-
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.
Worcester Police chief wants gun range license suspended
- Thread starter tele_mark
- Start date
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Good for him!! They always treated me nice there. I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure if I ever talked to Joe or not, but the folks there were good guys.
Yeah, but it was a dump with a 25 yard range and a port where you could shoot ANYTHING. Got a lot of fond memories of that place.
Huh? So my "good for life" NJ FID card (well, good if I was still living in NJ, anyway) isn't good any more? Gee... where have I heard that before?
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Well, I certainly can't argue THAT point.
Or that one...
Yup, I have to agree with you. They should have had a more bloodthirsty lawyer than they evidently had. Maybe Scrivener could have held off that nonsense.
Makes me wonder if Gemme had been being coached by the MA AG about consent decrees. It's exactly the same kind of nonsense.
Dead on.
As for felons having their rights restored "once they've paid their debt to society" - BULL. Forfeiture of certain rights is aninherent PART of that debt. There is nothing "ex post facto" about it.
So why let them out of prison? Because it costs us all so darn much to keep the scum IN! Next silly question....
I disagree. It's a hidden punishment, basically lifetime probation, that usually only gets glossed over at trial time. Not to mention it's typically an all or nothing proposition. EG, the jury (or the judge) does not get to decide if one becomes a prohibited person or not, unless they completely acquit the person or there are multiple charges and they dump the F-bomb ones and keep only a misdemeanor there. Under several circumstances (especially in MA) there is no way that someone can get their rights restored, aside from the narrow scope of offenses covered by the LTC appeals board in MA. Federally someone is screwed unless funding is ever restored to the relief from disabilities thing.
IIRC the NRA highlighted a case where a woman became a prohibited person because she tore the pocket on her husband's jeans or some crap like that, she got prosecuted under a mandatory DV law in the locality the "incident" occurred in. (EG, the husband did not want to press charges, but the police showed up and arrested her anyways, under a mandatory zero tolerance DV law. ) I don't think she really even served any time, but the conviction was enough to bag her as a PP via the POS lautenberg amendment. The entire incident it was based on was certainly not worth revoking someones gun rights over. There is an entire nation of non-violent ex-felons who cannot own firearms because of something stupid they did when they were younger. I don't see what barring them from owning guns accomplishes.
Prohibited Person/Lautenberg = shit and it should be reformed. I think in some cases it's definitely overboard, and the jury/judge should be given the option of rendering a conviction that isn't permanently disabling, or at a
minimum for a non violent conviction it should sunset some period of years after release.
-Mike
Last edited:
Civil disobedience. Look it up.
Forever? I don't think so, certainly without qualification. There are crimes where I agree, but there are many crimes and "crimes" where you're dead wrong.
I'm fine with that. He's out, he's got ex-con acquaintances now (if he didn't already), he's going to get a gun if he wants one. Why force him underground? Why create a black market for ex-cons? What purpose does that serve? If you let everyone buy guns, all the purchases can be on the books.
I agree that if he isn't trustworthy with a gun, he should not be wandering around freely.
That's my question too, Mark has moved the range three times since I have known him.
Mark L.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
As for felons having their rights restored "once they've paid their debt to society" - BULL. Forfeiture of certain rights is aninherent PART of that debt. There is nothing "ex post facto" about it.
So why let them out of prison? Because it costs us all so darn much to keep the scum IN! Next silly question....
Dead On.
So I guess some here would let convicted child molesters become teachers after they get out of jail....![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Nice straw man argument that isn't anywhere close to being the same thing.
If we're going to play the straw man game, I'll go in the reverse direction... why is it that we let people convicted of DUI regain their drivers licenses, and don't apply the same kind of penalties to them for violating any prohibitions they face? I doubt anyone driving without a license would get the same punishment that someone who was "felon in posession" would face... merely because one object is more "politically correct" than the other.
It all boils down to the fact that there is this f*cked up perception in society that a car is "less dangerous and more necessary" and "less abused" than a firearm is. I think that guy who got run over (4?) times by his crazy wife driving the mercedes or whatever it was would tend to disagree with that, though.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
-Mike
The cards are still good for life. Of course they would have to be re-issued if the address changes but that isn't a big deal. The NIC checks started about seven or eight years ago when the DV laws and more specifically the Lautenburg laws came into being.
