Great Opportunity for you guys that don't want your guns

[vellnueve]

I lived in a somewhat more free state for the last 20 years before moving here so don't consider me as jaded as some Mass types. My point is that blatant and flagrant violations of the law will just give the anti-gun types more ammunition to use against us. Ideally should we stand up against the laws that restrict our constitutional rights? Yes! But it so happens that a majority of the posters on these boards live in a state where the anti-gun movement has become just about irreversible, with DAs and attorney generals who look at gun owners as criminals-to-be. In NH, if someone violates a minor gun law, the government would be much more likely not to pursue the case vigorously. Here in Mass, if someone so much as files an FA-10 a day or two late, or fails to notify change of address within the allotted time, they can be going to jail for a long time and certainly face large fines etc. Massachusetts gun owners have to tread very carefully to stay within the confines of the law and open defiance of these laws is really not an option.

Here in the United States we have a process for taking down laws we don't like. It involves challenging laws in court or creating legislation and getting it passed. That is as much a part of the Constitution as the Second Amendment, and just as the Second Amendment needs to be respected, so do the other constitutional processes of government.

 

[Wingwiper]

vellnueve

You give a good debate, I salute your respect and your thought out response. Thanks

How did Mass become the way it is? Did the people respond like Sheep being herded by the Herder? Who was the herder, Kennedy? Did Kennedy force these laws into effect because of what happened to his brothers and he wanted his Political Career to be of less risk? What was the purpose of the Mandatory Jail Time sign beside the Welcome to Mass sign?
How can the 2nd have a meaning in one state and a totally diffeent meaning in another?
I have total respect for the Constitution and for my country and for my Flag, I have zero respect for Glory Hounds and Public Servants who serve their own self-interests and forget the Constitution os BY, FOR and OF the people and when people state UNITED against an UNJUST or UNFAIR Regulation, it is NOT a mutiny it is a pure sign that Govt over stepped their boundaries and the people by number stand against it. There are times the PROPER way does not work. Prohibition was one example.

 

[Cabinetman]

Mr. Moderator brings up a good point

I know this is a bit off-topic but it does bring home a point.

Most non-licensed people simply do not understand that having a gun in their possession without a proper license under any circumstances (outside of their home) is a felony and they can find themselves in some serious trouble if they were stopped and the guns found, even in cases like the one below. They feel that they "own" the merchandise and since they own it, they can do what they want with it.

This is a true situation but sanitized. It does reveal a problem.

While cleaning out her house, a widow finds a box of pistols under her recently deceased husband's bed and want them looked at so they can be sold. She tosses the box into her car and drives them to a local gun shop. The shop (ffls) looks them over and gives her a price. She say thank you and offers to pay for their efforts but she decides she wants to "keep" 'em. Heck, if they're worth that much now, they'll be worth more in the future, right? Then she asks for her husband's guns back.

What is the shop to do?

Do they ask to see her permit in order to give them back to her? If she has none, can she still demand "her" pistols back? What responsibility does the shop have in this case? Can the deny her "her" guns because she has no license to have them in her possession? What would happen if she is stopped or has an accident and they are found in her trunk, or worse, in her back seat? Would the shop also be culpable here to some extent for not reporting her??

There are so many scenairos that can catch people up short. 99% of the population simply does not understand or know about the laws. Once they leave her home with her in possession, she's an instand felon.

In one case I know of personally, a MA non-licensed seller went to a border CT FFL and offered to sell his deceased Dad's pistols to them. They agreed and when the FFL went to obtain a transfer number, the State person wanted to know just how the pistols arrived at the FFL's place of business in CT. Fortunately, and very adroitly, the FFL confirmed that he had picked them up. A lie, I know, but it saved the seller from being arrested on the spot for traveling into CT without the proper license.

Stuff like this happens all the time.

