Ltc denied......overturned by district judge.....then reversed at appeal to mass superior court.

[namedpipes]

Chief said "unsuitable". As I understand his reasoning, it is still a denial of his rights. Would you like to be denied something because of family members? I'm on the fence

I've had some sketchy neighbors over the years. Once or twice, I was the sketchy neighbor.

I'd be a bit annoyed if the insane woman on the left or the drug dealers, pimps and whores on the other side, impacted my right to carry. (those were ALL real neighbors, mostly when I was in the 'ham)

 

[Dennis in MA]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a pro-2A Administration that would curb-stomp this state into submission? "Sorry, suitability is NOT a legal requirement per the Supreme Court - issue his license or we pull all funding. Immediately."

Sigh. "Oh Trump is so pro-2A. Spam Bondo is gonna be awesome. Chaztell is gonna revolutionize ATF and FBI." I'm still sitting here wondering why people buy all teh hype.

 

[Compooky]

I can understand the people on the side of the denial but it’s likely to be broadly interpreted in the future as no one being suitable to own a firearm. Any firearms at all equals guns for bad guys to steal.

I’d say give the guy his right. Any aftermath is on him.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Chief said "unsuitable". As I understand his reasoning, it is still a denial of his rights. Would you like to be denied something because of family members? I'm on the fence

It's a good thing you don't live in the 27 (28?) states that have NO LTC REQUIREMENT. Imagine this guy not having to ask the King's permission to own and carry a firearm.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I might have been denied for (marginally) similar reasons so I didn’t bother applying in MA. My judgement was not to have a firearm in the house with a known crazy person who was in and out of nut houses and occasionally would try to off herself. Now divorced and living elsewhere I’m never more than a couple steps from one. Crazy women are not to be trusted EVER.

Tough call. I could go back and forth on the denial. But think I’d look at it like having a prohibited person in the same house. Not his fault but close call and I’d have to hold my nose and approve if I was in that position.

The difference is that it was your choice, as it should be.

 

[42!]

It is unfortunate to see how many people feel comfortable denying due process to individuals as long as they cannot identify the person being denied due process. Depriving someone of a constutionally protected right without a judicial finding of mental incompetence or criminal wrongdoing to be denial of such process.

Absolutely, you say all the right things, but when it comes down to it, and your work with Comm2a, you hold back on suitability cases, looking for that perfect defendant. And obviously, if they were perfect they wouldn't be facing suitability. Talking the talk is great, but walking the walk is what matters. I have a lot of respect for you and Comm2a on a number of things, but not this one.

 

[In God We Trust]

Holy Fxck....you actually sound like his parent or something......THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT??

Denying his rights and telling him what do to in his personal life that pleases your authority so you can get your rights back.

JFC.....you people are that brainwashed in the scheme of the government can protect us from ourselves so we have to give up our rights. You have forgotten what freedom actually is.

In before "if it just saves one life.....its all worth it"

Yes I know my opinion isn’t going to popular with the retard group think here. I’m not saying he can’t have a gun, just that I wouldn’t be complicit in him getting one while he lives in that situation.

So if I was the chief, and it was my decision, no gun for you. I’ve made my opinion quite clear many times that I don’t believe actual retards should own guns. This guy qualifies as an actual retard just by trying to get one into that house.

No, I don’t believe every person in the world should have unlimited access to weapons. Aside from retards, seriously mentally ill people and violent felons, I’d have to decide on a case by case basis if it was up to me. Those are the only 3 groups I’d throw a blanket “no” at.

Quote away boys, you won’t change my mind. This guy should probably buy a safe just to keep all the sharp objects he owns locked up in.

 

[Mark from ?]

It's a good thing you don't live in the 27 (28?) states that have NO LTC REQUIREMENT. Imagine this guy not having to ask the King's permission to own and carry a firearm.

We are talking purchase and ownership here technically...carry is another issue, but he can't purchase a gun in MA without an LTC, so its a total denial of ownership.

Im pretty sure its like 40 plus states......most states in the US you flip an ID card of some sort, usually a drivers license....pass a 4473 and you get your gun.

Only retard states have a scheme where you can't get a gun without a special firearms related government ID card.

 

[whacko]

JFC....superior court judges in MA reversed the Chiefs decision....yet we have people here that are more liberal and statist than MA judges. Wow.

