Took basic handgun course for my LTC sat...

Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
583
Likes
41
Location
Canton, MA
The argument I am making has actually 200+ years of basis in law... The precedent under which we operate shows that each right has been separately evaluated and incorporated or not as it came up to the SCOTUS... as of yet 2A has not come up in that regard...

I am for "state's rights" more than most, but I have to totally disagree with you here...

It is an endless debate how much the framers intended to limit the power of state government, but there is no question that they intended "some limits" imposed by the constitution...

"unalienable rights" didn't mean "unalienable by the Federal, but not the state" government. If they intended the total sovereignty you propose of the states, they would not have created anything like what they did here...

Frankly, I believe this is why we have gone down this silly road of separately "incorporating" each right is that the framers never really intended that the "Bill of Rights" be negotiable at the state level. Once ratified it represented a frame-work within which the States had to function...

Obviously that view is lost and everything changed post Civil-War as the distinction between the Federal power of the Bill of Rights and all the other crap they spew in DC was lost...
Listen, we could argue about this ad infinum.

Explain this to me: If the second amendment applied directly to state governments and as the governing legal basis for all of the states firearms laws, including how they define the right to keep and bear arms within the states, then why do state constitutions mention RKBA at all? Why are state constitutions not worded exactly as the second amendment is?

I am not suggesting that the Bill of Rights is negotiable at any level. I am stating directly that it applied to the federal government only, unless it has been incorporated to the states. The 200 years of basis in law you refer to back this up.
 

ochmude

Marine Veteran
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
6,315
Likes
1,785
Location
Yuma, AZ
See my response above. You are arguing against states rights, and attempting to justify a process that has been illegally used to strip us of freedoms.

State law prevails here, whether we like the state law or not.

EDIT: Also, you are incorrect in your above statement regarding needing to pass a course to buy a gun. You do not need to pass a course to obtain an FID card, and FID cards are shall issue. You can obtain a gun with an FID card. The MA Constitution does not hold any "shall not be infringed" type language.
Are you sure about this? The image below is taken from the state approved application form. #2 seems to suggest passing some sort of course is a requirement.

 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.3%
59   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,944
Likes
9,922
Location
Escaping to NH
That is just a joke, there is no way those people had the proper training to handle a firearm. I do not have anymore than 4 in my class and at the range they will have to shoot a 22 revolver, 22 semi auto, 38 revolver and 9mm semi auto. All this guy is doing is helping give instructors a bad name.
I am a very strong advocate of "lifetime training". I don't think that we should ever stop trying to learn from the day we are born until the day we die!

On the other hand, gov't mandated training is not something I'm in favor of wrt firearms ownership, OTHER THAN to learn the basic safety rules so that the newbie doesn't point it at someone/something accidentally (negligently), keeps finger off the trigger until on-target, etc.

Like it or not, MA setup minimum course requirements to get an FID or LTC. SOME require shooting and others do not. IIRC, MA Hunter Safety Course does NOT require any shooting and I doubt that they even learn how to load/unload a gun!! Not a hunter, never taken it, but have "run into it" accidentally at BR&P and I can tell you that every seat in the clubhouse (probably >75) was filled!!!

Home Firearms Safety course does NOT require any shooting. Both this and the hunter course are accepted for FID AND LTCs!

Are they adequate to be a "competent gun owner", of course not! But they do "punch your ticket" to get the license. Then it's incumbent on each gun owner to find an experienced friend, a gun club, etc. and practice a lot! Take courses like the ones given by Jim Conway's gang (www.neshooters.com), etc.

I can tell you that I've had more guns pointed at me inside police stations (while I was working) than ever at all the gun ranges I've shot at. It's not tolerated at gun clubs and it's not (usually) disciplined at PDs! Responsible gun owners (both civilian and LE) will seek additional training/practice while those that are less responsible won't no matter what you do.

Meanwhile a large percentage of the ~250K license-holders today (and all the 1.5M license-holders pre-1998) NEVER took any classes at all to get their licenses. Ask yourself how many of them actually negligently shot someone (LTC/FID holders only)? So what's the justification for the training requirement? Strictly as an impediment (time, $ and availability) to DISSUADE people from being gun owners in MA!!
 

