MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor

[vicorjh]

Don't paint groups of people together. Its a simple concept.

MCOPA is a group. The members of this group are the leaders of their departments. They speak on behalf of their departments. The spokesman for the group has come out against civil rights ... because they will be exempt and privileged. Not complicated. They've made themselves a liability.

 

[not new guy]

Which part? hopefully not the thanking them bit.

What in the world would I be thanking them for?

 

[Agnotology]

MCOPA is a group. The members of this group are the leaders of their departments. They speak on behalf of their departments. The spokesman for the group has come out against civil rights ... because they are exempt now. Not complicated. They've made themselves a liability.

I get that. But I don't do "they". I do specifics. Whichever departments are silent, and part of MCOPA, are complicit. But I won't call every police officer, all 17,000+ of them complicit with a hand wave.

 

[Agnotology]

What in the world would I be thanking them for?

Being an advocate for 2A rights in a heavily anti 2A state where they risk their jobs and future as a result of saying as much. Which in and of itself is a completely separate issue, but is the case regardless.

You thank other organizations with checks right?

 

[not new guy]

I get that. But I don't do "they". I do specifics. Whichever departments are silent, and part of MCOPA, are complicit. But I won't call every police officer, all 17,000+ of them complicit with a hand wave.

They're sure as shit going to be complicit when they inevitably start carrying out Beacon Hill's marching orders.

 

[Cavpilot2k]

MCOPA is a group. The members of this group are the leaders of their departments. They speak on behalf of their departments. The spokesman for the group has come out against civil rights ... because they are exempt now. Not complicated. They've made themselves a liability.

I will not argue that police are the friends of the average gun owner, but... if MCOPA is a "group" of Chiefs of Police, since when has the rank-and-file cop ever had ANY say in who his or her chief is? Does the department hold elections for chief with the members of the department being the only ones whose vote counts?
Asking for a friend.
It's like when I was in the Army and my Colonel comes up with a dumb policy. Am I to be held responsible? I didn't vote for my Colonel and I did not put him in charge.

 

[not new guy]

Being an advocate for 2A rights in a heavily anti 2A state where they risk their jobs and future as a result of saying as much. Which in and of itself is a completely separate issue, but is the case regardless.

You thank other organizations with checks right?

What the hell are you talking about? Where are the cops publicly advocating for 2A rights in MA? Or are you saying we're supposed to support them for keeping their heads down and "just following orders" because they want to protect their jobs and pensions?

 

[not new guy]

I will not argue that police are the friends of the average gun owner, but... if MCOPA is a "group" of Chiefs of Police, since when has the rank-and-file cop ever had ANY say in who his or her chief is? Does the department hold elections for chief with the members of the department being the only ones whose vote counts?
Asking for a friend.

They're free to speak up, and until they do the MACOPA is speaking for the profession.

 

[Agnotology]

I will not argue that police are the friends of the average gun owner, but... if MCOPA is a "group" of Chiefs of Police, since when has the rank-and-file cop ever had ANY say in who his or her chief is? Does the department hold elections for chief with the members of the department being the only ones whose vote counts?
Asking for a friend.

THIS. YES.


It's like calling everyone here anti 2A because our elected officials are! Regardless of if we voted for them or not, they speak for us.

 

[Rat187]

No, just don't put my local town guys who are good people and actually help people in the same category as the idiots out east. Doubly so because they are ardent 2A supporters.

Actually, yes. If they wanted to be gun grabbers all they had to do was prosecute. My FID would have been stripped and I would have been a PP for the rest of my life.

In 2017 I was swatted at my home by the locals po-po sent and spent $130,000 trying to clear my name... In my first court appointment, the officer testified that I possessed an 'assault weapon', which is in reality was a .17 HMR Volquarten Target rifle. I was sent to the Billerica house the correction... Read my Comm 2A posts

 

[Kurtz]

MCOPA is a group. The members of this group are the leaders of their departments. They speak on behalf of their departments. The spokesman for the group has come out against civil rights ... because they will be exempt and privileged. Not complicated. They've made themselves a liability.

I wonder if each Chief got their 30 silver pieces or are there some that abstained.

 

[Agnotology]

They're free to speak up, and until they do the MACOPA is speaking for the profession.

No, they are not. They are claiming to speak for the profession, and you are affirming that.

 

[not new guy]

It's like calling everyone here anti 2A because our elected officials are!

This post made me realize I'm trying to reason with a moron.

