What do we agree on? Current LTC/COP cases

[SecondAmdFirst]

Brookline or Watertown?

Another reason why we need a fund for such cases - each plaintiff ran out of funds to pursue the appeal and GOAL provided zero economic aid.

So are we best to contribute to the NES warchest for this effort?

 

[GSG]

SO poor people, who are the most likely of all of us to actually NEED a firearm for protection, can't get one.

It's screwy, isn't it?

The old "suitability" and "chief's discretion" thing can be used to mandate club membership. If a chief and their town counsel are sharp enough, I'm sure that they can make a compelling case to damn near any judge in MA.

Also, from what I've seen, many chiefs don't seem to be intimidated by another chief having lost a case in one court. They seem all to eager to forge ahead with their "policies" and let the chips fall as they may. They have some serious advantages: They know that most people will fold and not spend the tens of thousands of dollars to fight them AND the chiefs are NOT spending their own money in persecuting their subjects. Until the Selectmen/Mayor/Town Manager comes down on them for wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits, the chiefs pretty much do what they want with relative impunity.

In other words Len, they are bullies who abuse the system by making the same bad decision over and over again despite knowing it is wrong because the system is set up to allow that and the burden of correcting the system is on the applicant. Lots of dollars later the judge could still side with the CLEO.

It's disgusting but true, many can't afford to fight the BS.

What you tolerate, you validate; what you put up with - you DESERVE! (one of Scriv. signatures from the past, I believe)

Interesting statement, coming from one who tolerates the Mass. gun laws himself.

All that should be done is a list of people with statutory disqualifiers should be kept. A blind check can be done to confirm you are not on that list. No record should be kept, not for a day, week, month hour or minute. Call and check if you are on the list - if not - move along, nothing to see here...

Too restrictive. Sounds to me like a sure case of "shall not be infringed" not being adhered to.

Another reason why we need a fund for such cases - each plaintiff ran out of funds to pursue the appeal and GOAL provided zero economic aid.

Yup.

 

[GSG]

So are we best to contribute to the NES warchest for this effort?

Heck yes. It's time to take the fight to them.

 

[cekim]

Too restrictive. Sounds to me like a sure case of "shall not be infringed" not being adhered to.

Wink noted, but you are right - in an ideal world...

I was stating the extreme condition that I would find an acceptable compromise.

Give me a blind "prohibited person check" with SEVERE civil rights penalties imposed upon the FBI for violating the "blind" part and I won't bother you anymore....

At least until we are start getting convicted of felony Environmental Carbon Pollution (i.e. exhaling) and added to that prohibited persons list...

 

[GSG]

I was stating the extreme condition that I would find an acceptable compromise.

Give me a blind "prohibited person check" with SEVERE civil rights penalties imposed upon the FBI for violating the "blind" part and I won't bother you anymore....

I agree with you, that would be a desirable step in the right direction that I wouldn't be opposed to implementing.

But I'd also like to see the "felony" label reserved for serious crimes, and not just petty stuff like larceny over $250 or trespassing on federal land...

 

[cekim]

But I'd also like to see the "felony" label reserved for serious crimes, and not just petty stuff like larceny over $250 or trespassing on federal land...

Yes, we got lost somewhere along the way (perhaps it was that left in Albuquerque?) with this non-sense (including the sentencing guidelines).

We are destroying large swaths of our population - effectively removing generations of people from productive involvement in society and giving no real second chance despite professing intent to "rehabilitate" people - we do nothing but destroy them and teach them how to be better criminals in most cases...

All-the-while creating a revolving door for violent offenders, thus removing any benefit such a system might have had...

 

[GSG]

Agreed.

Realistically, the number of prohibited persons in the US is a very tiny number of the population, and I'm willing to bet that only a tiny fraction of prohibited persons are legitimately good people who caught a bad deal or actually turned their life around.

I just disagree with the principle of it.

 

[GSG]

Case in point... money is tight for me right now and my renewal is due in May.