Rome

 

[drgrant]

While cleaning out her house, a widow finds a box of pistols under her recently deceased husband's bed and want them looked at so they can be sold. She tosses the box into her car and drives them to a local gun shop. The shop (ffls) looks them over and gives her a price. She say thank you and offers to pay for their efforts but she decides she wants to "keep" 'em. Heck, if they're worth that much now, they'll be worth more in the future, right? Then she asks for her husband's guns back.

What is the shop to do?

If they didn't intake them into their books, then they never had
"posession" of the guns. If the guns are on the books, then
she sure as hell ain't getting em back without a license and a NICS
check, unless she wants to transfer them to someone whos lawfully
allowed to own them.

In one case I know of personally, a MA non-licensed seller went to a border CT FFL and offered to sell his deceased Dad's pistols to them. They agreed and when the FFL went to obtain a transfer number, the State person wanted to know just how the pistols arrived at the FFL's place of business in CT. Fortunately, and very adroitly, the FFL confirmed that he had picked them up. A lie, I know, but it saved the seller from being arrested on the spot for traveling into CT without the proper license.

Thats like a double weirdness- bringing guns from one commie state to
a dealer in another. Never have had problems selling guns to dealers
in a free state. (wether its a rifle or pistol). an FFL (at least via federal
law) is allowed to -intake- guns in pretty much any manner. Of course in
a state like CT even mere posession of handguns is probably
regulated. (to what extent a dealer can obscure the chain of ownership
vs the state, I don't know).


-Mike

 

[Cabinetman]

You're right about logging them in at the FFL. Still, here in CT you can not have a pistol in your possession outside of your home without a license/permit, period. You would be arrested and charged if caught.

When that lady took the box-0-guns back, she was in possession and, consequently, in big trouble if she were caught with them.

The case of the MA seller selling to the CT FFL, when you buy a pistol, you have to obtain a "Transfer" number from the State. The seller is identified to the State along with his information. No problem selling to FFLs here at all. But, the FFL must be in possession of them, not the seller. I know it's convoluted but what can I say? The fact is, however, that the seller, a MA resident was illegal in two states, CT and his own.

CT isn't too bad to deal with, certainly better than MA I think. At least CT doesn't stick MA non-residents with a $100 fee each and every year! Ct won't allow us law-abiding citizens to own any Colt Sporters, however. Any clone is 100% fine (as long as it confoms with AWB) but the Sporter is verboten. Go figure.

Rome

 

[drgrant]

CT isn't too bad to deal with, certainly better than MA I think. At least CT doesn't stick MA non-residents with a $100 fee each and every year! Ct won't allow us law-abiding citizens to own any Colt Sporters, however. Any clone is 100% fine (as long as it confoms with AWB) but the Sporter is verboten. Go figure.

Rome

Well, CT is only marginally better than MA (in the sense that there is
shall issue licensing, no "class B" bs, and no handgun compliance BS) but
when it gets down to it, any state that requires a license to own something,
sucks. I'm sure you feel the pain. I agree that the MA non resident
permit thing sucks... whats even worse is the damn MA nonres doesnt
even allow you to buy ammo or long guns here!

-Mike

 

[Wingwiper]

Cabinetman

You're right about logging them in at the FFL. Still, here in CT you can not have a pistol in your possession outside of your home without a license/permit, period. You would be arrested and charged if caught.

I need some help here, I know I am from Vermont and we are a FREE STATE, I can walk in a store with a gun on my hip and except for four or five cities in Vermont, it is totally legal. Come around during Deer Season and see for yourself. Hell! you'll be sitting in Dunkin Donuts and they will come in and have guns on, nobody pays attention to them.

I took Rheotric Logic in College and that may be my problem. OK...

