Brass knuckles

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am truly amazed at the unwarranted indulgence this board has shown this petulant, puerile arriviste. By his own admission, he owns no guns; by his own profile, he has no interest in them; by his posts he advertises his ignorance about them and the laws controlling them.

The only less-than-cretinous remark he's made is a statement of the obvious: GOAL screwed up the "Reason For Issuance." Thank God we had his clear vision and keen insight to tell us what we knew years before he graced us with his presence.......
 
+1 I couldn't agree more, Scriv.

This sight is a WONDERFUL resource on MGL and firearms in general. But don't ask us to do all the work and spoon-feed you Duane, and then get self rightous about us valuing our own time.

Use the search feature, skim the Gun Laws section, then ask apropreate questions in a polite manner.

Thanks

-Weer'd
 
Using big words makes Scrivener feel even extra arrogrant.

It's going to take a little more than a J.D. to get any respect from me. I don't respect titles, positions of power, only men who deserve it.

And if you've been involved in the pro gun stuff for so long, you've failed. And you've failed miserably. Throw in the towel and retire because you stink. This state is a testament to the failure of all you pro-gunners who've been adults throughout the 1980s.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for handing over such a wretched situation to the next generation.
 
Last edited:
Duane Allman said:
Using big words makes Scrivener feel even extra arrogrant.

It's going to take a little more than a J.D. to get any respect from me. I don't respect titles, positions of power, only men who deserve it.
Click to expand...

When people start agreeing with Scriv on matters regarding another persons behavior, it's time to start taking a look at yourself.
 
Duane - I'm giving you one and ONLY one warning. THAT IS ENOUGH. If you can't voice your displeasure without acting like you aren't even old enough to go to school, then DON'T POST. Got it?

Mother Mod
 
I think someone's getting a time out. It could be worse. She could strip your manhood by teaching your wife to shoot better than you.
 
Okay Scriv...you already had your shot at him earlier. I want everyone to play nice now. And I DAMN WELL MEAN IT!

<sniff>
 
I'd prefer it in the gray area.
Click to expand...
So would many of us.
All you don't give a shit because you already have LTC ALP.
Click to expand...
I don't know how you came to think this, but you are incorrect.
I owe nobody a debt of gratitude. You guys keep pressing for more laws. It's pretty idiotic.
Click to expand...
You've really lost me here. Many of the folks on this site are activists who have worked for years to try to protect our rights. I've volunteered for many campaigns of pro-gun candidates. Sometimes we won, many times we lost.
 
Okay Scriv...you already had your shot at him earlier.---Lynne
Click to expand...

Yes you did Scriv and it was very well done and I’m sure he spent as much time as I did with the dictionary. :)

While it may not have impressed him now, perhaps in time it will.


Respectfully,

jkelly
 
Duane was so insensed that "our" generation screwed up and ruined it for gun owners in the future. I'm afraid if Duane doesn't wake up, learn to read (he did say he graduated, didn't he) and figure out "sarcasim" (when it is in writing you can keep reading it over and over until you get) then he will be watching his generation continue the crusade we have all rallied around, from behind bars.

Duane wake up or you'll miss out on more than just carrying a gun! Get the chip off of your shoulder learn humility and respect your elders...especially those that are smarter than you (most). If you don't believe me keep going and when your 40 add up all the years you spent in jail and all the fines you paid, then come back here and compare to this generation of "failures", whoever has the highest number wins...guess what you'll WIN!! And we will all congratulate you...Dick...I mean Duane.
 
Carguy said:
Duane wake up or you'll miss out on more than just carrying a gun!
Click to expand...

troll.jpg
 
Did you guys know that you can click on the Members link, find "Duane Allman"'s name and then set your login to IGNORE all his posts? All you see is a little blurb saying that you're ignoring the poster and you don't have to read what he posts.

Works great; I used it for the last PITA that started in on me. I forget his name now... haven't seen any (blocked) posts by him in a while.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
GOAL pressed for a clear definition, and the state obliged by changing the license forms to read "Restriction" rather than "Reason for issuance." Interestingly enough, GOAL tried to tell us this was a good thing.
Click to expand...

