Do Mass Gun Laws (Regs) discriminate against the poor?

EddieCoyle

Consigliere
Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
21,329
Likes
9,796
Location
Northern, MA
Feedback: 160 / 0 / 0
My uncle wants a Beretta pocket .22. Brand new from Beretta, a Model 21 costs $275. FS has a used one (on consignment I'm sure) for $399.

Since this pistol is not on the list, my uncle can't just buy a new one - he must find a used one in-state - and pay and extra $100 for a used one! Another example is the ridiculous prices that people ask (and get?) for some Glock models.

I'm a free market guy, and I understand the law of supply and demand, but this isn't a "free" market. In this case, a single elected official's opinion on the enforcement of a nebulous regulation has caused the prices of used guns to skyrocket.

Could a case be made that the AG discriminates against poor people?
 
Last edited:
Two Words Jim...

Deaf ears...

Yeah but Derek, this would be a lawsuit. Remember, liberals love to sue and this is merely talking their language.

I mean, if we could find some poor miserable wretch (bonus points if she is from a "protected" group) that needs a pistol for a security guard job or something, and stick her before a judge, couldn't it be argued that the current state of affairs has caused her some inconvenience?
 
I agree...

And, i also would not hessitate to say that minorities are scrutinized more by local chiefs and have a higher rate of restricted or lower then LTC-A licenses.

But considering the state likes to see less and less firearms owners... no one would ever look into it.
 
You could that one step further and add in the ridiculously high cost of applying for, qualifying for and obtaining an FID/LTC... $100.00 every 6 years plus the cost of the safety certification; figure anywhere from $125.00 - $150.00 or more. Making it even more of a hardship is the illegal practice by some CLEOs of requiring another range test/certification upon renewal and/or requiring membership at a range/club.

One other related gripe I have is why is submitting ones occupation and place of employment a requirement? What if one is unemployed?
IIRC, it was asshat extrodanaire Chief Gemme that required employment as one condition for applying for an LTC (I have no idea if that's still the policy or if he got beat down on it).
 
One other related gripe I have is why is submitting ones occupation and place of employment a requirement? What if one is unemployed?
IIRC, it was asshat extrodanaire Chief Gemme that required employment as one condition for applying for an LTC (I have no idea if that's still the policy or if he got beat down on it).

My wife's exact quote when she saw that was, "why they f*** is it their buisness where I work?"

Love that feisty little minx [smile]
 
Awhile ago (years?) a bunch of gun manufs got together and were
trying to do a lawsuit against the AG, but failed because the org
running the whole thing changed hands and paperwork was not
filed by a certain date, etc. A prime opportunity to blow the AG's
regs BS wide open was squandered.

-Mike
 
Yeah but Derek, this would be a lawsuit. Remember, liberals love to sue and this is merely talking their language.

I mean, if we could find some poor miserable wretch (bonus points if she is from a "protected" group) that needs a pistol for a security guard job or something, and stick her before a judge, couldn't it be argued that the current state of affairs has caused her some inconvenience?

That argument makes sense, but it would be blindsided by the AG stating Consumer Protection laws are the real issue and not the firearm laws themselves, I.E. Drop test, Chamber loaded indicator, et al.
 
Got bored and looked over the ADA and was looking under this part

SUBCHAPTER II - PUBLIC SERVICES

Part A - Prohibition Against Discrimination and Other Generally Applicable Provisions

Sec. 12131. Definitions

As used in this subchapter:

(1) Public entity

The term "public entity" means

(A) any State or local government;

(B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and

(C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority (as defined in section 24102(4) of title 49).

(2) Qualified individual with a disability

The term "qualified individual with a disability" means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.

Sec. 12132. Discrimination

Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
 
ouch !

EddieCoyle,
Add to that / try to find someone that resides out of state and needs a permit for some sort of work in MA, as MA charges $100 a year now for the non-res carry permit, believe it takes the record as the most expensive permit I have in my wallet, even my FL permit which is reciprocal in 31 states does not cost as much per year as the MA non-res permit.
 
I think the Mass gun laws discriminate against anybody wanting to own a gun, period![angry]
My thoughts, exactly!
In addition, I believe that anyone other than a white male between the ages of 25-68 is going to suffer more discrimination than that group. The news has been filled lately with stories of men aged 70 on up who have been licensed and are now being denied due to some little run in with the law that happend 40- 60 years ago. It is no accident that these past transgressions are just showing up now. The guys who are fighting these denials are winning in court.
In addition to the $100. for the license, the cost of club membership, safety courses, many gun owners continue their gun education at a cost of $150-$300 per course. The Licensing authority is willing to gamble that the average citizen is not going to pursue legal remedy because it can cost from $4500-$10K, depending upon rulings and appeals.
If you have a Class A License ALP, be thankful. Some of us continue to fight for a right that depending upon where you live,
you can take for granted.
Best Regards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ACLU