M1911

Moderator
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,570
Likes
7,761
Location
Near Framingham
EDIT: Also, you are incorrect in your above statement regarding needing to pass a course to buy a gun. You do not need to pass a course to obtain an FID card, and FID cards are shall issue. You can obtain a gun with an FID card.
That is not correct. You must take a state certified Basic Firearms Safety course in order to apply for either an FID or an LTC. See MGL Ch140 S131p:

Chapter 140: Section 131P. Basic firearms safety certificate; instructors

Section 131P. (a) Any person making application for the issuance of a firearms identification card under section 129B, a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms under section 131 or 131F or a permit to purchase under section 131A who was not licensed under the provisions of this chapter on June 1, 1998 shall, in addition to the requirements set forth in said section 129B, 131, 131A or 131F, submit to the licensing authority a basic firearms safety certificate; provided, however, that a certificate issued by the division of law enforcement in the department of fisheries, wildlife and environmental law enforcement pursuant to the provisions of section 14 of chapter 131 evidencing satisfactory completion of a hunter education course shall serve as a valid substitute for a basic firearms safety certificate required under this section; and provided further, that an applicant for a firearms identification card for the sole purpose of purchasing or possessing chemical mace, pepper spray or other similarly propelled liquid, gas or powder designed to temporarily incapacitate shall not be required to complete a basic firearms safety course as a prerequisite for receiving such card. Persons lawfully possessing a firearm identification card or license to carry firearms on June 1, 1998 shall be exempt from the provisions of this section upon expiration of such card or license and when applying for licensure as required under this chapter. No application for the issuance of a firearm identification card or license to carry shall be accepted or processed by the licensing authority without such certificate attached thereto; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any officer, agent or employee of the commonwealth or any state of the United States; (ii) any member of the military or other service of any state or of the United States; (iii) any duly authorized law enforcement officer, agent or employee of any municipality of the commonwealth; provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, is authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the weapon so carried or possessed and is acting within the scope of his duties.
Removing the extraneous words not important to the current discussion yields:

Any person making application for the issuance of a firearms identification card ... shall ... submit to the licensing authority a basic firearms safety certificate
Full text is here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131p.htm
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Bassturd said:
I am stating directly that it applied to the federal government only, unless it has been incorporated to the states. The 200 years of basis in law you refer to back this up.
Agreed - that is the legal path we are on, no debate there... Particularly since the Civil War, we have been operating under that assumption and one-by-one incorporating the Bill of Rights...

My point is that this is where we "arrived", it isn't where we started...

Explain this to me: If the second amendment applied directly to state governments and as the governing legal basis for all of the states firearms laws, including how they define the right to keep and bear arms within the states, then why do state constitutions mention RKBA at all? Why are state constitutions not worded exactly as the second amendment is?
That is a fine question and the best answer I can give is that this disagreement dates back to the ratification of the Constitution... The State governments didn't like it back then either and they (like I) knew that it was a slippery slope, so they fought it... This dynamic continues to today - state makes laws, Feds try to preempt, bickering ensues...

In the 1830's this disagreement swayed over to what you are saying (no incorporation - Federal limits only). Ever since then, it has steadily drifted towards what I am saying (Bill of Rights limits ALL government).

Which while it is "more fitting" with our progressively more integrated culture/nation, I think this is a dangerous path of leaving the State's no rights whatsoever.

I agree 100% that we could argue forever, this argument started with the declaration of independence and has continued to this day. There is no clear answer and the target has been moving ever since...
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
583
Likes
41
Location
Canton, MA
That is not correct. You must take a state certified Basic Firearms Safety course in order to apply for either an FID or an LTC. See MGL Ch140 S131p:



Removing the extraneous words not important to the current discussion yields:



Full text is here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131p.htm
You are correct on that point. I was mistaken.

It does not really matter in terms of the larger point I am trying to make, which is that the second amendment does not trump state law.
 

PATRON

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 99%
94   1   1
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
4,862
Likes
2,204
What I would like to know is, How many people that have commented on this post are Firearm Instructors? And How long have they been one?
 

M1911

Moderator
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,570
Likes
7,761
Location
Near Framingham
What I would like to know is, How many people that have commented on this post are Firearm Instructors? And How long have they been one?
I am. I'm not sure how long I've been one. 10 years, maybe?

While I am an instructor, and the MA law has put a few dollars into my pocket, I don't support mandatory training. I strongly encourage people to take firearms training classes, but I do not support laws that require them.
 

Tater

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
1,909
Likes
298
Location
CENTRAL MA
Sounds like this was a Home Firearm Safety class, rather than a Basic Pistol class.
"MA Chiefs of Police Basic Handgun Safety Course #LTC001" I plan on keeping an eye on the GOAL website however this was the soonest class I could take in order to apply so I took it. I also would like to continue my training for the years to come. you can never learn it all but you can learn enough to be safe and vigilant.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
296
Likes
18
Location
North Bend, OR
I plan on keeping an eye on the GOAL website however this was the soonest class I could take in order to apply so I took it. I also would like to continue my training for the years to come. you can never learn it all but you can learn enough to be safe and vigilant.
Sounds like you've got the most important part starting well. Attitude. If you have the right attitude, willingness to learn, and a healthy respect for firearms and safety, you'll do just fine. [smile]

My personal philosophy is, the day I stop learning is the day I die. (And maybe not even then!)
 