My tin-pot dictator requires safety certification and club membership.

So... on top of the $100.00 application fee, I'm looking at spending an additional $200.00 - $250.00 for the "privilege" of owning a firearm.

This seems all too similar to the memorable line spoken by Henry Hill in Goodfellas.

"But now the guy's gotta come up with Paulie's money every week no matter what. Business bad? F*ck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? F*ck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning huh? F*ck you, pay me."

 

[drgrant]

The biggest problem I have with "prohibited person" is it's a form of extrajudicial punishment. It's like someone being on lifetime probation without all the usual trappings and due process of probation.

The question I always have, that the prohibited person fanbois can never answer, is- If this person is so dangerous that we can't trust them with the right to own a gun, then why bother letting them have freedom at all, if they're really that dangerous? These a certain amount of absurdity inherent in, say, barring a felon from lawfully owning a gun but yet still allowing him to own (and drive) a motor vehicle, or other things which are frequently used as
weapons.

Basically PP is "the cheap way out" instead of keeping the really dangerous people in jail, and it also allows the system to constantly dodge the obvious question of whether or not a given offender is worth keeping in prison or not. Not much different than the effect of diddler lists. The statists whine "There is no room in the prisons for these child molesters, so here, take this list and be appeased somehow. " Uhh, sure.

Prohibited Person will start having a profound effect on violent crime right around the time that violent criminals start filling out 4473s on a regular
basis to try to obtain guns- eg, the profound effect being that the system only ever succeeds in catching a few handfuls of absolute flaming numskulls, meanwhile the real criminals just opt out of the whole thing entirely, not caring about PP/FIP/Lautenberg or any of that other happy horses*it. The most violent, dangerous criminals are not barred by the existence of the law in any way, shape, or form.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

The biggest problem I have with "prohibited person" is it's a form of extrajudicial punishment. It's like someone being on lifetime probation without all the usual trappings and due process of probation.

You know I agree with you. Either a person has served their time or they haven't...

But, we cannot even gain traction with this concept among gun owners and even some of the more rabid 2A supporters...



The omni-present "not me" syndrome...

 

[jasons]

You know I agree with you. Either a person has served their time or they haven't...

But, we cannot even gain traction with this concept among gun owners and even some of the more rabid 2A supporters...



The omni-present "not me" syndrome...

In theory, yes - serve your time and that should be it. In reality though, how many really do serve their time? In many cases criminals get a slap on the wrist and are let out to try again. I'm not sure that I'm willing to arm repeat / violent offenders (who should be behind bars in the first place) just to make a point.

Maybe it is "not me" syndrome, but then again it's also "not me" who's robbing people at gunpoint and getting a 6 month sentence....

 

[cekim]

In theory, yes - serve your time and that should be it. In reality though, how many really do serve their time? In many cases criminals get a slap on the wrist and are let out to try again.

That seems like a much more important problem to tackle than writing useless laws that prohibit felons from obtaining firearms that we all know don't do anything...

Fix the problem, not the symptom...

That said, as I've said all along, I view this issue (prohibited person) as secondary to the first battle that needs to be fought - which is "shall not be infringed" respected for non-felons...

Then we can get into the nuance of requiring the government to actually go through and show specific cause under the rules of evidence and due process as to why someone's sentence should include a lifetime ban on gun ownership.

We can debate at that point why you would ever release someone who would fall into that category (as discussed, they can/will obtain weapons of various sorts anyway).

 

[jasons]

That seems like a much more important problem to tackle than writing useless laws that prohibit felons from obtaining firearms that we all know don't do anything...

Fix the problem, not the symptom...

That said, as I've said all along, I view this issue (prohibited person) as secondary to the first battle that needs to be fought - which is "shall not be infringed" respected for non-felons...

Then we can get into the nuance of requiring the government to actually go through and show specific cause under the rules of evidence and due process as to why someone's sentence should include a lifetime ban on gun ownership.

We can debate at that point why you would ever release someone who would fall into that category (as discussed, they can/will obtain weapons of various sorts anyway).

