Chief pulls license of Marine

[Lugnut]

So if you agree with it, it's not a blatant abuse of power. If the mob was storming his house, killed his wife, then the chief yanked his permit, would that still not be an abuse of power?

Yes, I don't think in this particular case it was blatant abuse, no I don't.

If a mob was storming his house, threatening to kill him with a knife/bottle at closer range, or throwing fire bombs in his house- I would likely holeheartedly agree with Contoir's decision to fire. In that case I would think the chief would have no "right" to revoke his license.

These are my beliefs.

Do you believe that your LTC should NEVER be revoked unless your are found 'convicted' of a crime? Here's an extreme of where that might be a problem: What if someone just beat the crap out of their wife but was acquited for illegal procedure or something? I'd have a problem with that person still having a LTC. Yes, I damn would.

The bigger question: What rights should the chief or local PD have wrt LTC? I'm not happy the way it is now... but I'm not so sure I'm willing to allow anyone who has not been convicted of a crime to have a LTC either.... I don't think there is an easy answer to this...

 

[senorFrog]

The bigger question: What rights should the chief or local PD have wrt LTC? I'm not happy the way it is now

Fine, just extend those special powers a PC has to all the other "rights". Like voting, speech, press, religion.

... but I'm not so sure I'm willing to allow anyone who has not been convicted of a crime to have a LTC either....

Yeh, let's go out and round up all those folks who have not been convicted of anything.

ETA - Modify the LTC application for "Have you ever NOT been convicted of anything?"

 

[Lugnut]

With all due repect senorFrog, I don't believe you are making sense, nor are you really reading my posts. Answer my question about the hypothetical wife beater and tell me with a clear conscience that you are ok with that senario. It's not that far fetched.

 

[senorFrog]

With all due repect senorFrog, I don't believe you are making sense, nor are you really reading my posts. Answer my question about the hypothetical wife beater and tell me with a clear conscience that you are ok with that senario. It's not that far fetched.

I believe I am making sense and I have read your posts. But, you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I think someone else posted a clear example of this. You say the chief has too much power let's change the process. Then go on to make a case for the chief having this power. I.e. wife beater scenario.

Re that wife beater scenario, I just don't see how you can find someone guilty without a crime and a trial. There is criminal justice system which can deal with it. Upon being found guilty, the husband has forfeited his right to carry.

Just curious, do you believe the 2nd ammendment is right and therefore in shall issue?

 

[Neptune Cat]

I don't understand why someone whose life is in Immanent danger would try to scare the perp or perps as in this case.

One might brandish to avoide the immanent danger senario which would be Illegal.

One might discharge a warning shot to avoide immanent danger. Also Illegal.

From what i've learned from most people on this board is that you shoot to kill, not shoot to injure or shoot to kill. I'm sure many involved in this discussion have taken the "shoot to kill" stance in previos posts.

I've never seen anyone on this board in favor of the licensing procedures in MA. But that doesn't make what the chief did illegal. It does make it very wrong. The licensing procedures need to change.

 

[Martlet]

Yes, I don't think in this particular case it was blatant abuse, no I don't.

If a mob was storming his house, threatening to kill him with a knife/bottle at closer range, or throwing fire bombs in his house- I would likely holeheartedly agree with Contoir's decision to fire. In that case I would think the chief would have no "right" to revoke his license.

These are my beliefs.

Do you believe that your LTC should NEVER be revoked unless your are found 'convicted' of a crime? Here's an extreme of where that might be a problem: What if someone just beat the crap out of their wife but was acquited for illegal procedure or something? I'd have a problem with that person still having a LTC. Yes, I damn would.

The bigger question: What rights should the chief or local PD have wrt LTC? I'm not happy the way it is now... but I'm not so sure I'm willing to allow anyone who has not been convicted of a crime to have a LTC either.... I don't think there is an easy answer to this...

Great. So we've established that whether or not a chief is abusing his power depends on whether lugnut agrees with the decision or not. It doesn't matter what the people, through a jury, think.

And yes, I do think you have to have been convicted before the police chief should have the power to take away a right given to you by the Constitution, regardless whether or not lugnut thinks it's ok.

 

[Admin]

From what i've learned from most people on this board is that you shoot to kill, not shoot to injure or shoot to kill. I'm sure many involved in this discussion have taken the "shoot to kill" stance in previos posts.

It was a unique situation. Not a mugger, a person robbing a 7-11, or a carjacker, it was a mob of angry people...

 

[Martlet]

It was a unique situation. Not a mugger, a person robbing a 7-11, or a carjacker, it was a mod of angry people...