District court said no to the chief and let him have the ltc

Chief appealed to superior court and that court agreed with the Chief and denied the ltc

 

[Mark from ?]

Yes I know my opinion isn’t going to popular with the retard group think here. I’m not saying he can’t have a gun, just that I wouldn’t be complicit in him getting one while he lives in that situation.

So if I was the chief, and it was my decision, no gun for you. I’ve made my opinion quite clear many times that I don’t believe actual retards should own guns. This guy qualifies as an actual retard just by trying to get one into that house.

No, I don’t believe every person in the world should have unlimited access to weapons. Aside from retards and violent felons, I’d have to decide on a case by case basis if it was up to me. Those are the only 2 groups I’d throw a blanket “no” at.

Quote away boys, you won’t change my mind. This guy should probably buy a safe just to keep all the sharp objects he owns locked up in.

So....you actually love the MA LTC scheme and are a proponent of it.

So.....Freedom like thinking on personal responsibility is now retarded......Got it.

And you get to judge who is retarded and should have rights, and who isn't....hopefully no one ever red flags you as retarded.

 

[Mark from ?]

District court said no to the chief and let him have the ltc

Chief appealed to superior court and that court agreed with the Chief and denied the ltc

Doesn't really matter my point was there are people here more liberal than MA judges.

 

[In God We Trust]

So.....Freedom like thinking on personal responsibility is now retarded......Got it.

If you mean my “retard group think” remark, that’s about the general theme here that everyone with a heartbeat deserves a tactical nuke. It’s a stupid position and I don’t agree with it. I’m not pointing a finger at you, just the group mentality in general here.

I pretty extreme when it comes to 2A, but it’s hard to be taken seriously in a debate with antis or even normies if that is your position.

 

[42!]

I agree. Bringing a gun into that environment is probably a bad idea.

Gun ownership is a right not the privilege is has become today. It is not for us to decide to deny him his right because we think he shouldn’t do that. Rights are messy and inconvenient because we aren’t supposed to be deciding who gets them and who doesn’t. That’s not how rights are supposed to work.

I’m in my mid 60’s and I have far fewer freedoms than I had 40 years ago because others have decided what is best for me and I am friggin sick of it.

You're right, rights are messy, and sometimes people get hurt. And would I like to see suitability completely gone and it just be about convictions and adjudicated mental illness. That doesn't change that in this case, if it were my decision, I'd deny. YES, I think he should self regulate and not bring a gun into that situation. In the end, it's not my decision, so I can have my opinion without it having a meaningful affect.

Question: All those who say he should be denied an LTC because he wants to bring a firearm into a volatile home, what would you say if there was a woman applying for an LTC because of an abusive husband? Should she be deprived of her 2A rights/LTC because of her husband’s violence?




You’re assuming. Maybe he wants an LTC and plans to keep the firearm elsewhere.

… or… maybe he wants a firearm to lock away that only he can access in case his insane son or wife stabs him with a knife.

It’s crazy how many people here are advocating the deprivation of someone’s rights because of the actions of their family members.

Seriously? There is no way to secure a gun well enough to prevent someone from getting it, that still allows quick enough access when he's coming at you. The only way to do that would be keep it on your person at all times. And no one can do that. Sleeping, showering, f'ing, at some point that gun isn't going to be strapped to you body.

 

[whatluck]

Yes I know my opinion isn’t going to popular with the retard group think here. (sic)
Quote away boys, you won’t change my mind.

I'm not looking to change your mind. You think due process isn't a natural right. That's fine. I personally think that anyone too dangerous or retarded to own a gun is too retarded or dangerous to be walking around freely and should be caged or put into a work camp. But this should be the result of due process. You have to prove that you're a violent retard with your actions and then two jewish lawyers argue back and fourth in front of a jury of your peers while a hopefully impartial judge acts like a referee.

Relegating the power to deny any of your rights to a single entity with unilateral power and no oversight is just retarded.

 

[42!]

If you mean my “retard group think” remark, that’s about the general theme here that everyone with a heartbeat deserves a tactical nuke. It’s a stupid position and I don’t agree with it. I’m not pointing a finger at you, just the group mentality in general here.