 

[vicorjh]

I get that. But I don't do "they". I do specifics. Whichever departments are silent, and part of MCOPA, are complicit. But I won't call every police officer, all 17,000+ of them complicit with a hand wave.

Don't need to. The legislature is creating the fiction. The police should be doing exactly what everyone here is doing and reject their legislation ... are they?

Individual's can go and apply for a membership, follow the club rules, and pay fees like everyone else. Departments can be treated as any other commercial entity.

Is there a problem with that ... or is their some sort of future retribution concern?

 

[Cavpilot2k]

They're free to speak up, and until they do the MACOPA is speaking for the profession.

So your CEO speaks for you?
And you are free to dissent?

 

[not new guy]

No, they are not. They are claiming to speak for the profession, and you are affirming that.

Well f*** them just the same then for being cowards in the face of all this.

 

[not new guy]

So your CEO speaks for you?

He speaks for my whole company where company business is concerned. What's your point?

 

[Agnotology]

In 2017 I was swatted at my home by the locals po-po sent and spent $130,000 trying to clear my name... In my first court appointment, the officer testified that I possessed an 'assault weapon', which is in reality was a .17 HMR Volquarten Target rifle. I was sent to the Billerica house the correction... Read my Comm 2A posts

Never interacted with you, nor have I read your posts. so please keep that in mind.....

Provided everything you say is factual, that is absolute horse shit. But it doesn't reflect on any department that wasn't involved, and even then, it only applies to those involved even if in the same department.

 

[Cavpilot2k]

He speaks for my whole company where company business is concerned. What's your point?

My point is that he speaks for your company, so you must agree with him/her and support everything they support, right?
I am guessing probably not, which is why I am suggesting you not apply the same logic to cops.
They have no more say in what their chief supports than you do over what your CEO supports.

 

[vicorjh]

So your CEO speaks for you?
And you are free to dissent?

Do you have a job? Would the CEO think kindly of you working against them?

I'm certain anyone could dissent with possible repercussions. Freedom et al. Haven't been seeing that currently.

MCOPA was against the legislation until they received the exemption. Basically, F everyone else, we're good.

 

[Agnotology]

This post made me realize I'm trying to reason with a moron.

How do you feel I am a moron? You want to castigate and impugn the character of people you have never met, spoken to, or even know the opinions of because why? convenience? I hope not. Outrage? I can sympathize. but it doesn't make it right.

 

[Cavpilot2k]

Do you have a job? Would the CEO think kindly of you working against them?

Exactly my point!
The rank-and-file officer has no more say over what their chief supports (as a member of MACOPA) than you or I have over what our CEO supports!

 

[not new guy]

How do you feel I am a moron? You want to castigate and impugn the character of people you have never met, spoken to, or even know the opinions of because why? convenience? I hope not. Outrage? I can sympathize. but it doesn't make it right.

Convenience? What?

Keep licking those boots and believing that law enforcement is your friend. I hope it never bites you in the ass.

 

[not new guy]

So your CEO speaks for you?
And you are free to dissent?

I am absolutely free to dissent, then again my CEO doesn't go around publicly taking unconstitutional positions. The analogy is very broken in any case.

 

[Agnotology]

I'm not worried about that happening. If they publicly supported 2A nobody would call those on here supporting them for doing so a bootlicker. People get called bootlickers for blindly defending the profession in the face of evidence of them not supporting us.

I am defending not painting 17,000-some odd people the same because of a single person with a platform.

 

[not new guy]

My point is that he speaks for your company, so you must agree with him/her and support everything they support, right?

If he was out there at press conferences advocating for wildly unconstitutional legislation yeah, I would expect people who know I work at that company to associate me with it. My company isn't in the business of arresting people or taking away their freedoms though, so it's a little different to say the least.

 

[not new guy]

I am defending not painting 17,000-some odd people the same because of a single person.

Now it's a single person



I'm done with this stupid distraction of a conversation. This thread needs to get back on track.

 

[vicorjh]

The rank-and-file officer has no more say over what their chief supports (as a member of MACOPA) than you or I have over what our CEO supports!

Yes, then I see no issue with rejecting departmental training at the clubs.

Individuals can go ahead an apply for individual membership as individuals ... like everyone else.

Any commercial activity would need to go through normal commercial procedure and can be refused as such.

 

[Agnotology]

Now it's a single person

One guy, the president of MCOPA spoke. Am I wrong? Can you link me some other posts from other PD's supporting it?

 

[not new guy]

One guy, the president of MCOPA spoke. Am I wrong? Can you link me some other posts from other PD's supporting it?

He spoke for the association of MA police chiefs, genius.