An angry mod?

AHHHHHHH!

 

[Admin]

Opps....

 

[senorFrog]

Great. So we've established that whether or not a chief is abusing his power depends on whether lugnut agrees with the decision or not. It doesn't matter what the people, through a jury, think.

And yes, I do think you have to have been convicted before the police chief should have the power to take away a right given to you by the Constitution, regardless whether or not lugnut thinks it's ok.

Lug, hope you have a sense of humor. Sorry but I couldn't resist.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by Lugnut"

 

[Producer]

Do you believe that your LTC should NEVER be revoked unless your are found 'convicted' of a crime?

I think you should not lose your LTC. Its part of American life. 2nd Amendment.

OJ carries a gun now. Sad, but its part of the 2nd.

What rights should the chief or local PD have wrt LTC?

None. MA should be a shall issue state.

I still understand you Lug, but my personal thoughts.

 

[Lugnut]

For the record I'd like this to be a shall issue state. But yes I do think there needs to be some laws and regluations regarding abuse and there should be repercussions. Even though I certainly support the 2nd ammendment (and the other like free speach ) I do think there are actions which would negate these rights. Again- No I don't think the PC necessarily should be the one to make the call but at least in my mind I can see some gray areas like the one I've posted. If a PC decides not to issue a LTC just because that's what he feels like doing that is blatant abuse IMO. I don't think what he did this time was blatant. If you think the PC shouldn't be the authority that's fine, I'd tend to agree with you- there has to be a better, fairer way.

Wrt to me talking out of both sides of my mouth, I apologize if I haven't been clear in stating my beliefs, but I certainly am consistent- at least in my opinion. I don't have a perfect solution to our imperfect laws here in MA but I can assure you if I had my way you'd rather have me as AG than most other candidates out there! I want consistency (within the state), I want the AG consumer protection crap abolished, I want my std capacity mags, I never want to see serialized ammo and I want access to a collapsable stock for my AR. I think the laws are ridiculous.


senorFrog I like you're idea:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by Lugnut"

However- I 'm surprised that you can't see how someone can be 'guilty' of an action but be found "not guilty" in a court of law. It happens all the time.


PS- I think the admins might want to change the name of thread to:

"Lugnut's view of firearm laws and eveyone else that doesn't agree"
I'd be ok with that.

 

[Admin]

I'm glad you have a good sense of humor Lugnut.

 

[SiameseRat]

Lugnut-
I agree with you on the consistency across the state. Worrying about what town you can or cannot live in based on your status as a licensed gun owner is BS.

My only fear is that the consistency would be closer to Boston laws than western MA laws.

 

[Lugnut]

I'm glad you have a good sense of humor Lugnut.

Yeah I guess. I'm not winning the hearts of the forum though. But it's an exciting dilaog.

 

[Coyote33]

With all due repect senorFrog, I don't believe you are making sense, nor are you really reading my posts. Answer my question about the hypothetical wife beater and tell me with a clear conscience that you are ok with that senario. It's not that far fetched.

Nor is it far fetched to extend that to other crimes such as speeders, jaywalkers, or people who look like they might beat their wife...etc.

 

[Lugnut]

Lugnut-
I agree with you on the consistency across the state. Worrying about what town you can or cannot live in based on your status as a licensed gun owner is BS.

My only fear is that the consistency would be closer to Boston laws than western MA laws.

I'd have a BIG concern with that as well. Right with you there.

Think I should run for AG or is it too late?

 

[Coyote33]

... if I were his chief, I would have ..., required that he take a course on MA gun laws wrt self-defense...

OK, now what if they require their own course, as they think it will really really meet the needs they have established? Isn't that exactly what people were against in Worcester, for example?

 

[Jay G]

So far I've stayed out of this mess. So far...

The way I look at it, there's a bunch of vaguely connected themes. Some are facts, some are opinions:

FACTS

1. None of us were there. None of us knew all the circumstances surrounding this person, the mob, or the decision to fire.

2. VT has the absolute right (read: Constitutional) take on permits. Were that law of the land, we'd have no need for discussion of what police chiefs can or cannot, should or should not, do.

3. Having said that, in the state of MA as things currently stand, the Chief of Police can revoke your LTC for any reason he (or she) dreams up.

4. Anything aside from points 1-3 is conjecture and personal opinion. Now it's time for me to add my own opinions.

OPINIONS:

1. Warning shots = bad idea in general. If you need to shoot, shoot. If you need to give a warning, don't shoot.

2. Mob outside the door. Absolutely NO idea what was going on, what was said, gestured, thrown, etc. They could have been ignoring him completely; they could have been threatening to kill his family.

