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

[drgrant]

Lol @ the number of people in this thread that have no problem with chiefy shitting on this guys rights in a vain attempt to protect against some nebulous, marginallly possible public safety threat. it's easy to see why our rights get shit upon when some % of gun owners approve of the shitting based on "feels".

 

[PappyM3]

…

You're delusional if you you think what happens in your own home by/with your own family is the same as what some unknown criminal might do when he happens to pick you house for a criminal act. These are worlds apart when it comes to risk and accountability.

How are they worlds apart? Both involve actions by people other than the gun owner.

 

[pdm]

This former chief was put on leave in early 2022 and he was ousted a few months later. No reason was ever formerly released. He was toast.
I don’t know if this case was the reason or not.

Yeah, that was sketchy as all hell. I don't think the LTC denial was the reason, I never got the scoop, but denying someone an LTC doesn't get you shitcanned as CoP in MA.

 

[Mark L]

I haven't read through the thread. I can understand the thinking behind the denial, but depriving someone of a natural right based on others behavior is insane. This should got to the MA Supreme Court, where he'll lose. Then SCOTUS.

Solution: his son and wife's behavior is due to the sons gender dysphoria. He needs to be armed to protect his family from the far right Nazis who are getting in the way of his transition to the beautiful woman buried inside. Problem solved, courts will make that family whole again.

 

[FalArAk]

massachusetts people are as bad as NY and CA people.

And some MA transplants into NH are worse than NY,MA and CA people.

In this thread I learned a valuable lesson.

When people say MA people moving to NH are destroying the state, I know who they are talking about.

 

[Darksideblues42]

If that was comm2a's standard to get involved or not that would be great, but it's not. I have none of this, and yet not clean enough. If they just put exaclyt this in the law, then at least there would be something a person could fight.

We are a small organization that can't take every case. What are your specific circumstances?

 

[FalArAk]

View attachment 983647


This is what I wore in town last weekend when it was nice out.

During my walk through town I passed a guy who looked like this...
View attachment 983648

We nodded to each other as we passed each other.

I am known to the police to wear a SWAT outfit.

They consider me "eccentric" but harmless.

No need to disarm me.

Yes, but the purple haired 300lb middle aged white woman with a gunt hanging down to her knees thinks you are a threat.

 

[FalArAk]

How are they worlds apart? Both involve actions by people other than the gun owner.

Just let him go, he is on an out yourself roll lol

 

[whatluck]

thanks @whacko for making such an entertaining thread

 

[1sern]

No, I’m saying that I agree with the chief’s decision and understand why he made it. I personally don’t care if the dude gets a gun. It’s not my problem and since I have no skin in this game, it’s easy for me to sit here and be a staunch 2A advocate and say “everyone gets a gun!”

If the guys whole family gets murdered, one of you will post a link about it, I’ll read it while taking a shit and think “oh how sad” wipe my ass and forget all about it.

My OPINION is based on the fact that the chief has to live with himself if this happens. No way in hell would I issue the guy an LTC if it were my decision. Let him go to court and a judge can make the decision and live with it. I’ve got enough shit on my conscience already.

He's in the wrong job then. This would be denying someone a right for others' actions. It shouldn't be his call

 

[drgrant]

And some MA transplants into NH are worse than NY,MA and CA people.

In this thread I learned a valuable lesson.

When people say MA people moving to NH are destroying the state, I know who they are talking about.

Sure, but lets be honest, regardless of geography, on average most people are pretty f***ing terrible when it comes to understanding the modalities of civil rights, and the risks and rewards associated with the ideas related to those concepts. They can't wrap their head around the fact that "It is 1000% OK For the system to fail frequently" as a matter of net benefit to the average citizen's rights.

 

[42!]

We are a small organization that can't take every case. What are your specific circumstances?

Long ago now, but I haven't seen any change in attitude on suitability. Ask your fellows, I know my lawyer spoke with comm2a (hell I think he's done work for comm2a), certainly Rob Boudrie was part of the conversation. You want to know more, we meet face to face, no more hiding behind a computer. Have the decency to at least say what your issue is while looking a man in the eye.

 

[Reptile]

Yes, but the purple haired 300lb middle aged white woman with a gunt hanging down to her knees thinks you are a threat.

The local PD tells me who those people are.

They set them straight and they eventually accept my presence.

 

[42!]

How are they worlds apart? Both involve actions by people other than the gun owner.

If you see no difference between your family that you live with, and some criminal stranger that you have never seen and certainly don't know, then I take it back, you're not delusional, you're just dumb.

OK, maybe that's too harsh, maybe your family is really just that bad.

 

[timbo]

..and the US Constitution SAYS????

 

[whacko]

I've learned a few things.

Some on NES are intellectually unable to separate the ideas of "what would I do if I was in X's position" (the CoP on this case), from "I support all the laws in MA". Or even the bigger question of what responsibility do we have to our community and those in it that are innocent bystanders that will be harmed if nothing is done. And this isn't about guns.