You said the above and my question is very simple, IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A GUN OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOME WITHOUT A LICENSE, HOW THE HELL DID YOU GET IT IN YOUR HOME? Aw! I see, a little play on words, Ct assumes everyone in CT makes their own guns, right inside of the home... NO? Then CT is basically saying and I have no clue why they didn't say it this way "You need a license to own a gun, period"
You know what guys, NO TRESSPASSING signs keeps who out? That is right the LAW ABIDDING CITIZEN. Gun Laws do what? Keeps Honest people from being able to defend themselves from a corrupt Govt or from people who might want to kill you.
In Vermont we DO have a Shoot to Kill law and it has been challenged and the guy won the case. Some wise people in our State Gov realized that cops can not be everywhere at once and that the criminal was more apt to kill you than to just rob you and leave you and that Equal Force was B.S. because the only way you would know you weren't using enough force is if you were dead. So about 15 years ago they Voted to pass the Shoot to Kill to protect life or Property law and it passed and it is LEGAL in Vermont to shoot and kill someone who is breaking in etc. Now Brady-ites swore we would have a run away killing spree in Vermont, funny it hasn't happened.

 

[Garys]

Flagged and gone as of 7:30PM.

Gary

 

[Wingwiper]

Flagged and gone as of 7:30PM.

What does that mean?

 

[dreppucci007]

What does that mean?

It means that somebody reported it to Craigslist, and the post has been removed.

 

[Wingwiper]

Thanks, I found myself looking over my shoulder..

WoW! too bad, another point for them and another one against the Second. and the First

 

[Cabinetman]

Wingwiper, You, Sir, are very observent! And, you are correct. If you can't have a handgun without a license except for in your home, how do you get one? Well, that's just one of the "loopholes" that the State of Connecticut has created. They talk all the time of "gunshow loopholes" that we are supposed to be taking advantage of. However, the State itself created one that benefits them.

If you don't have a license, you can't buy a handgun, period. But, no license or permit is required if you just keep one in your house or business. However.....and this is where you pull out your hair.....if you can't get a handgun without a permit or license, it's impossible for you to get one for your house or business. You can't buy one, you can't be "given" one, you can't "borrow" one. So, the state has screwed you.

R

 

[Wingwiper]

Cabinetman

Ct has more than screwed you, they have SET YOU UP. Meaning so many people feel they are not breaking the law when they barter or trade for a firearm to keep in the home because they understand it is Legal to have one in the home and they don't look at the premises and therefore do not fully understand the conclusion. Anytime Ct wants to, they can bust these decent citizens and turn them into Felons. All because of either a play on words or ignorance of the people making the laws.
I know after the AWB was passed, Jeffords was in my store and I approached him and flat out asked him why he voted for the AWB. Not only was he NOT able to explain the difference of a Semi-auto and a Auto but he had the gaul to admit he voted for the AWB because he was voted for the Attachment to the Bill, that one that Federally Funded the hiring of 200,000 more cops for TWO years. He wasn't even aware that the atttachment would only fund for two years and then all of the towns, cities etc who thought they were getting a Federal Funded Program would find themselves with all of these cops and the Bill to pay for them.. IGNORANCE at the Highest level is what is screwing us up at the lower levels. Jeffords was one of the most Senior Senators and had the Common Sense of a household pet.

 

[Cabinetman]

Cabinetman

Jeffords was one of the most Senior Senators and had the Common Sense of a household pet.

You won't get an argument out of me about that statement. But, in his defense, what politician ever knows what's in a bill? The press certainly doesn't play it up. Just look at the funding bill for Iraq right now. It funds the troops....but...has a pullout deadline. More importantly, however, it also has a ton of pork for building things, funding pet projects, etc., etc. If I were in charge, (and I'm not, unfortunately) I would make it impossible to add amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the original bill. I know the argument against that is that Congress would be flooded with tons of "individual" bills but, heck, so what! Let 'em work for their money and the stuff that couldn't pass on its own would just wither away.