Sounds like a good case for the ACLU.[wink] You know, protecting the little guy and all.
The ACLU is to busy filing lawsuits against our Military for being mean to terrorists and insurgents.
*******
Papers say troops break war rules
Reports detail them defending deadly actions

By Ryan Lenz, Associated Press | September 4, 2007

NEW YORK - Newly released documents regarding crimes committed by US soldiers against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a troubling pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.
Article Tools

* PRINTER FRIENDLYPrinter friendly
* E-MAILE-mail to a friend
* RSS FEEDSWorld RSS feed
* RSS FEEDSAvailable RSS feeds
* MOST E-MAILEDMost e-mailed
* REPRINTS & LICENSINGReprints & Licensing
* Share on DiggShare on Digg
* Share on Facebook
* Tag with Del.icio.us Save this article
* powered by Del.icio.us

More:

* Globe World stories |
* Latest world news |
* Globe front page |
* Boston.com

* Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail |
* Breaking News Alerts

The documents, released last Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union ahead of a lawsuit, total nearly 10,000 pages of courts-martial summaries, transcripts, and military investigative reports about 22 incidents. They show repeated examples of soldiers believing they were within the law when they killed local citizens.

The killings include the drowning of a man soldiers pushed from a bridge into the Tigris River as punishment for breaking curfew, and the suffocation during interrogation of a former Iraqi general believed to be helping insurgents.

In the suffocation, soldiers covered the man's head with a sleeping bag, then wrapped his neck with an electrical cord for a "stress position" they said was an approved technique.

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was convicted of negligent homicide in the death of Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush following a January 2006 court-martial that received wide media attention because of possible CIA involvement in the interrogation.

But even after his conviction, Welshofer said his actions were appropriate and standard, documents show.

"The simple fact of the matter is interrogation is supposed to be stressful or you will get no information," Welshofer wrote in a letter to the court asking for clemency. "To put it another way, an interrogation without stress is not an interrogation - it is a conversation."

Welshofer said in the same letter that he was "within the appropriate constraints that both the rules of law, and just as importantly - duty, imposed on me."

The documents were obtained through a federal Freedom of Information Act request the ACLU filed with the military more than a year ago asking for all documents relevant to US military involvement in the deaths of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only the Army responded.

Considered against recent cases, including soldiers convicted of killing detainees in Samarra, Iraq, last year and the ongoing courts-martial of Marines accused of killing 24 civilians in Haditha, these new examples shed light on the frequency soldiers and Marines may disregard the rules of war.

Nasrina Bargzie, an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said the documents also show that there's an abundance of information being withheld from public scrutiny.

"The government has gone out of its way to hide the human cost of this war," Bargzie said. Releasing the documents now "paints at least a part of that picture so people at least know what's going on," she said.

The lawsuit seeks to compel the military to produce all documents related to all incidents of civilian deaths at the hands of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 2005. The ACLU says the materials are releasable under federal law.

The Defense Department declined to comment on the lawsuit until it could review it. .

Among the files released to the ACLU were the court-martial records for two soldiers convicted of assault in the drowning of a man pushed into the Tigris for violating curfew and three soldiers convicted in the "mercy killing" of an injured teenager in Sadr City.

The teen had been severely injured; one soldier explained that he shot and killed the teen "to take him out of his misery."

Other killings included:

A man shot after a search of his home near Balad uncovered illegal weapons and anti-American literature. Immediately after the shooting, according to testimony, Sergeant First Class George Diaz, who was convicted of unpremeditated murder, said, "I'm going to hell for this." Diaz also was convicted of mistreating a detainee when he forced the teen to hold a smoke grenade with the pin pulled as Diaz questioned him at gunpoint.

A suspected insurgent in Iraq by Staff Sergeant Shane Werst, who said the man appeared to be reaching for a weapon. Werst was acquitted of murder despite acknowledging he had fired and then planted a chrome Iraqi pistol on the suspect to make his claim of self defense more believable.

In a previously unreported case, Private First Class James Combs was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for shooting an Iraqi woman from a guard tower in what he said was an accident, though court documents indicate his weapon was set to fire multiple shots despite a regulation advising against it. Michael Pheneger, a retired Army intelligence colonel who reviewed the materials for the ACLU, said the documents suggest many allegations of war crimes in Iraq are not being made public. "Wars are messy by their very nature. These are dangerous circumstances, and the fog of war is out there."
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
 
Making it even more of a hardship is the illegal practice by some CLEOs of requiring another range test/certification upon renewal and/or requiring membership at a range/club.

One other related gripe I have is why is submitting ones occupation and place of employment a requirement? What if one is unemployed?
IIRC, it was asshat extrodanaire Chief Gemme that required employment as one condition for applying for an LTC (I have no idea if that's still the policy or if he got beat down on it).

I'm sure most of these extranious, and illigal add-ons have been well documented and submitted by GOAL and other entities to the AG's office.
 
Back
Top Bottom