I pretty extreme when it comes to 2A, but it’s hard to be taken seriously in a debate with antis or even normies if that is your position.

life is messy and there are no absolutes, everyone draws a line somewhere

 

[Mark from ?]

If you mean my “retard group think” remark, that’s about the general theme here that everyone with a heartbeat deserves a tactical nuke. It’s a stupid position and I don’t agree with it. I’m not pointing a finger at you, just the group mentality in general here.

I pretty extreme when it comes to 2A, but it’s hard to be taken seriously in a debate with antis or even normies if that is your position.

Tactical nuke....WTF......your talking illegally obtained shit that has nothing to do with this. Im talking current laws of the land and that's my position.
If this dude was going to illegally obtain shit we wouldn't even be talking about this. He in fact is going out of his way to FOLLOW the law.....so is he really retarded?

First off....4473 says you have to pass a background check, and last time I checked anyone since 1934, NFA says anyone isn't getting a anything more than a semi auto. Lets assume we at least stay within federal law, where this guy in fact has more restrictions with MA moron laws. Yet...still trying his best to follow them.....

That should be the position you have when talking to antis or normies.......because that's fxcking reality at this moment in time and this is the freedom Im talking about regarding this decision.

Whether or not allowing full access to other weapons is a totally different subject......and if you call me a statist for not allowing a tactical nuke...well I guess I might just be that....like someone said....there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. But lets face it half the government is full of retards and they have access.......

 

[weatherby]

I agree. Bringing a gun into that environment is probably a bad idea.

Gun ownership is a right not the privilege is has become today. It is not for us to decide to deny him his right because we think he shouldn’t do that. Rights are messy and inconvenient because we aren’t supposed to be deciding who gets them and who doesn’t. That’s not how rights are supposed to work.

I’m in my mid 60’s and I have far fewer freedoms than I had 40 years ago because others have decided what is best for me and I am friggin sick of it.

Well said

 

[whatluck]

If you have the money to build a nuke then more power to you. Good luck pulling it off without getting murdered in your sleep by 20 pissed off Marines.

 

[PappyM3]

If the applicant was a perpetrator of domestic violence, why wasn't he arrested? One can understand the chief's concerns, but concerns don't come before rights. If he is "unsuitable," he should have been charged and tried with a variety of crimes. The police had every chance to do so but did not. 80 calls involving the applicant but him not being charged with anything either means that he did not do anything, the police are lazy, or he is a master criminal genius who has found out how to avoid DV/DI/DD charges.

Absence of proof and adjudication of his crimes, siding with the chief is also supporting many scenarios where one could be denied by approximation and association.

Also, the one instance involving “domestic violence” on his end was him grabbing his juvenile son’s arm. How is that domestic violence?

 

[Agnotology]

First of all, that sounds like a terrible home life. The fact he is has stuck by the eldest son and wife as long as he has... Hats off. Genuinely.

He is someone who has been in situations where he has needed a gun to protect himself already.

I think he should have an LTC, divorce the crazy and force his 15 year old into rehab.

Regardless of whether him bringing a gun into his current situation being a mistake, it is his to make.

I'm not looking to change your mind. You think due process isn't a natural right. That's fine. I personally think that anyone too dangerous or retarded to own a gun is too retarded or dangerous to be walking around freely and should be caged or put into a work camp. But this should be the result of due process. You have to prove that you're a violent retard with your actions and then two jewish lawyers argue back and fourth in front of a jury of your peers while a hopefully impartial judge acts like a referee.

Relegating the power to deny any of your rights to a single entity with unilateral power and no oversight is just retarded.

So... everyone in MA is retarded?

 

[PappyM3]

You're right, rights are messy, and sometimes people get hurt. And would I like to see suitability completely gone and it just be about convictions and adjudicated mental illness. That doesn't change that in this case, if it were my decision, I'd deny. YES, I think he should self regulate and not bring a gun into that situation. In the end, it's not my decision, so I can have my opinion without it having a meaningful affect.

Seriously? There is no way to secure a gun well enough to prevent someone from getting it, that still allows quick enough access when he's coming at you. The only way to do that would be keep it on your person at all times. And no one can do that. Sleeping, showering, f'ing, at some point that gun isn't going to be strapped to you body.

Sure, his son or wife could take an angle grinder to a locked container. They could do a lot of things. People in bad neighborhoods with common break-ins shouldn’t be “allowed” to have guns locked in containers either. They could get stolen by criminals during a break-in. Right?