Clearing up ambiguity like this is a good thing. Would you really rather be charged with a crime and have to spend thousands of dollars and HOPE that the court would agree with you? Personally although I hate that any restrictions can be put on any license, I'd rather know in advance than get arrested and have to go to court.

IIRC, the SJC decision back in 1980s or early 1990s concerned a guy who was arrested in Boston for carrying concealed on his H&T license. The SJC upheld the restriction and the conviction stood. I don't remember the details.

Gary
 
Garys said:
Clearing up ambiguity like this is a good thing. Would you really rather be charged with a crime and have to spend thousands of dollars and HOPE that the court would agree with you? Personally although I hate that any restrictions can be put on any license, I'd rather know in advance than get arrested and have to go to court.
Click to expand...

There was no real "ambiguity." What in "Target & Hunting" would lead any remotely sentient holder to think s/he could carry concealed on such a license? [rolleyes]

The argument was absurd ab initio and GOAL screwed up big time by accommodating cretins who lacked basic language skills and the initiative to improve same with the simple remedy of using a dictionary.

IIRC, the SJC decision back in 1980s or early 1990s concerned a guy who was arrested in Boston for carrying concealed on his H&T license. The SJC upheld the restriction and the conviction stood. I don't remember the details.
Click to expand...

The decision which was relevant - and of some actual use - was that of the Ipswich District Court holding that "Reason For Issuance" was not a restriction and someone stupid enough to carry concealed on such a license could not be criminally charged for carrying illegally.

So - which is more likely to really cost you: A charge of carrying illegally if you were:

a. Moronic enough to "carry" on a mere T&H license; AND

b. Dumb enough to get caught; WITH

the Ipswich decision as a defense;

OR

Have what is expressly stated to be "Restrictions" on your license; AND

NO cognizable defense?

Don't forget that, with the creation of such automatically restricted licenses AND the pull-down menu of approved restrictions, the likelihood of being saddled with said restrictions increases significantly.

Those interested in the full fire-fight on this subject can use the SEARCH function.
 
Scrivener said:
There was no real "ambiguity." What in "Target & Hunting" would lead any remotely sentient holder to think s/he could carry concealed on such a license? [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

The guy that was arrested on the bus in the case I mentioned. I know that I didn't dream it. It was in Boston, the guy basis of the charge was that the guy did not go directly home after using the gun at the range. I'd guess that you know the case I'm talking about.

The decision which was relevant - and of some actual use - was that of the Ipswich District Court holding that "Reason For Issuance" was not a restriction and someone stupid enough to carry concealed on such a license could not be criminally charged for carrying illegally.
Click to expand...

When was this decision? Did it create a precedent?

So - which is more likely to really cost you: A charge of carrying illegally if you were:

Doesn't seem like a pertinent question counselor. Although the former may increase learned counsel's billable hours, knowing what the rules are would seem to make it easier to follow them.

Either way the gun laws in this state stink.

Gary
 
Garys said:
The guy that was arrested on the bus in the case I mentioned. I know that I didn't dream it. It was in Boston, the guy basis of the charge was that the guy did not go directly home after using the gun at the range. I'd guess that you know the case I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Meaning it wasn't cased and he was "carrying" on a mere T&H license. Ergo, he was outside the scope of the license. What encyclopedic legal knowledge is required to grasp that?

....... knowing what the rules are would seem to make it easier to follow them.
Click to expand...

Granted. However, the scope of a license was not hard to comprehend before. Coddling the wilfully obtuse by imposing restrictions upon everyone is not an intelligent solution, especially where there was no real problem.
 
Martlet said:
Martlet
Click to expand...

Nope, you I merely disagreed with. The guy I was referring to was being insulting and rude. I can disagree and stay polite; I like spirited discussions. Sometimes I learn something and change my mind, and sometimes I teach something and change someone else's mind. Either way, civilized discussion is a good thing... even if we have to agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

50 Cal Brass
Replies
3
Views
235
MassPete
MassPete
.300 Savage once fired brass
Replies
1
Views
286
HARRYM
H
  • Poll
What's your brass etiquette when shooting at the range?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
3K
glockforlife
glockforlife
M1A brass damage
Replies
18
Views
1K
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Great results with a weird brass experience
Replies
25
Views
816
Broc
Broc
Back
Top Bottom