3. A thrown bottle can easily be a deadly weapon. It can also just be a nuisance. Again, too many unknowns to offer any sort of opinion.

4. It's hard to ignore the jury returning a "Not Guilty" verdict - if 12 citizens of the Volksrepublik of MA heard enough evidence to let this gentleman walk out of the courtroom a free man, that means something. It means, at the very least, that his lawyer presented enough evidence that there was a credible-enough danger to his person that the shooting was justified. And, especially in MA, that means something.

5. Would I do the same thing in his position? Hard to say. So I won't.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it...

 

[Adam_MA]

3. A thrown bottle can easily be a deadly weapon.

Slight correction...

According to MGL, a thrown bottle IS a deadly weapon. Also, a bottle that is used to hit another on top of the head (they don't break like in the movies) is a deadly weapon.

Trust me, I know this for a fact!

 

[Neptune Cat]

It was a unique situation. Not a mugger, a person robbing a 7-11, or a carjacker, it was a mob of angry people...

I can respect the difference you point out here. I wonder if there is or ever was training offered to mock a situation such as this. I suppose a warning shot may be the best way out of this. It's still not legal in MA.

 

[Lugnut]

Slight correction...

According to MGL, a thrown bottle IS a deadly weapon. Also, a bottle that is used to hit another on top of the head (they don't break like in the movies) is a deadly weapon.

Trust me, I know this for a fact!

OK, so let's assume he WAS threatened by a deadly weapon. Is the said "warning shot" an acceptable response? Is it responsible to fire near a crowd of many people not knowing who exactly was the threat?

I really don't mean to be an ass, but some things just don't add up in my head. Too many unknowns. Again- it must be that liberal crap water I've been drinking lately!

 

[Martlet]

OK, so let's assume he WAS threatened by a deadly weapon. Is the said "warning shot" an acceptable response? Is it responsible to fire near a crowd of many people not knowing who exactly was the threat?

I really don't mean to be an ass, but some things just don't add up in my head. Too many unknowns. Again- it must be that liberal crap water I've been drinking lately!

I don't know whether it would be acceptable for me if I were in that situation, but the jury certainly felt it was.

 

[FeeBear]

I don't know whether it would be acceptable for me if I were in that situation, but the jury certainly felt it was.

But he still lost his license though....

 

[Cross-X]

Geez, you'd think if there were any attorneys who were committed to RKBA! on here, they'd call the attorney listed here and offer some advice or to help defend this guy. This could be THE case to crack things open for RKBA!.

You want we should work for free????

 

[JellyFish]

You are smart to feel that way. My guess is that it would be closer to boston's bigoted laws and that would ruin it for the rest of the state.

Lugnut-


My only fear is that the consistency would be closer to Boston laws than western MA laws.

 

[Jose]

Do you believe that your LTC should NEVER be revoked unless your are found 'convicted' of a crime? Here's an extreme of where that might be a problem: What if someone just beat the crap out of their wife but was acquited for illegal procedure or something? I'd have a problem with that person still having a LTC. Yes, I damn would.
..

What I find utterly incomprehensible is that you think it is OK to license away a Constitutional Right and leave that licensing to the discretion of some tin-badge wearing petty bureaucrat.

A license to carry, much less own, any type of firearm should not even ever be acknowledge as desireable or even valid.

Un-f***ing-believable.

 

[Lugnut]

A license to carry, much less own, any type of firearm should not even ever be acknowledge as desireable or even valid.

Un-f***ing-believable.

Think what you want because I can't understand what you're saying. If this is your style for making your argument with others then you're not doing much help for any of us. And I'm concerned that as firearm advocates, we are so far off in our beliefs on this.

 

[Jaxon]

RJ

 

[Jose]

Think what you want because I can't understand what you're saying.

Let me try to be plain. What I find unbelievable is not that you are backing up this police chief.

What I find unbelievable is that you even agree that a a licensing scheme for owning or carrying firearms is desirable. While you haven't explicitly said so, it is pretty obvious from your statements that I quoted.

It might surprise you to know that in most of this nation, one does not need a license or permit of any kind to own or purchase a firearm.

Whatever the Miami County Sheriff will do if I say or do something legal that he doesn't like? He can't disarm me at will. Ohio must be such a dangerous place, where wife beaters who get off on a technicality (your scenario, remember?) just get to keep their guns.

It is you who does gun owners no favors with your acceptance of your rights being turned into priviledges to be exercised only at the discretion of some un-elected, un-accountable bureaucrat.