You obviously haven't read up on your laws regarding short handled shovels as well as collapsible handles like camping shovels.
Huh?
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
You obviously haven't read up on your laws regarding short handled shovels as well as collapsible handles like camping shovels.
Huh?
Was a joke, meaning it's only a matter of time before shovels are regulated like SBR's and Collapsible stocks in MA.
This I agree with you on.
Are you implying that you otherwise disagree?
This: No license required.
"Shall issue" is a compromise, one that is common out in the free world and that would be far better than what we have now, but still a compromise.
As a law abiding citizen, I do. Who is anyone to license my rights?As a law abiding citizen, I don't have an issue with licensing. .
As a law abiding citizen, I don't have an issue with licensing. MY issue is the criteria and the process.
I do. No free man should have to beg for permission from the government to own and carry a gun.
-Mike
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 do. No free man should have to beg for permission from the government to own and carry a gun.
-Mike
I do. No free man should have to beg for permission from the government to own and carry a gun.
-Mike
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.
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
I do. No free man should have to beg for permission from the government to own and carry a gun.
-Mike
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.Maybe it's a good thing that the laws keep you pissed off, tha way you're less likely to be a frog basking in his slowly boiling pot of water...
- Not sure I can agree with the silencer thing, why does one need it? To shoot in peace?
Yet another case of sterling firearms legal advice provided by an LEO.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.
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'.
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).
"licensing experts"
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.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.
Not sure I can agree with the silencer thing, why does one need it? To shoot in peace?
. 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.
.
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.It may be a compromise, but it is a HUGE step in the right direction and leagues ahead of what you have.