What do we agree on? Current LTC/COP cases

[SecondAmdFirst]

Why do you need an AR?

BTW Eddie.....you brought up a good point without resorting to being uncivilized and I have to say thank you. Some people will just pounce on someone and you made a good comparison without resorting to that. Discussions like this help other people see someone else's point of view. Just wanted to let you know.

 

[Jose]

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.

You have shown repeatedly that you want to argue every single point for the sake of argument.

You have an extremely narrow frame of reference WRT to firearm laws and yet you argue every one who tells you that frame is warped.

You continually express support for the Second Amendment then on the same breath call for prior restraints on its exercise.

You continually frame your questions regarding specific firearms and their features in terms of "need", as if any of us had to prove the need to have or own anything.

And you call me ignorant?

 

[lupis42]

If someone is allowed to walk the streets freely, they should be allowed to carry a firearm for protection while doing so.

Ken

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'.

I don't like the idea of a guy who shot someone and is likely to do so again getting out of prison.

What possible "background" could possibly take away your right to self defense?

The only safety needed is the one between your ears.

Wow... I'm agreeing with a great many people today.

I liken it to airbags....all cars must have airbags now...no big deal.

It is a big deal. It makes cars more expensive to buy, and more expensive to fix, and it means that if a better solution comes along, there's going to be a long and painful regulatory process before anyone can even be offered the choice. The government should never be dictating the design of a consumer good.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

You have shown repeatedly that you want to argue every single point for the sake of argument.

You have an extremely narrow frame of reference WRT to firearm laws and yet you argue every one who tells you that frame is warped.

You continually express support for the Second Amendment then on the same breath call for prior restraints on its exercise.

You continually frame your questions regarding specific firearms and their features in terms of "need", as if any of us had to prove the need to have or own anything.

And you call me ignorant?

Jose, can we call a truce here? I don't want to fight. In a perfect world we would be like VT and not have restrictions. In MA I am willing to put up with some things FOR THE TIME BEING, so we can get some of the more rediculous stuff off the books. We have to keep trying to move the bar forward.

 

[kevin9]

Jose, can we call a truce here? I don't want to fight. In a perfect world we would be like VT and not have restrictions. In MA I am willing to put up with some things FOR THE TIME BEING, so we can get some of the more rediculous stuff off the books. We have to keep trying to move the bar forward.

This was well-said. Keep questioning what you have been taught in MA WRT the role of government in society and you'll be fine.

 

[06LemansC6]

We all want to be VT.

I don't want to be VT. It's too liberal there for my liking. I'm pretty happy here in NH. No permission needed to purchase or open carry, and $20 for a shall issue concealed permit that took me 4 hours between the time I dropped off the application and had the permit in hand.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

This was well-said. Keep questioning what you have been taught in MA WRT the role of government in society and you'll be fine.

We just have to keep moving the bar forward. Liberals spent decades not just changing the laws, but the state of mind. We and organizations like GOAL need to keep moving the bar until we reach a point where our rights are recognized.

 

[Scrivener]

Why should we give the PD $25 for a piece of plastic with our name on it and the "privilege" of being listed in some database somewhere?

A firearms license application fee has been $100 for several years.

 

[drgrant]

Mike, it's baby steps here. Let's get rid of the certification process and then we can get into what is required.

If we can get rid of that process, then who cares? Then it'll be just like
the other 46+ states that allow people to buy whatever handguns they damned well please.

As I said in one of my other posts, pretty much all guns have drop safeties.

Then if this is the case, again, why is a regulation needed AT ALL? We call
this a "self fixing" problem.

I liken it to airbags....all cars must have airbags now...no big deal.

It's not a big deal for cars because cars are not protected by the constitution. (or for that matter, natural rights) FWIW I'll also qualify my statement by saying that I should have the right to choose whether or not my cars have airbags, too, quite frankly. I'm sick of the government telling me what to do. It's bad enough that they steal what they steal in taxes... hell, I can even deal with that- but in exchange I'd like them to leave me
alone. (yeah, fat chance of that happening. )

-Mike

 

[GSG]

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.

What if your life is in danger outside of the business hours of the local PD? What about when the licensing officer calls in sick or gets fired and there's no one to issue licenses? Who sets the "acceptable training standard"?

Why should rights and life be expected to rely on a punctual cop?

I made some posts in this thread about that issue, which I'm quoting below.

szaino, 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.

and

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.

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.

Don't misunderstand me, I was agreeing with you, and simply pointing out that it's easy for people to say "NH is shall issue, my guns are safe, nothing more is necessary from me because I don't have felony convictions."

That's all.

The old days I'm thinking of prohibited no one from owning.

Bingo.

Other than the French Army, who needs a drop safety?

I don't like the idea of a guy who shot someone and is likely to do so again getting out of prison.

