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?
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***
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 poor people, who are the most likely of all of us to actually NEED a firearm for protection, can't get one.
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.
What you tolerate, you validate; what you put up with - you DESERVE! (one of Scriv. signatures from the past, I believe)
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...
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?
Wink noted, but you are right - in an ideal world...Too restrictive. Sounds to me like a sure case of "shall not be infringed" not being adhered to.
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....
Yes, we got lost somewhere along the way (perhaps it was that left in Albuquerque?) with this non-sense (including the sentencing guidelines).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...
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.
"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."
You know I agree with you. Either a person has served their time or they haven't...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...
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...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).
All-the-while creating a revolving door for violent offenders
Exactly...I wouldn't have a problem with excluding felons if it wasn't possible to accidentally commit half a dozen felonies before breakfast.
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?
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...
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 don't believe a 14 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm without adult supervision.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjGWuROfm54Define "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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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?
I don't believe a 14 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm without adult supervision.