By the way, Joe and his brother owned the uniform store on the second floor. That is still in operation and in fact growing somewhat.
I would have liked the range better if it has some form of ventilation....Maybe stopped going when the range in Belleville opened up with, at the time, state of the art systems.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Uh... they wouldn't re-issue it if I now live in MA, would they? Just wondering.
No they wouldn't. But if you ever move back to NJ, you could get it re-issued to your current address. Once you get the SBI number, they don't have to print you, only check the gun file which is nothing more than the DV restriction file.
Dead On.As for felons having their rights restored "once they've paid their debt to society" - BULL. Forfeiture of certain rights is aninherent PART of that debt. There is nothing "ex post facto" about it.
So why let them out of prison? Because it costs us all so darn much to keep the scum IN! Next silly question....
Well, I guess it's too expensive if one's willing to totally ignore the costs involved in letting them out. As for ex post facto, it most certainly is in some cases (e.g., prior domestic violence convictions). In others, it's all swept under the rug, particularly with guilty pleas, so that the defendant never realizes what their punishment actually involves. Prosecutors get graded and promoted inter alia based on their conviction rates. I've seen numerous instances where someone is arguably overcharged, but rather than reduce the charges the prosecutor offers the defendant probation if they plead guilty to the inflated charges and threatens to go for the maximum jail time if they decline and are convicted on a lesser included charge. Neither the prosecutor or the judge ever explains that by accepting the offer, the defendant will be permanently prohibited from even touching a gun or a cartridge for the rest of his or her life, be barred from voting in some states and refused any sort of professional license in some. Doing so would result in a lot more trials, might would also be "too expensive".
If they're really such serious threats, then keep them in prison. It will probably be cheaper when one considers the costs of the crimes they'll commit if they were released. If the chance of them committing a future offense is too small or he offense too trivial to justify the costs of imprisonment, then they're probably not to dangerous to be trusted with the means of defending themselves and their families.
Ken
So I guess some here would let convicted child molesters become teachers after they get out of jail....
???????
It was a pretty shitty analogy Homer, just let it go. I don't think he's been piss tested recently.
Ok..first of all the form filled out at BGR to rent or shoot in the range is under ,some weird, Federal statue, because BGR is a FFL. SOoooo if you lie...then it is like lying to the feds. That is why the MSP and ATF have been known to go get copies of "rental /Shooting agreements" and use them in cases against..guess who...GANGBANGERS! <Ding ding ding we got a winer!!!!>
Second ..come on if you wanted to kill yourself...do you NEED a gun???? Oh the answer...IT'S No!!!! Does make it easier..i guess. I personally always thought the sucking on the exhaust pipe..or OD as a painless death...but that is not here nor there!
Last ..when was the last time I had a say in a gun law??? Oh ya..never! I get told by a person who knows NOTHING about firearms what I get and DON't get to own and do!!
Second ..come on if you wanted to kill yourself...do you NEED a gun???? Oh the answer...IT'S No!!!! Does make it easier..i guess. I personally always thought the sucking on the exhaust pipe..or OD as a painless death...but that is not here nor there!
Last ..when was the last time I had a say in a gun law??? Oh ya..never! I get told by a person who knows NOTHING about firearms what I get and DON't get to own and do!!
I can't imagine how it's the prosecutor's job to explain that, and I don't know enough about the legal system to know if it's part of the judge's job.
But it certainly is part of the job of the defendant's attorney, no? Isn't that really where the fault lies in this particular scenario you've laid out? So if people are getting inadequate representation, shouldn't that problem be addressed directly rather than watering down the laws to compensate?
He said "Damn, this Jack Daniels is good. Crap, the bottle's almost empty".
MaverickNH
NES Member
It depends on what you call payment of a felon's debt to society. That can be temporary incarceration AND permanent loss of selected rights. Who said the slate is wiped clean when you walk out of jail?
What is "fair" in my view, is that you cancel your social contract when you commit a felony.
Think of it this way - all felons are punished by a lifetime sentance revoking rights, but other penalties, such as jailtime, may be less than lifetime in duration.
I can see a case made for non-violent vs violent felons, but still feel since it's the criminal making the choice to commit crime, they take on the burden of permanent loss of full membership in society. Elsewise, it not a matter of being a good citizen - it become a matter of what the potential risks are in being a bad citizen.