GSG

Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
5,825
Likes
554
While range time is not required it should be. How can you give someone a drivers license that has never driven a car???? You can tell the newbies that took the "wham bam thank ya ma'am" courses at the range.
2A applies to the federal government only.
On this, you and many anti-gun groups agree.

I agree with you in a legal sense, eg, no incorporation, no dice... but frankly, the 2nd amendment should FORCE states to not have any basic
restrictions on firearms ownership, period. Obviously the way it should be and the way it actually is, are two different things.
Agreed. If it doesn't force each state to recognize certain rights, then it's pointless, because every state could be whatever they wanted.

By this logic, it should be OK for California to make it illegal to be a Jew, for Florida to force it's residents to house soldiers, and for Tennessee to not allow criminal defendants to have an attorney.

These are rights. Rights. Not ideas.

See my response above. You are arguing against states rights, and attempting to justify a process that has been illegally used to strip us of freedoms.
You are correct on that point. I was mistaken.

It does not really matter in terms of the larger point I am trying to make, which is that the second amendment does not trump state law.
Here's my issue with this. Do our 1st amendment rights only apply to the federal government? Can the president practice whichever religion he chooses, but we the people cannot? What if Massachusetts makes it illegal to be an athiest?

If any part of the rest of the Bill of Rights were treated the way that the 2nd Amenedment were, people would be furious.

Why should any constitutional right be different than any other?

And in regards to the people who think having a safety course requirement to own or carry a firearm is a good idea, I'm quoting something I posted in another thread awhile back that I got a bunch of rep points for.

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=48142&page=3

I think the issue is that you can never legislate safety. It doesn't matter how many courses one takes, it doesn't mean they will use their brain with guns. Ever see the video of DEA Agent Lee Paige shooting himself in the leg in front of a class of Florida schoolchildren? IIRC he was a firearms instructor, so you'd think he wouldn't have broken all those safety rules he did if he paid any attention to the classes he taught.

Not only that, but when you need a gun, you need it ASAP, not when the government deems that you can safely own it. If you live in New Hampshire (and aren't a prohibited person) and your life is threatened at 9:00 a.m., by 9:30 a.m. you can have 3 guns, 1,000 rounds of ammo, and as long as you open carry you can take the pistol with you almost anywhere you go. You can apply for a restraining order and get a gun on the way back home from a gun store, or you can borrow one from a friend until you get your own.

If you live in Massachusetts, if you're threatened at 9 a.m., you can call your local PD to get the application (and see what extra illegal requirements they have, since it's different in all 351 municipalities). You can fill it out, find a Basic Firearms Safety course, schedule it, pay for it, and sit through 3-12 hours of training. You can then schedule an interview with your local CLEO/licensing officer, show up for the interview days or weeks later (whenever they schedule it, remember), pay $100, apply, if you're approved, wait however long it takes for the application to be processed (5-6 weeks if all goes well), then call the police department to find out when it comes in. Keep in mind, the entire time you're waiting for this LTC/FID, it's illegal to have so much as a can of pepper spray in your house.

If your life were threatened, which state would you rather live in? The one where legal self-defense is instantly available to law abiding citizens, or one where you can apply for the right to self defense Monday-Friday, 9 to 5, and provided you aren't unsuitable, you can defend yourself 5 weeks from the date of your interview, providing all goes well?

I didn't get into guns until I felt a need to have them, and it took me months from making the decision "I need a gun" until I could legally have one in my hands in this state.

Guns aren't something we need to protect everyone from like rabid animals or exposed electical wires. No matter who and how we teach people about them, there will always be idiots with guns, and there will always be criminals with guns. We won't change that until we wipe out the human race or drink the Brady Campaign red Kool Aid.

The one thing we can do is make sure that law-abiding citizens aren't totally screwed by the gun laws when they need to protect themselves, and IMHO the best way to do that is to put the same restrictions on law-abiding gun owners that there are on criminals: none.

Please don't take offense from me here, I'm not trying to be unkind, I just think that gun safety should be an individual responsibility, not a state run/controlled one.
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=48142&page=4

My issue with the training requirement is this: who sets the training standard? This is not a firearm friendly state, and every time we've given a little more control to the state WRT firearms, it has gotten further and further out of control. What's to stop them from saying that the only kind of training that meets the standard to own a gun is having attended a full-time police academy or military basic training?

I understand that you don't want dangerous people with guns. I've been muzzle swept on and off the range, seen people do stupid stuff with guns, etc. etc. It's very scary. I posted awhile back about the time someone accidentally fired a 12 gauge over my head while I was downrange. The idiots with guns do scare me, but again, it comes down to each individual.