For what it's worth I agree 100% with everything you wrote.

 

[lupis42]

All-the-while creating a revolving door for violent offenders

Well, if we didn't get them back onto the streets, we wouldn't have room for the scary guy making coffee naked and all of those high school and college students who had the temerity to own a whole ounce of weed...

I wouldn't have a problem with excluding felons if it wasn't possible to accidentally commit half a dozen felonies before breakfast.

 

[cekim]

I wouldn't have a problem with excluding felons if it wasn't possible to accidentally commit half a dozen felonies before breakfast.

Exactly...

 

[newenglandshooter]

How do people feel about young people and gun ownership? Currently we have a specific age at which people are allowed to own guns with the permission of a parent. Thoughts?

 

[Scrivener]

My father started me shooting at age 8; I took my goddaughter shooting shortly after her 10th birthday. Vision and reflexes are at their peak in youth; kids ought to begin shooting then to benefit from that natural advantage.

 

[depicts]

I got my first .22 as a Christmas present from Dad when I was 6. A former Marine, he taught me well, and we shared our love of shooting and the outdoors for over 50 years.

 

[MarkM]

How do people feel about young people and gun ownership? Currently we have a specific age at which people are allowed to own guns with the permission of a parent. Thoughts?

There should be no age limit. It isn't the job of Government to decide when a child is mature enough to own their own firearm, isn't the parent much better suited to know their own child and decide when they are mature enough?

I wish I had been in a situation as a child where my family could teach me to shoot and hunt, and where one year (if I was really good) Santa would bring me my own .22.

 

[MarkM]

You know I agree with you. Either a person has served their time or they haven't...

But, we cannot even gain traction with this concept among gun owners and even some of the more rabid 2A supporters...



The omni-present "not me" syndrome...

That is because violent felons do not serve the time that their crime should dictate.

The prisons are too full of people convicted of "accidental" or minor felonies and in my opinion the whole crime system needs an overhaul, it needs to be much more difficult for the average person to find themselves convicted of a felony but sentencing needs to be much tougher for those who _choose_ to commit a violent crime.

The only crimes that should result in a lifetime ban on gun ownership should be crimes where the felon chose to use a weapon (and in that I do not include BS felonies like an "illegal" regular capacity magazine, but if you pull out a gun and rob someone or beat someone to death with a 2 by 4 you need to be in jail for a long long time).

 

[ShadeWPI]

There should be no age limit. It isn't the job of Government to decide when a child is mature enough to own their own firearm, isn't the parent much better suited to know their own child and decide when they are mature enough?

I wish I had been in a situation as a child where my family could teach me to shoot and hunt, and where one year (if I was really good) Santa would bring me my own .22.

I believe there should be an age limit to posess a firearm without adult supervision, but there shouldn't be with adult supervision. If someone wants to take their daugher to the range at age 5 and allow her to shoot? I have no problem with that. The adult is the one with a responsibility for the safe use of that firearm.

I don't believe a 14 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm without adult supervision.

 

[MarkM]

I don't believe a 14 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm without adult supervision.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are older members on this forum who took their hunting rifles to school at the age of 14 so they could hunt before school.

 

[jasons]

I believe there should be an age limit to posess a firearm without adult supervision, but there shouldn't be with adult supervision. If someone wants to take their daugher to the range at age 5 and allow her to shoot? I have no problem with that. The adult is the one with a responsibility for the safe use of that firearm.

I don't believe a 14 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm without adult supervision.

Define "firearm." I can see your point with pistols (though I don't necessarily agree that 14 is the magic number,) but rifles? I had a .22 rifle when I was pretty young, probably 12 or so, and I'd take it out into the woods by myself all the time.

 

[cekim]

Define "firearm." I can see your point with pistols (though I don't necessarily agree that 14 is the magic number,) but rifles? I had a .22 rifle when I was pretty young, probably 12 or so, and I'd take it out into the woods by myself all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjGWuROfm54

No matter how many times you try to explain this to people, they still don't seem to get it if they don't already know it... There are no "magic numbers". What there is and should be is personal responsibility. Parents are responsible for their children's actions. On balance, most of them act accordingly.

