I never qualified my statement to specify that only an unrestricted Class A license was able to carry openly. Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion regarding the statute explicitly stating that a class A is required concealed carry. Actually the statute prohibits concealed carry with a class B license. MGL 140 sec 131 does not specifically empower the actual right to carry a firearm in a concealed method when one has a class A license, which is contrary to your statement.

Bill

 

[Scrivener]

You are absolutely amazing! The other week you asked someone why their spouse was not a citizen due to an apparent assumption of automatic operation in the installation of citizenship due to marriage.

And what "other week" was that, pray tell? Link, please.

You made accusations in the prior week that police are profiling.

Again, please provide a link to these supposed "accusations."

I never qualified my statement to specify that only an unrestricted Class A license was able to carry openly.

What you said was that a Class A permitted open carry; the obvious inference is Class B does not, which is wrong. Were that not your meaning, there would be no intelligent purpose in specifying "Class A," as either class permits open carry (theoretically ).

As for what the statute says, here is the pertinent language for "B" licenses:

(b) A Class B license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) non-large capacity firearms and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of such firearm as the licensing authority deems proper; provided, however, that a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place

 

[Garys]

 

[the_doctor]

Again, please provide a link to these supposed "accusations."
[/qoute]

Go read your posts regarding the boston range test. I think that others know exactly which posts I am referring

What you said was that a Class A permitted open carry; the obvious inference is Class B does not, which is wrong. Were that not your meaning, there would be no intelligent purpose in

I disagree heavily with your thought. You can infer as much as you want but I did not write anything as you claimed that I inferred. I know people that would laugh at your chain of reasoning. I was not writing an executive summary for some individual regarding the MGL, regulations, and application of such. I merely gave a quick answer about a license that most on the board probably possess.

Bill

 

[PaulD]

What you said was that a Class A permitted open carry; the obvious inference is Class B does not, which is wrong. Were that not your meaning, there would be no intelligent purpose in specifying "Class A," as either class permits open carry (theoretically ).

That statement isn't logical.

 

[Cross-X]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Coyote33]

So your telling me that they are "trained" with a firearm to prevent being robbed ...

Unless they are trying to rob you of your gun.

17-Year-Old Accused Of Stealing MBTA Agent's Gun
http://www.masscops.com/forums/showthread.php?p=244114

 

[Coyote33]

You are absolutely amazing! The other week you asked someone why their spouse was not a citizen due to an apparent assumption of automatic operation in the installation of citizenship due to marriage. You made accusations in the prior week that police are profiling. I find your posts fascinating.

I never qualified my statement to specify that only an unrestricted Class A license was able to carry openly. Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion regarding the statute explicitly stating that a class A is required concealed carry. Actually the statute prohibits concealed carry with a class B license. MGL 140 sec 131 does not specifically empower the actual right to carry a firearm in a concealed method when one has a class A license, which is contrary to your statement.

Bill

Careful. Next thing you know someone will say "You wanna be the test case?" or "This will let them deny your renewal." or some other line of BS.

 

[Snapshot]

Really?

Last time I looked at the statute, it was silent on the subject of open carry and explicitly states that a Class A is required for concealed carry.

You and Snapshot must have gone to the same law school.......

I count about three violations of Rule #6. The more I read from you, the more think you're just a troll who gets his kicks out of starting trouble.

However I'll respond to your comments as if I was wrong, if only to give you enough rope....

You start off with "Really" and then make your little quip about what school we went to; obviously implying that the doctors advice is wrong. Yet your only argument is that “the statute was silent on the subject of open carry”.

Which brings me to the only question that I have the patience to ask you: Exactly what school did you attend that failed to mention the 10th amendment?

Rather then make you look it up, I’ll help you out:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Put another way:

The 10th amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.

In other words, unless you are going to point out a law or statute somewhere that expressly outlaws open carry, then his advice is good and you are just trolling. Furthermore, if you try to back pedal and say something like “Ok, then go ahead and try to open carry” then you’ll be confirming that what I said was right. (I didn’t say it was illegal, I just said you couldn’t do it. I never said why)

Either way…

 

[Scrivener]

However I'll respond to your comments as if I was wrong, if only to give you enough rope....

You start off with "Really" and then make your little quip about what school we went to; obviously implying that the doctor[']s advice is wrong. Yet your only argument is that “the statute was silent on the subject of open carry”.

Which brings me to the only question that I have the patience to ask you: Exactly what school did you attend that failed to mention the 10th amendment?

Rather then make you look it up, I’ll help you out:


Put another way:


In other words, unless you are going to point out a law or statute somewhere that expressly outlaws open carry, then his advise [sic] is good and you are just trolling. Furthermore, if you try to back pedal and say something like “Ok, then go ahead and try to open carry” then you’ll be confirming that what I said was right. (I didn’t say it was illegal, I just said you couldn’t do it. I never said why)

Either way…

As was noted in Wickard v. Filburn, "the 10th Amendment is a nullity." While I disagree with that assessment, it correctly summarizes your argument.

The 10th is a "catch-all" amendment. If you want to posit the "the Constitution is the only 'permit' I need" argument - which is what you implicitly are, just as your use of "can't" implied illegality of open carry - then go to the source: The SECOND Amendment.

Note that there is no case whatsoever stating that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Look up "incorporation" while you're playing lawyer.

The Tenth Amendment argument is specious - and that's a generous assessment. You ignored the relevant amendment and your reasoning deteriorated rapidly thereafter.

But thanks for playing and enjoy the home version of our game!

 

[Snapshot]

The 10th is a "catch-all" amendment.

Are you saying it doesn’t apply?

If you want to posit the "the Constitution is the only 'permit' I need" argument - which is what you implicitly are

That’s not what I was implying BUT if it were, you say that as if standing by the laws of our land is a bad thing. If that’s true then is your choice of signature intended as sarcasm? (Post Edit: Actually, don't answer that. I wouldn't want to be accused of violating Rule #1. I just find it odd that one would have such a signature and then act as if standing by the constitution is some sort of "card" to be "played")

then go to the source: The SECOND Amendment.

I would like to think that I don’t need to remind anybody on this board about the 2nd. You are just using this argument to avoid answering my question. Also known as Rule #2

Note that there is no case whatsoever stating that the Second Amendment applies to the states. Look up "incorporation" while you're playing lawyer.

Rules 1, 2, 5 and 6

The Tenth Amendment argument is specious - and that's a generous assessment. You ignored the relevant amendment and your reasoning deteriorated rapidly thereafter.

1 and 2

But thanks for playing and enjoy the home version of our game!

and you close out nicely with Rule 6

Face it. You gave bad advice. All your talk doesn’t distract people from that fact.