Life is simple if we go around not caring about anything or anyone. Let someone do what they want, with whatever they want. Sure someone may get hurt or even die, but that's the price for freedom. This is a callous and ultimately destructive attitude, it undermines community and humans work best in communities. But the conflict is in our desire for freedom, both for ourselves and other. Basically life isn't easy. And we should all be free to do as we wish.... provided it doesn't take from another's freedom. And that is the line we must draw. Where that line falls, there's that messy part of life again. And if you never look at things from the other side, you end up being just another radical who thinks there are absolutes to right and wrong. You can always say "on my opinion X is right" But it's never just "X is right"

Even those posting that suitability is anti-2a (something I agree with BTW), and that if the person isn't PP they should get their LTC. And yes this exact thing has been posted here several times. So one law by man is anti-2a but other laws by man are not anti-2a. If a right is a riot, an absolute, how is it one law is ok and another isn't? See, again, it's where you draw the line, nothing is absolute. And this part is important, I don't have all the answers, I just know we need to improve the situation. And the practical way to do this is step by step, seeing what the changes do over time and be willing to both revise those changes and eliminate them if the affect is a negative.

Life is messy

So much of this post screams snow flake......socialist........liberal.....its not even funny.

As a borderline libertarian reading this post......Jesus f***ing christ.....its chock full of all the catch phrases that scream "big gov....please take care of me......and keep me safe".

f*** me.

 

[Mark from ?]

..and the US Constitution SAYS????

The exact opposite of what MA legislators voted for, so the constitution doesnt matter....MA had their out when Bruen came about.

Last year... they re-voted a Chiefs boot on their neck in the name of safety is what they want. Tough to argue it....or for what right/consitutional/etc...when the deal was done and your retard state goes backwards. Have to follow the law and the law says the Chief gets discretion. Case closed.

I mean whats next? Supreme Court won't take it up.....they already ruled on it. But mind you...or the collective representatives of MA voted to blatantly ignore the relief.......so.....when you grant someone relief and they piss all over it....do you think the SC is going to go out of their way to revisit it and regrant relief so you can reshit on them?

Umm....no. Everyone likes to blame the SC here....but take a walk in their shoes for a bit and realize its the retard representatives in MA that are the enemy here. The SC is giving up on you because your state is fxcking stupid

All this....While most of the country just flips a Drivers license or whatever ID card out and buys a gun.....and the way it should be.

 

[42!]

So much of this post screams snow flake......socialist........liberal.....its not even funny.

As a borderline libertarian reading this post......Jesus f***ing christ.....its chock full of all the catch phrases that scream "big gov....please take care of me......and keep me safe".

f*** me.

And yet I'm the one who has dragged his local CoP into court and won. And no organization was picking up the cost. How many times has your name appeared as plaintiff with you local CoP as defendant.

 

[whacko]

And yet I'm the one who has dragged his local CoP into court and won. And no organization was picking up the cost. How many times has your name appeared as plaintiff with you local CoP as defendant.

I've never been in court other than jury duty. Don't even have a single speeding ticket.....probably many would call me a "model citizen" lol. I fail to see the relevance of that in this discussion.

But you've had to sue for an ltc.....and you say you basically support a CoP denying an ltc to a guy that's not a pp.....but because his family has issues?

That's special.

 

[MickeyD’s]

I've never been in court other than jury duty. Don't even have a single speeding ticket.....probably many would call me a "model citizen" lol. I fail to see the relevance of that in this discussion.

But you've had to sue for an ltc.....and you say you basically support a CoP denying an ltc to a guy that's not a pp.....but because his family has issues?

That's special.

Guess he wants everyone else to suffer like he has ?

I don’t follow his line of thinking either

 

[PappyM3]

If you see no difference between your family that you live with, and some criminal stranger that you have never seen and certainly don't know, then I take it back, you're not delusional, you're just dumb.

OK, maybe that's too harsh, maybe your family is really just that bad.

Rather than answering my question about your position, you throw personal insults. Reflect on your actions.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Long ago now, but I haven't seen any change in attitude on suitability. Ask your fellows, I know my lawyer spoke with comm2a (hell I think he's done work for comm2a), certainly Rob Boudrie was part of the conversation. You want to know more, we meet face to face, no more hiding behind a computer. Have the decency to at least say what your issue is while looking a man in the eye.

This seems needlessly aggressive. I am not hiding behind a computer at all. I am happy to meet folks. I will check with Rob, but you also have to understand that as a small organization with limited bandwidth, not every situation is one where we can help, or one where we can help on the timeline the situation might require. Ultimately, our goal has to be to build solid case law and not have cases that set the overall cause of defending 2A rights in Massachusetts back.

 

[Dennis in MA]

He should be able to get the licenses. He should also be smart enough, not to keep his guns at home.