We don't need millions of pages laws defining arbitrary ages and personal opinions on what is "too young"... We need people to be responsible for themselves, responsible for their negligence and when malice is involved, punished severely.

 

[depicts]

It wouldn't surprise me if there are older members on this forum who took their hunting rifles to school at the age of 14 so they could hunt before school.

I think when I was a kid in Mass, you had to be 15 to hunt without adult supervision. There might have been some strings attached, like taking a hunter safety course, or getting a note from your parents that it was OK.

Some of my favorite memories are bus rides from Nowood through Walpole to Norfolk, my friends an I, all carrying our shotguns, out for a day of hunting in New England!!

None of us were old enough to drive then, so we took public transit.

 

[ShadeWPI]

Oh I agree that there is not "magic age" when someone is suddenly suitable to posess a firearm, but look at what you get when you write "suitable" into a legal system? That's the gripe people have with the MA LTC program. A completely subjective, arbitraty decision by a specific person.

So, we advocate specific, definable rules:

1) Must be of a specific age where there is an expectation of responsibility (whether it exists or not, there's an expectation)

2) Must meet specific training requirements (Also doesn't mean they will be safe)

If you want the parents to be the arbitor of suitibility, let's bring back parental responsibility. A Parent is 100% responsible for the actions of their child until their child reaches the age of responsibility (adulthood)

That was the law (both civilly and criminally) 50 years ago. What would happen today if a 15 year old ganger shoot and killed someone, then they charged his mother with murder for it?

 

[GSG]

You know I agree with you. Either a person has served their time or they haven't...

But, we cannot even gain traction with this concept among gun owners and even some of the more rabid 2A supporters...



The omni-present "not me" syndrome...

This is the issue. Everyone wants their rights, but they feel it's subjective when it applies to anything outside of their realm.

I'm disgusted by NAMBLA, KKK, flag burners, etc., but I recognize that they have a right to free expression.

I'm not sure that I'm willing to arm repeat / violent offenders (who should be behind bars in the first place) just to make a point.

I know what you're saying, but I think people really don't understand how little laws affect the behavior of criminals. They might spread out their stash of dope to stay under federal trafficking amounts or do similar things to minimize sentencing, but for the most part this is a small class of criminals. There are tons of opportunity based violent crimes that have little or no thought behind them.

The only people who're swayed by "It's illegal" are some of the more mediocre fence sitters or honest men with a flash of criminal thought in their mind.

The only thing that stops criminals is death, prison or a lifestyle change, and it's dangerous to pretend otherwise.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here for the most part.

Fix the problem, not the symptom...

Agree 100%. These bandaids on America's sucking chest wounds just aren't cutting it.

That said, as I've said all along, I view this issue (prohibited person) as secondary to the first battle that needs to be fought - which is "shall not be infringed" respected for non-felons...

I think that's an excellant starting point. We have a lot more innocent people who's rights are being trampled than we do criminals.

How do people feel about young people and gun ownership? Currently we have a specific age at which people are allowed to own guns with the permission of a parent. Thoughts?

Like anything else, parents should be allowed to raise their kids free of government involvement.

By age 7 I could cook, clean, use powertools, shoot, do laundry, and many other things. All have their dangers, but my parents educated me.

I don't believe a 14 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm without adult supervision.

Look at Vermont. At age 16 a child can carry a gun without their parents permission, under age 16 they need their parents permission. If there was a sudden wave of kids making awful decisions with guns in Vermont, I'm sure the Brady Campaign or some other anti-gun group would be chanting it over and over again.

From a practical standpoint, it's a maturity issue. Some kids can be trusted unsupervised with a gun at age 5, some adults can't be trusted unsupervised at age 35.

But from a legal standpoint, we don't need broad, sweeping laws to regulate parenting.