Great response. I agree that the Chiefs probably don't want the responsibility although there are some who want the power for the wrong reasons. Sadly the law includes 'discretion' and the point I was attempting to make in my post is that the Chiefs now bear the responsibility of determining who is suitable and who isn't.
It doesn't state this at all.. it only states that they have the power to do it, not that they are compelled by force of law to actually -use- that discretionary power. There is no verbiage in MGLthat states that a chief must use his own discretion to further screen applicants beyond what is required by the law. Not a word in regards to that.
Further, even if there was some "liability" to the chiefs WRT licensing, which do you think gives them a better leg to stand on- a bunch of arbitrary rules, or whatever is set forth in the law? IMHO things like restricted licenses gives other parties a segue to question your judgment as a chief- the first thing they are going to ask is- "If you didn't think this individual was good enough to carry a gun, then why did you issue them a permit at all? " The real answer is that the corrupt red towns issue restrictions because they know that denials are somewhat contestable, and such a denial can cause unwanted political attention. It's politically cheaper for them to restrict a license than it is to deny one outright.
Cato, won't loan a chain saw unless he knows the guy has certain skills yet he wants the .gov to simply hand out licenses without any training or indication of proficency(sp).
I don't mean to speak for him, but I'd bet he'd suggest that the government shouldn't be handing out licenses at all. Then the "responsibility" ball is squarely in the court of the gun buyer/owner, as it was meant to be.
The idea of mandatory training is not what I would hope for.
Well, then what do you want? Voluntary is better... and we already have that. Sometimes it's even free! (Not sure if this is the case now, but Women basically used to get WOT for free via GOAL, among other things. )
As I posted earlier in this thread, gun handling should be a part of the school system. If kids can learn about sex, drugs and cars then I think they can also learn about guns.
I'm not necessarily in disagreement with that. Let's start by firing moonbat public school teachers and go from there.
As for the gang bangers; maybe they will buy on the street but if they walk in and apply, with no criminal record but perhaps a shady past, should they be granted a permit?
Again, as M1911 states the overwhelming majority of people we have to be concerned with are statutorily disqualified to begin with. How many gang bangers can make it to age 21 without a rap sheet? Probably not many. If they can, by some miracle, then they should be eligible for the
permit if they meet the statutory requirements, just like everyone else.
Further, what is a "shady past"? One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, is that it operates on due process. Some guy having a "shady past" without a criminal record doesn't work with this concept- things which aren't accounted for by the system don't count in the eyes of the law. If we go down this road, that means we're getting into things like "pre crime" and operating a virtual banana republic. Those kinds of things, on principle, are corrupt and against the tenets of the American justice system. One of the conditions of our justice system working properly is that the government must obey the rules that are in place- otherwise the rule of law is tarnished and then the law becomes less effective as a result, because less people will respect it. It gets somewhat more complicated than this, but this point is very important. To put it simply, it's a public trust issue... which do you think the community is going to trust more- a chief that follows the letter of the law, and is firm, but fair in its application- or one that is running a little banana republic
by trying to make up his own subjective rules that have no basis in law?
-Mike