Smarts are not required to vote, raise a child OR to own a gun.

The whole issue with suitability is that someone who has a troubled personal legal history can still be denied and the first circus would uphold the denial all day long.

What we (Comm2A) needs is someone who is more or less without justifiable encumbrance who is being denied on suitability. Like someone who has a verifiable mistaken identity issue, or someone who was truly "wrong place, wrong time" like an Uber driver who unknowingly brought a dealer to a drop that was a sting.

F that. Let's not get off on a technicality that can be overturned later. Let's hash this one out right here. HE has no legitimate reason to be denied. Period. Whatever "OMG - his family situation" BS the Commonwealth wants to spit is irrelevant to the argument. A case like this is EXACTLY what is needed to lay down a big-ass mega-Sharpie line in the sand for freedom-stomping turds to stand behind.

If this guy was YOUR neighbor in the trailer park - would you want him armed???

I'm just trying to get the (insert racial or socio-economic group that someone might hate) out of my trailer park, so. . . .

I mean, if you think about it, if he shoots and the shot goes wide nad into your trailer, you've got about a 1 in 10,000 chance of being hit.

If he (or his 15yo drug dealer kid - is anyone buying that line at all???) decides to homocide-by-truck, misses his double-wide and hits yours, your odds are, like one-in-10 of getting hit.

Technically, you're safer with him owning a gun.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Smarts are not required to vote, raise a child OR to own a gun.



F that. Let's not get off on a technicality that can be overturned later. Let's hash this one out right here. HE has no legitimate reason to be denied. Period. Whatever "OMG - his family situation" BS the Commonwealth wants to spit is irrelevant to the argument. A case like this is EXACTLY what is needed to lay down a big-ass mega-Sharpie line in the sand for freedom-stomping turds to stand behind.



I'm just trying to get the (insert racial or socio-economic group that someone might hate) out of my trailer park, so. . . .

I mean, if you think about it, if he shoots and the shot goes wide nad into your trailer, you've got about a 1 in 10,000 chance of being hit.

If he (or his 15yo drug dealer kid - is anyone buying that line at all???) decides to homocide-by-truck, misses his double-wide and hits yours, your odds are, like one-in-10 of getting hit.

Technically, you're safer with him owning a gun.

The problem is that until we have a slam dunk against suitability which cannot be decided any other way but in our favor, any case brought has an equal chance of cementing suitability as good law as it does dismantling the system.

 

[Mesatchornug]

The problem is that until we have a slam dunk against suitability which cannot be decided any other way but in our favor, any case brought has an equal chance of cementing suitability as good law as it does dismantling the system.

How does the language of the Rahimi decision compare to this case?

 

[Mark from ?]

The problem is that until we have a slam dunk against suitability which cannot be decided any other way but in our favor, any case brought has an equal chance of cementing suitability as good law as it does dismantling the system.

Probably not gonna happen....MA legislators gave the COPs broad powers in opposition to Bruen and the Supreme Court feels the representatives (i.e people of MA) are sticking their middle finger up at them.

SC probably isnt gonna take another similar case up to grant the same relief and have the same thing happen again.

 

[MickeyD’s]

The problem is that until we have a slam dunk against suitability which cannot be decided any other way but in our favor, any case brought has an equal chance of cementing suitability as good law as it does dismantling the system.

Then you’ll be waiting till he’ll freezes over

Then if that happens they’ll just issue the license and moot the case

It’s pure evil honestly

 

[Darksideblues42]

How does the language of the Rahimi decision compare to this case?

Rahimi left some semi nebulous "dangerousness" language in play. That is likely what courts in MA and in the First Circus (yes, that is intentional) will hold against anything other than an airtight case. The best we could hope for is someone like an Uber driver who gets arrested for stopping for a pickup in the middle of a prostitution or narcotics sting getting denied on the basis of suitability for that arrest.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Rahimi left some semi nebulous "dangerousness" language in play. That is likely what courts in MA and in the First Circus (yes, that is intentional) will hold against anything other than an airtight case. The best we could hope for is someone like an Uber driver who gets arrested for stopping for a pickup in the middle of a prostitution or narcotics sting getting denied on the basis of suitability for that arrest.

I hear you. At the same time, what's the "dangerousness" of someone who's been assaulted numerous times and not only seemingly kept his (relative) cool but managed to stay with his abusers such that he's never earned a charge?

 

[Darksideblues42]

I hear you. At the same time, what's the "dangerousness" of someone who's been assaulted numerous times and not only seemingly kept his (relative) cool but managed to stay with his abusers such that he's never earned a charge?

I absolutely agree, the challenge here is that the CoP can point to (frankly bullshit, but judicially persuasive, at least in Massachusetts) studies that a firearm in a home with this degree of volatility leads to a very real and "reasonable" risk to the household and community at large and there's your "justification"