-
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.
What do we agree on? Current LTC/COP cases
- Thread starter depicts
- Start date
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
I agree with you that there shouldn't be licensing, but I disagree that violent crimes should prohibit lawful ownership of arms.
Violent crimes should result in prison time. Freed criminals should have the exact same rights as everyone else.
Rights.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
As a law abiding citizen, I don't have an issue with licensing. MY issue is the criteria and the process.
- Felons shouldn't have guns, at least until they have demonstrated good behavior for a significant period of time.
- If you have had a restraining order, again, a significant period of good behavior.
- No more "may grant" and I think everyone knows this is BS.
- No more CLEO intervention, that is BS.
- The AR thing is just completely stupid. It's a one pull, one shot device. Ooooh, so the picatinny rail makes it look "scary"! I have an AR and it is actually less lethal than the 30.06 that my brother in-law owns. The difference? Mine looks more mean.
- Not sure I can agree with the silencer thing, why does one need it? To shoot in peace?
- HARSH punishment for those who illegally traffic in firearms or attempt to steal them (if you break into a gun store or house to steal guns....bye bye for a long time)
- Get rid of the Department of Public Safety ban on almost all guns in MA. It is a stupid and corrupt process. If you want to say any gun after X date must have internal and drop safeties, fine. They can submit a letter certifying their device meets those standards. If they are lying, sue them later.
- Get rid of the requirement for a "load indicator". The little pinhole notch is idiotic. Everyone who knows anything about gun safety knows you open the slide to check for a round. Something like that a stupid person may rely on and lighting can dramatically effect whether or not you actually see the round. My understanding is these gun manufacturers have to retool to make theses barrels and I've heard they stretch the round. The only company I know of with a real load indicator is Springfield. Guess what? They're illegal in MA.
- Felons shouldn't have guns, at least until they have demonstrated good behavior for a significant period of time.
- If you have had a restraining order, again, a significant period of good behavior.
- No more "may grant" and I think everyone knows this is BS.
- No more CLEO intervention, that is BS.
- The AR thing is just completely stupid. It's a one pull, one shot device. Ooooh, so the picatinny rail makes it look "scary"! I have an AR and it is actually less lethal than the 30.06 that my brother in-law owns. The difference? Mine looks more mean.
- Not sure I can agree with the silencer thing, why does one need it? To shoot in peace?
- HARSH punishment for those who illegally traffic in firearms or attempt to steal them (if you break into a gun store or house to steal guns....bye bye for a long time)
- Get rid of the Department of Public Safety ban on almost all guns in MA. It is a stupid and corrupt process. If you want to say any gun after X date must have internal and drop safeties, fine. They can submit a letter certifying their device meets those standards. If they are lying, sue them later.
- Get rid of the requirement for a "load indicator". The little pinhole notch is idiotic. Everyone who knows anything about gun safety knows you open the slide to check for a round. Something like that a stupid person may rely on and lighting can dramatically effect whether or not you actually see the round. My understanding is these gun manufacturers have to retool to make theses barrels and I've heard they stretch the round. The only company I know of with a real load indicator is Springfield. Guess what? They're illegal in MA.
Last edited:
Oh, and get rid of the Post Office ban. They don't transport large amounts of gold or cash anymore. The law has become stupid.
As a law abiding human being I do have an issue with licensing - I should not need a license to exercise a preexisting right of all people that is supposedly protected from infringement by the Constitution of this country.
There are some parts of both Massachusetts and federal law that prohibit people convicted of violent (and drug-related) misdemeanors from possessing firearms. My view is that if those offenses aren't sufficient to merit felon penalties, they aren't sufficient to merit permanent restrictions on fundamental rights. As to felonies, we've long since moved from the time when a felony was something that represented a serious crime that everybody knew and agreed should be treated as such. We're now at the time when you can do any of a thousand things that 98% of the population has no idea is even illegal, much less a "felony", and find yourself losing your rights for the rest of your life. (Some examples include breaking the encryption on DVDs that you have lawfully acquired in order to make a backup copy of the movie in case the original is damaged or destroyed; making a false statement, no matter whether it's significant or intentional, to a federally insured bank; completing some common interstate shipping documents incorrectly). If someone is allowed to walk the streets freely, they should be allowed to carry a firearm for protection while doing so.
Ken
Ken
Realistically We need 2 laws:
1. Liability should be held to the licensing authority who denies an applicant if the applicant is attacked and can't protect them self.
2. Companies should be held liable if they deny a licensed gun owner the right of self defense and fail to protect their employees.
1. Liability should be held to the licensing authority who denies an applicant if the applicant is attacked and can't protect them self.