And, yes, CT does set up legal, honest citizens. Bruce Stern, an NRA director from CT even told me that "owning guns in CT make you a potential defendant." Truer words have rarely been spoken. No matter how much due diligence a collector/shooter/gun owner does to his/her hobby, chances are there's some detail they have either overlooked or don't know about. It's like the Federal Income Tax. The myriad of convoluted laws and regulations make it virtually impossible to follow the "letter of the law" perfectly and a lot is left up to interpretation.....either on your part or the IRS part. That's what makes life difficult.

Rome

 

[Wingwiper]

Cabinetman

You are a smart and informed person, do NOT give up on your principles or your beleifs, keep the Spirit Alive and keep looking forward . As soon as you sit and rest you will be over taken by the opposition.
I never agreed with the Attachments and feel that Lobbying is illegal. Attachments make a Bill get passed with out full intent and Lobbying takes the POWER away from WE, OF and BY the people.

 

[dwarven1]

Lobbying takes the POWER away from WE, OF and BY the people.

Does that include lobbying by the NRA?

 

[drgrant]

You won't get an argument out of me about that statement. But, in his defense, what politician ever knows what's in a bill?

I'm sure in a lot of cases they DO know... they just feign ignorance because they don't want
to get burned WRT political brownie points, or worse.

Hell, it's their JOB to know, and if they don't know I'd say thats pretty much grounds for
doing some jail time. (Accountability in government, what a concept!) When these people
file these garbage can liner bills, they should be forced to face the consequences of the
choices they make.

And, yes, CT does set up legal, honest citizens. Bruce Stern, an NRA director from CT even told me that "owning guns in CT make you a potential defendant." Truer words have rarely been spoken. No matter how much due diligence a collector/shooter/gun owner does to his/her hobby, chances are there's some detail they have either overlooked or don't know about. It's like the Federal Income Tax. The myriad of convoluted laws and regulations make it virtually impossible to follow the "letter of the law" perfectly and a lot is left up to interpretation.....either on your part or the IRS part. That's what makes life difficult.

Rome

This applies almost to all gun owners, even due to federal
law. It is trivially easy for the average gun owner (especially in a free
state) to break a federal firearms law without even knowing they've
done so. (EX- uncle bob comes down to PA to visit, even though bob
is an ME resident. Bob pays cousin phil for an old shotgun he
has. Bob just unknowingly broke federal law, because phil is a PA
resident and bob is an ME resident ) That by itself is enough to
make people go WTF? when you think about it.

Part this problem is exacerbated by all the powers granted to BATFE
by some ill conceived hyperextension of the commerce clause. I'm guessing
that these powers grew out of the bootlegging era. IMO when prohibition ended
they should have went one step further and abolished all domestic regulation of
alcohol, tobbaco and firearms.

-Mike

 

[crak]

I can walk in a store with a gun on my hip and except for four or five cities in Vermont, it is totally legal.

There are four or five cities in Vermont?

I learn something new every day.

(Couldn't help myself... I've had enough of this FREE VERMONT stuff already )

 

[Wingwiper]

Crak

We also have the Wrold's Smallest City, Vergennes.....

I know Burlington, Rutland, Barre have city ordinances on Guns and maybe St Jay and you will still see Gun racks with rifles in them drive thru these same cities, so enforcement is lax.

in Rutland City, several years ago two Alleged Gang Members were getting their asses whipped by the Local Yocals and people were a bit concerned about retaliation and one of the City Cops said, "If everyone who had a gun in their vehicles were to show them, the gang members would clear Dodge in a hurry"

I am sorry you all have heard so much about Free Vermont, I never knew I had it so good until getting on this website. I feel bad for you all and know I will fight even harder to prevent any of yoru Gun Control Laws from drifting Northward. At least you all know what a Free State is, it should give you guys and gals a GOAL (pun for you Mass folks) to work towards.

Excellent Post Drgrant, got me thinking.

Dwarven

Yes! I am afraid it does include the NRA, it includes ALL lobbying and if there weren't lobbying against you wouldn't have to worry about lobbying for.