 

[Nick Fury]

The responses from rabid 2A believers and lock stepping statists are predictably typical but the logical reality is this guy getting a firearm into his household will 100% end badly. We all know it.

The rational response is while he should not be barred from legal self defense the state has been given power to overrule this. Change the dynamic or change the law. The chief was prudent with his decision.

From a legal standpoint I wouldn’t touch this case with a 10 foot pole. In today’s emotionally driven climate a case like this would do nothing but destroy an already eroded right to self defense. With all that said I personally believe in the following:

Let this idiot exercise his God given right to introduce effective tools into the household so his family can self destruct properly. Protecting our individual rights is worth that outcome…

 

[namedpipes]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a pro-2A Administration that would curb-stomp this state into submission? "Sorry, suitability is NOT a legal requirement per the Supreme Court - issue his license or we pull all funding. Immediately."

Sigh. "Oh Trump is so pro-2A. Spam Bondo is gonna be awesome. Chaztell is gonna revolutionize ATF and FBI." I'm still sitting here wondering why people buy all teh hype.

So that we don't get a president that wore knee pads to get the job. That's why.

 

[Mountain]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a pro-2A Administration that would curb-stomp this state into submission? "Sorry, suitability is NOT a legal requirement per the Supreme Court - issue his license or we pull all funding. Immediately."

Sigh. "Oh Trump is so pro-2A. Spam Bondo is gonna be awesome. Chaztell is gonna revolutionize ATF and FBI." I'm still sitting here wondering why people buy all teh hype.

I think most of us are intelligent enough to know that Trump and most other R politicians are not 2A heros. They don't pander to the 2A hater voting bloc- that's all we get from them.

 

[Mark from ?]

Let this idiot exercise his God given right to introduce effective tools into the household so his family can self destruct properly. Protecting our individual rights is worth that outcome…

This.....we know the potential outcome....maybe the probable outcome.......prejudicial as fxck....but most of us being cynical...that's where we end up.

But personal responsibility and accepting that freedom isn't free, or isn't without its perils is reality. You can either put your big boy pants on and accept it.........that road ends here and the theory final.

Or...you can join the leftists, and try and use that exact fact as justification to take rights away, for the sake of some idea that will make us safer.
Understand that the road to obtain "complete" safety and the laws and rights removed to obtain that goal is a never ending all encompassing one.

Anyone that lives in MA where everything is illegal should know that by now....yet seems some of you are still learning or are just plain leftists.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

One must strategically position one's case to play to the audience, not one's sense of right and wrong.

I would hope a person in this situation would have enough sense to have sufficient security in place (like a decent RSC, sometimes called a safe, with a combination known only to him) to store all "license required" items to create a plausible explaination why granting him an LTC will not be providing access to unlicensed ne'er-do-wells.

Or...you can join the leftists, and try and use that exact fact as justification to take rights away, for the sake of some idea that will make us safer is the way to go.

It is a mistake to be OK with taking someone else's rights away because you could neve imagine youself being in their situation. Someday you could find yourself being the majority's "someone else".

 

[Foudre]

Absence of proof and adjudication of his crimes, siding with the chief is also supporting many scenarios where one could be denied by approximation and association.

Agreed, too many cowardly thinkers lean in to supporting this and don't realize that it easily gets out of control and then police are depriving you of your rights over the most stupid of reasons.

 

[StevieP]

my neighbors here in NC have had some domestic issues of late. the county took his guns for safe keeping. so, yeah, 'suitability' is a thing even in free states

 

[jamison55]

my neighbors here in NC have had some domestic issues of late. the county took his guns for safe keeping. so, yeah, 'suitability' is a thing even in free states

How did the police in NC know he even had guns? Here, it’s barely an inconvenience , they just look up fa-10s, but in NC?

 

[pastera]

Eh, I’ll say it. The last thing that guy needs is a gun in his house. I’m with the chief in this one.

Get a divorce, put the son in a mental hospital and then we can discuss it.

While many may agree that he shouldn't have a gun, I would hope anyone on this forum would agree he hasn't lost any right to possess guns and therefore should be issued a license.
Those in the home legally barred from possession are the only ones effected and if necessary should be required to leave before his rights are infringed.