2. Companies should be held liable if they deny a licensed gun owner the right of self defense and fail to protect their employees.
J
Jose
It may be a compromise, but it is a HUGE step in the right direction and leagues ahead of what you have.
In free states there is NO LICENSING of gun owners. PERIOD. If you want to buy guns, you can buy as many as you want, as often as you want, from whomever you want with NO LICENSE. If you buy from a federally licensed dealer, you must fill out a 4473. If you buy from a private party, cash and carry.
There is also NO REGISTRATION of firearm transactions nor does the state keep a DATABASE of who owns what.
The ONLY reason I currently need to have a license is to carry a handgun. In some states that means you need it to carry openly or concealed. In others, open carry is a right (Ohio) and the license is only necessary for concealed carry.
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Jose
As a law abiding citizen, I do. Who is anyone to license my rights?
Your screen name is truly puzzling.
One step farther, no one should have to pay for permission to do something that you would otherwise be able to do.
I agree with you that there shouldn't be licensing, but I disagree that violent crimes should prohibit lawful ownership of arms.
Violent crimes should result in prison time. Freed criminals should have the exact same rights as everyone else.
Rights.
I see your point. It would be best to not restrict rights and handle recidivism in other ways.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
Yep. Licensing does nothing but punish the law-abiding people who invest the time and money required to obtain licenses. Criminals carry whether licensed or not. (Usually not.)
Licensing (aka "Using the law to punish someone in advance for a crime that's not even likely to happen") is illogical to say the least.
yanici
NES Member
+3 on that great statement. Something that should be part of the 2nd Amendment. Thanks, Mike.
Bill Nance
Banned
No. NO ONE should be excluded from the fundamental human right of self defense and the means of that defense. Not ever.
Even the mentally ill. 99.99999% of people with mental illness never commit a crime and wouldn't hurt a fly. If you're an immediate danger or long term danger, you should be in a hospital, not wandering the streets.
They already are. Not for disarming their employees (which is a right of a private business, it's their property) but for not providing adequate safety/security or failing to discharge a troubling employee. The papers are full of such lawsuits if you google it.
Mauer, you are correct on the felony point. For example, when I got my permit, the LEO told me I can transport in other states as long as the gun is unloaded and locked. So when I went to see my in-laws in CT I would unload the gun, lock it in a box secured to my vehicle, and then lock the ammo in the glove box. It wasn't until I was applying for my non-resident in CT that I happened to ask (for the meantime) and they informed me I would be arrested on felony charges. So here you have a person that was trying to obey the law and I could have ended up with a felony.
I'm not talking about a permitting process like we have now. Do you remember the old days when you went to go get a FID or a fishing license? That is how it should be. You go down to the PD, pay $25, they run an immediate background check, and hand you your license.
My point is, we've lost our rights slowly over time through the relentless incrementalism of the antis. Standing around shouting SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED isn't going to accomplish anything. Starting with achievable goals and trying to always be moving in the right direction is.
If we get to my listed goals above, I'll keep supporting further improvement of gun rights, but I'll probably have bigger fish to fry liberty activism wise. As Kim DuToit says, "I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing."
This statement displays a fundamental attitude difference. The statists have conditioned you to ask 'why should it be allowed' when the question should always be 'why should it be banned'.
kevin9
NES Member
Yet another case of sterling firearms legal advice provided by an LEO.
He only gave you half the story. To transport under FOPA you have to be able to legally have the gun(s) in your destination state (or be going to a competition).
Yes, you are right. I have learned through experience and several members on NES that the police are one of the worst sources of information. In the beginning I foolishly thought that those whom enforce the law would know the law (especially those designated as the "licensing experts").
Jamie
NES Member
In this case that is a contradiction of terms.
The old jumbo shrimp thing, huh? lol
J
Jose
Do you have any frame of reference regarding firearms possession outside of Massachussetts? If not, you are woefully ignorant of how the world really works in that respect.
Apparently Jose cannot disagree without being insulting. No, I don't have experience outside of MA, as I was born and raised here my whole life. I am open to other points of view, but until you grow up and discover how to debate something in a mature fashion, perhaps you should stay out of it. People like you never realize that maybe it's an opportunity to show someone another point of view. However, when you behave in the manner you have in multiple posts, it is you who looks like the ignorant one.
What does need have to do with anything? why can't I have one?
Why would you ever allow the government tell you want you need.
Once again, why should the governement dictate gun design?
Last edited:
kevin9
NES Member
I understand, and would take it in a heartbeat, but would also recognize that it is not the desired end state. VT has it right with regard to firearms licensing, as much as any state does.
Similar threads