Ditto.

If you use Vermont as the nearly perfect model there is still, and will always be, Federal controls and hoops to jump through. In effect owning a gun would become only Federally controlled.

Exactly. And anyone with a brain should be concerned about the moves that the federal government is making WRT firearms. And I'm not just talking about Obama.

States that are codifying into law that if guns made in their state don't enter interstate commerce then they are exempt from any federal regulation (because that's what the Constitution says), and ATF is saying "Yeah, that's nice, we don't care what the Constitution says, we're enforcing this policy anyway."

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2...tennessee-firearms-freedom-act-null-and-void/

Simply brilliant.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

GSG....I have to say you make some good points.

 

[jasons]

A firearms license application fee has been $100 for several years.

I know. I was responding to the poster who suggested that $25 would be a reasonab....

Ugh, never mind, it's past my bed time.

 

[GSG]

GSG....I have to say you make some good points.

Just speaking some things I've learned first hand. A $100 license and $50 of training is a lot of money to some families, especially with unemployment as has as it is right now in Mass. My family was one of them when I was growing up, times were tough, but we still had a right to life and the ability to defend ourselves.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Just speaking some things I've learned first hand. A $100 license and $50 of training is a lot of money to some families, especially with unemployment as has as it is right now in Mass. My family was one of them when I was growing up, times were tough, but we still had a right to life and the ability to defend ourselves.

You're right, gun ownership is too expensive. My wife and I have been fortunate, but this state has jacked up the price for those who don't have the money. Essentially, they are creating the have's and have not's. For example, I know that a Colt 1911 I was looking at was more than twice as much in MA than NH. It's not fair and hopefully we can do something about it. The licensing and training fees make it even more expensive.

 

[depicts]

Just speaking some things I've learned first hand. A $100 license and $50 of training is a lot of money to some families, especially with unemployment as has as it is right now in Mass. My family was one of them when I was growing up, times were tough, but we still had a right to life and the ability to defend ourselves.

Yeah, and don't forget club fees. You need someplace to shoot. With an initiation fee that might be $200-$300 more a year. Adds up fast.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Yeah, and don't forget club fees. You need someplace to shoot. With an initiation fee that might be $200-$300 more a year. Adds up fast.

Well everyone SHOULD be practicing regularly, but I know it costs. Luckily Medford does not require a gun club membership, but I joined to stay prophicient. My wife is pissed because she said I took up the most expensive hobby I possibly could!

 

[GSG]

Yeah, and don't forget club fees. You need someplace to shoot. With an initiation fee that might be $200-$300 more a year. Adds up fast.

You're right, I'd forgotten about those.

 

[jar]

Well everyone SHOULD be practicing regularly, but I know it costs. Luckily Medford does not require a gun club membership, but I joined to stay prophicient. My wife is pissed because she said I took up the most expensive hobby I possibly could!

Flying airplanes and racing cars are both way more expensive. (Racing anything really, if you want to be competitive.)

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

God, I don't even want to think what would happen to me if I took up one of those.

 

[drgrant]

You're right, gun ownership is too expensive. My wife and I have been fortunate, but this state has jacked up the price for those who don't have the money. Essentially, they are creating the have's and have not's. For example, I know that a Colt 1911 I was looking at was more than twice as much in MA than NH. It's not fair and hopefully we can do something about it. The licensing and training fees make it even more expensive.

It's not just the costs that are obnoxious, but it's about what you don't get for the investment.

An applicant is paying hundreds of dollars for a license (between training and application fee) which may be nearly WORTHLESS to actually carry a gun with. (eg, if applying in Boston, etc, where the applicant will almost always get a restricted LTC ). It's worse in Boston too, because of the mandated club membership crap.

Not to mention that same license is revocable or downgrade-able on the whims of ONE person (or his successor if he dies or retires) for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with violating ANY law. Individuals in MA can control the fate of that license WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW! This is equivalent in power to saying the city can take your house away because they don't like the way your breath smells.

Not exactly the kind of thing that inspires confidence. Legally speaking, driving is more of a right in MA than owning a gun is. That's f**ing sad by standard of measure.

-Mike

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

It's not just the costs that are obnoxious, but it's about what you don't get for the investment.

An applicant is paying hundreds of dollars for a license (between training and application fee) which may be nearly WORTHLESS to actually carry a gun with. (eg, if applying in Boston, etc, where the applicant will almost always get a restricted LTC ). It's worse in Boston too, because of the mandated club membership crap.

Not to mention that same license is revocable or downgrade-able on the whims of ONE person (or his successor if he dies or retires) for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with violating ANY law. Individuals in MA can control the fate of that license WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW! This is equivalent in power to saying the city can take your house away because they don't like the way your breath smells.

Not exactly the kind of thing that inspires confidence. Legally speaking, driving is more of a right in MA than owning a gun is. That's f**ing sad by standard of measure.