I had a former boss point an empty pistol at my penis and pull the trigger, then laugh when I jumped. He had a Mass. LTC (requires the state safety course), was Army infantry and is now an auxiliary police officer. He had lots and lots of firearms training, passed it all with flying colors, but the fact remains that he pointed a gun at parts of me I don't want a gun pointed at, and he pulled the trigger as a joke. Absolutely idiotic of him, but he did, despite all that training and experience, plus 20 something years of gun ownership behind him.

Anyone can pass a test. Highly trained racecar and stunt drivers still get in car accidents. Highly trained gun users still make stupid mistakes sometimes.

If you're a single mom, a disabled veteran in a wheelchair on a fixed income, an old person on a fixed income, a poor college student, or just someone down on their luck, you still have a right to be able to defend yourself. Unfortunately in Massachusetts, there is a great cost already attached to gun ownership. $50-150 for a safety course, $100 for the license, and the cheapest new handgun you can buy once you have your LTC is what, a $300 Sigma? Manufacturers charge us more here anyway because they have to pay to have their guns "safety tested" to get them approved to be sold here.

In most other free states, if your life is in danger, you can get a gun faster as I wrote about before, but you can get a gun a lot cheaper. In NH, with a photo ID you can buy a Jennings, Raven, Kel-Tec, etc. brand new for exactly the cost of the gun and a box of bullets. No, they're not great guns, and yes, most of us would be ashamed to show up at the range with one.

However, when you're living hand to mouth, the difference in cost between a Jennings and a Sigma is a heck of a lot of grocery money. Or worse, if you're in the middle of a SHTF situation like the LA riots or post-Katrina New Orleans, any training requirement/license requirement/etc. is going to leave you defenseless.

Training is great. You can never have enough, for safety reasons, liability and just gun skills in general. But it doesn't mean it will generate intelligence or common sense in the trainee.

I saw a video on one of those shock television reality TV shows of a convenience store robbery in a free state (I just tried looking for it online but there’s too many convenience store robbery videos to search through). The female clerk didn't like guns, she'd never handled one before in her life and said so in this interview. When a robber came in with what seemed like a gun in his pocket, she gave him the money, and when he told her to come out from behind the counter and get on her knees (after he had the cash in hand), she felt that her life was in danger. Her boss kept a .357 magnum snub nosed revolver in a drawer behind the counter, so she drew the gun, aimed and shot the robber one time center-of-mass. He dropped, she called the police, he survived the gunshot to the stomach and served time for the attempted robbery.

My point is that this clerk didn’t need a safety course, 10 hours of Massad Ayoob approved live-fire training, or any of that to defend her life. She knew how to use the gun, she used it, and behaved in exactly the right way without any formalized firearms education.

I’m not saying every beginner has all the skills they need to shoot wonderfully safe. But I am saying that when my life is on the line, I should have the right to self-defense, immediately, with no red-tape or other BS. Gun rights should not be limited to the highly trained spec-ops proffessional.

IMHO, trading off more training for shall-issue MA licensing wouldn’t be worth it to me. Florida has shall issue LTC’s, and you only need that to carry the gun on your person. Buy a gun on a driver’s license, and carry it in your glove compartment fully loaded with no LTC whatsoever. Their training requirements are much broader than Massachusetts are WRT what kind of safety course is acceptable for an LTC, and life goes on as usual.

We don’t need to trade anything off in Mass. We need full access to our rights, no questions asked, no CLEO discretion/suitability issues, no approved firearms roster, no incredibly long wait to prevent one from legal, inexpensive, ready availability of self defense. We need a state that recognizes the Constitution and that is taken to task every time they violate our rights.

And once again, my aim is to be pleasant and informative here, so please don’t take offense at what I say.

Whatever you do, stay safe out there, and encourage gun safety every chance you get. [grin]
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
583
Likes
41
Location
Canton, MA
Here's my issue with this. Do our 1st amendment rights only apply to the federal government? Can the president practice whichever religion he chooses, but we the people cannot? What if Massachusetts makes it illegal to be an athiest?

If any part of the rest of the Bill of Rights were treated the way that the 2nd Amenedment were, people would be furious.

Why should any constitutional right be different than any other?
I am not sure what you are reading, but what I am writing has nothing to do with some rights being treated differently than others.

I am writing that the US Constitution is the defining document of the laws and formation of our federal government, and that state laws can and do often supercede federal laws. I am not really sure why people have a problem with my stating this. It is legally correct and by design of the same people that wrote the constitution.

The only amendments of the constitution that apply directly to the states are the ones that have been incorporated. As a general rule I oppose incorporation, not because I oppose individual rights, but because it gives the federal government more power over state and local governments.
 
Top Bottom