Nice try but no cigar,
Do you know that to be a fact and are you aware that sworn police officers in Massachusetts may "carry on the badge" and are not required by statute to have a LTC?(even though many departments require it...not a state law).
Of course even it Gemme doesn't require his officers to be licensed, the point would still be moot because the officers were acting in their capacity as LEOS and would be carrying "on the badge"
Mark L.
I don't see way a LTC should be required. You're not walking around unsupervised, you're in a controlled environment. They don't require a LTC at the S&W range in Springfield.
I don't either particularly, but neither do I think it's the range owners responsibility to keep the felon out. It's the felon's responsibility not to go to the range. If a released felon robs my house is it my fault because I left the door unlocked? The same with suicides. It's against the law to kill yourself (whether it should be or not is another debate). It's not the range owner's responsibility to enforce that law. If a person hides behind a bush until I'm close, and then jump in front of my car to kill themselves, is it my fault?
I don't either particularly, but neither do I think it's the range owners responsibility to keep the felon out. It's the felon's responsibility not to go to the range. If a released felon robs my house is it my fault because I left the door unlocked? The same with suicides. It's against the law to kill yourself (whether it should be or not is another debate). It's not the range owner's responsibility to enforce that law. If a person hides behind a bush until I'm close, and then jump in front of my car to kill themselves, is it my fault?
Mike,
You have presented some fairly cogent arguments as to why convicted felons should have full restoration of rights. In espousing your philosophy you appear to be swimming upstream against legal precepts which include the curtailment of certain rights by those convicted of felonies. I certainly do not claim to have your erudition or depth of intellect, but it seems to me that based on precedent, a convicted felon never has his or her rights fully restored unless he or she receives a pardon from a governor or president. The slate is never wiped totally clean otherwise. Since our legal system has this concept so fully ingrained, where is your precedent?
I agree totally that DUI/OUI laws are not enforced to the level that they should and as far as I am concerned could be much stricter. The problem, of course, as you succintly pointed out is perception.
How do you feel about those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military? Although a dishonorable discharge is adjudicated by a general court martial (as opposed to other types of discharges granted under "other than honorable conditions" which may be granted administratively), there is no stipulation per se, that an individual must be incarcerated as part of the sentence (although in modern times that is usually the case). Given the peculiarities of military law and military life, the offense that brought about the discharge might not even be a felony in civilian life. A person may be tried and then released with a DD without any further action.
A person with a dishonorable discharge cannot purchase a firearm and my understanding is that in some states a person is deemed ineligible to vote.
Historically, there has always been a stigma attached to conviction. Prior to the modern punishment of incarceration people were branded or otherwise marked to show that they had offended and been convicted, a lifelong stigmatization.
We can argue whether prison is supposed to be punative or rehabilitative in nature and that argument will be endless, however it appears that your argument is totally philosophical and flies in the face of both centuries of common law and legal precedent. The reason so many offenders reoffend can be attributed to a large degree to limited opportunities after incarceration based on the stigmatization of being an ex-con, but that is not going to change soon.
We are an unforgiving society and one would hope that fact would in and of itself be a deterrent from the commission of crime. but it doesn't seem to matter. People continue to offend and re-offend. Even if a convicted felon enjoyed full restoration of civil rights, I doubt that it would matter.
I also see a tendency in general (not your post per se) for people to trivialize "white collar" and non-violent offenses as though they are somehow different from other crimes i.e. "good crimes" committed by people like us as opposed to "bad crimes" committed by people in the ghetto. Perhaps one day, we should do a thread on that.
Mark L.
Last edited:
I could be wrong, but I don't believe committing suicide is illegal. Only attempted suicide is against the law. However it doesn't really matter, since if you succeed you won't be around to face charges. It's only illegal if you don't succeed.
Edit. A quick google search shows that even attempted suicide isn't against law in most places. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide
Are there any other ranges (outdoor, private, whatever) in the area that this ordinance covers? If so, are thay also targetted or is this directed at only Mark's range? If they are subject to this ordinance, are members now prohibited from allowing family member and guests to use their firearms at these ranges? I certainly hope that this doesn't grow to a Statewide statute. Would spell the end of lots of range memberships.