-Mike

Mike, I don't know what to say other than you are right and the whole process is a big pile of crap. We deserve better. As law abiding citizens we have the right. The whole CLEO thing is crap.....the requirements are crap...the training costs are crap. Do I think anyone carrying should belong to a club, yes. You should keep your skills honed. Should it be required, hell no. It's another expense and obviously they are making it so that only those with money can CCW.

 

[GSG]

Not to mention that same license is revocable or downgrade-able on the whims of ONE person (or his successor if he dies or retires) for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with violating ANY law. Individuals in MA can control the fate of that license WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW! This is equivalent in power to saying the city can take your house away because they don't like the way your breath smells.

Yup. In addition, if you apply and they deny you the fee is non-refundable. You'll also pay more for noncompliant handguns (which is the majority of handguns), more for ammo and components (no one ships to Mass. so the locals own the market), and with the sales tax increase you pay more for everything else gun related.

It's a bad deal all around.

 

[Bill Nance]

I've always found it horribly ironic that here in "liberal" Mass, 20th century liberalism, which is largely all about helping those at the bottom is the last thing on earth actually practiced. (Unless perhaps you're talking about welfare).

They make gun licensing and the cost of firearms so expensive by regulation that no one among the poor can afford one. ($350 for a decent pistol +150-250 for training+licensing is more discretionary income than lots of people have over the course of several months). SO poor people, who are the most likely of all of us to actually NEED a firearm for protection, can't get one.

They keep the pro-union laws strong (because the unions pay them to) but don't have any other decent labor laws, so non-union workers have fewer rights in MA than they do in KENTUCKY!

They have a flat tax which is low enough it's an ouch to me, but to a poor working guy it's a killer. And on, and on and on...

The pols here don't even come close to living up to their own stated ideals, much less common sense. /end derail

 

[Bill Nance]

We know we will never be like VT though

I think that's pretty much the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think it's a very accurate assessment. If you think Mass is ever going to zero regulation on guns like VT, I really want whatever your smoking

 

[Jose]

They keep the pro-union laws strong (because the unions pay them to) but don't have any other decent labor laws, so non-union workers have fewer rights in MA than they do in KENTUCKY!

And states like Mass with strong union laws get shunned by major foreign manufacturers like, say, Toyota. Which coincidentally (or not) is a major presence in Kentucky. When you combine Toyota's payroll with that of all the Japanese and American suppliers that have opened up plants in Kentucky to serve Toyota, the effect of real wealth into the state is staggering.

I wonder how job creation has been going in Mass over the last 15 years......

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

And states like Mass with strong union laws get shunned by major foreign manufacturers like, say, Toyota. Which coincidentally (or not) is a major presence in Kentucky. When you combine Toyota's payroll with that of all the Japanese and American suppliers that have opened up plants in Kentucky to serve Toyota, the effect of real wealth into the state is staggering.

I wonder how job creation has been going in Mass over the last 15 years......

Well Patrick worked on a platform of brining jobs back to MA. Yeah, that worked out real well. Now we all know that the economy has effected jobs, but he has actually lost companies. Big factor.

 

[Scrivener]

Yeah, and don't forget club fees. You need someplace to shoot. With an initiation fee that might be $200-$300 more a year. Adds up fast.

Just so you know, there is NO legal requirement to belong to a club.

Moreover, there is case law from Quincy District Court striking down the Randolph PD's denial of an applicant for not belonging to a club.

I understand that the Randolph PD still "requires" club membership - at least for those too ignorant or invertebrate to refuse to be so bullied.

 

[Titan]

Scrivener,

You're right about the lack of a legal requirement, but from a practical perspective, there's no alternative to club membership if you want to practice and develop your skills...at least in the populated areas.

 

[terraformer]

Just so you know, there is NO legal requirement to belong to a club.

Moreover, there is case law from Quincy District Court striking down the Randolph PD's denial of an applicant for not belonging to a club.

I understand that the Randolph PD still "requires" club membership - at least for those too ignorant or invertebrate to refuse to be so bullied.

So, in district court the decision is not binding to other cases though, correct? Or does one case in district court apply to all future cases in that district court as precedence?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Guns and shooting sports are certainly not easily attainable for the "poor"!

Gun - $300-1000
Ammo - $14-30/box
Holster - $20-100
Gun lock - $5-10
Gun box/lockable rug/safe - $10-3000
Cleaning kit - $15-40

Now to get the permit:

Training - $50-150
Application Fee - $100
Lawyer Fee (optional) - $200-500

Gun club (optional) - $150-300 (1st year, $50-150 each successive year)
[NOTE: Boston NO LONGER requires gun club membership! Some places still do however.]

I dare say that hockey, football, etc. are also not cheap sports to participate in either.