New and “improved” gun laws. Hahaha

[MisterHappy]

Thank you sir for the English lesson. Much appreciated. But I did look back at it. I am not looking for any privileges'..I asked about an exception. FYI, not for me..someone else who is retired. Sorry to get the granny panties all in a twist.

Whether it's for you, or for someone that's retired is irrelevant. If they're retired, then they DOUBLY should not be subject to beneficial exceptions due to a prior job. It's not like they'll be called in to cover a sick-call on short notice.
I'd say that an exception based on a personal characteristic is essentially the same as a privilege.

FYI, I don't correct other posters' grammar, except when they slam others' posts, for errors.

And my granny panties are not twisted - today was an excellent day, and this sort of calling out of hypocrisy and entitlement is an excellent end to it.

The "Dis gon' be gud" post earlier, called it!

 

[bpd859]

There is a difference in a hiring decision be a private company, and restricting a person's rights, and liberties.

If a person does not have a statutory disqualifier, there is no reason to restrict their liberties. If you don't agree with this, you're not supporting the rule of law, but judgement by personal opinion.

If, "sour attitude, nasty disposition," should be a disqualifier for a job, a hell of a lot of cops should be looking for other jobs.

Again, still not an answer. Would you give a gun to say someone with a deficiency..bi-polar, downs syndrome..They have rights and privileges' and liberties and most likely no disqualifier. So answer the question. Should everyone get one?? People known to have attended a terrorist training facility, with no disqualifiers?? Maybe some of our new found illegal immigrants?? They can drive, vote, why not a firearm. They have no disqualifiers??

 

[bpd859]

Whether it's for you, or for someone that's retired is irrelevant. If they're retired, then they DOUBLY should not be subject to beneficial exceptions due to a prior job. It's not like they'll be called in to cover a sick-call on short notice.
I'd say that an exception based on a personal characteristic is essentially the same as a privilege.

FYI, I don't correct other posters' grammar, except when they slam others' posts, for errors.

And my granny panties are not twisted - today was an excellent day, and this sort of calling out of hypocrisy and entitlement is an excellent end to it.

The "Dis gon' be gud" post earlier, called it!

Honestly, what is it that gets your goat??

If you had an exemption would you take advantage of it? Very simple question. Yes, is truthful. No, is bullshit. So please spare us the suspense and respond without all the nonsense. I have asked this same question multiple times. Nobody has answered.

They are not getting called in for anything. It is for personal defense, self protection of himself and his family. Probably something that you possess firearms for. Why can't he??

This crazy hatred of a profession is absurd. I hate contractors, they lie and fudge numbers. I hate plumbers who charge you 500 buck for 10 minutes of work. I hate mechanics who falsely sell you shit you don't need and swindle you out of money. But, yet all talk to all of you with no animosity..but you folks can't help yourself. Why?

 

[bpd859]

Again, Mr. Lahey, you have not answered the million dollar question..

 

[bpd859]

The fact that you don’t understand that “privilege” and “exception to laws that benefit you” are the same thing is why you’ll never understand any of this.

Milktree. One question. If you had the opportunity to utilize a privilege or an exception, would you?? That fact that everyone bitches about it and will not answer that question makes me question the reasons behind it. It's like I'm asking the question "What is a woman??"...

 

[Abe Froman]

Remember, arguing on the Internet is like winning gold in the Special Olympics. Sure you may have won, but at the end of the day you're still retarded.

 

[bpd859]

Remember, arguing on the Internet is like winning gold in the Special Olympics. Sure you may have won, but at the end of the day you're still retarded.

OOOH..The R word??

 

[MisterHappy]

Again, still not an answer. Would you give a gun to say someone with a deficiency..bi-polar, downs syndrome..They have rights and privileges' and liberties and most likely no disqualifier. So answer the question. Should everyone get one?? People known to have attended a terrorist training facility, with no disqualifiers?? Maybe some of our new found illegal immigrants?? They can drive, vote, why not a firearm. They have no disqualifiers??

If the person is out in society, then they should have all of the privileges and rights of any other person.

If they are a danger to society, then society (the judge you mentioned, earlier) should adjudicate them as of not being worthy of the same rights and privileges as others. I know that won't happen, as it's mean, but it's exactly the same as a CoP saying, "Joe Bagadonuts is an azzhole, even though he's got no record, no LTC for him." It's a restricting a person's rights, because they MAY do something, at some point in the future.

As for "terrorist training camp" how is that defined? Al queda? Proud Boys? Appleseed? Hell, every person that joins the US armed forces is a volunteer- they volunteer to kill people! Shee-it! Best they don't get a gun, when they come home!

Yes. NO disqualifiers, give them a license - because it's easy to add to a list of questionable behaviors, that render one suspect, or unsuitable. Better, if there are no disqualifiers, NO LICENSE is needed. If they run afoul of the law, and are convicted of something that would disqualify them, then they can't have a gun. I don't think that most states with Constitutional Carry have blood-drenched streets.

Re illegals - obviously not. By definition they're illegal, and should be removed from the country, forthwith. The driving is another matter. MsHappy was hit by an unlicensed illegal several years ago. It was a minor accident. The cop that responded said to the illegal, "YOU again?!?" and let him go. Why did the cop that knew that he was unlicensed not arrest him?

Please provide examples of places where illegals can lawfully vote.

All of your "arguments" have been aired here, before. I doubt that you will find many other folks here, that will align with your worldview, but as a libertarian (lower case "l"), I believe that you have a right to your position. Just don't expect me to agree with it, when it conflicts with mine.

You apparently think that CoP discretion is important. As much as the RMV svcks, it's more fair than the town-by-town LTC system. How does me having to bring in a utility bill make me worthy of an LTC renewal, when I've had one in the same town, same address, for 30+ years? Do you think that a CoP should be able to require that an LTC applicant write a letter, explaining why they should have it? Before you answer, remember that spelling and grammar count.

 

[RDG]

I’ve been buying a gun a month. Most have to be sent back because they are not on the list. So, I was legitimately asking folks who deal with it all the time and have more knowledge than most street cops. I just ordered another one and was looking for a loophole to obtain it

I asked about an exception. FYI, not for me..someone else who is retired. Sorry to get the granny panties all in a twist.

But the exception isn’t for you right.

 

[pewpewpew]

Why not? Should you give a job at a reception desk to someone who has face and neck tattoos? Yes, absolutely, but really, would you? You're the owner of a company and someone comes in for a job interview and they have a sour attitude, nasty disposition, do you give them the job or move on to someone else?? This is the face of your company..don't you want someone suitable, trustworthy, of good moral character to be running the streets with a boatload of firearms...you have to weigh the risks when you issue licenses. If they get denied, appeal it to the district court. Have a judge take the responsibility.

BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS THING, IT'S CALLED THE CONSTITUTION, AND IT CONTAINS THIS THING CALLED THE BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH CONTAINS THIS THING CALLED THE SECOND AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES THE  RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, EVEN IF YOU ARE AN ARSEHOLE, EVEN IF YOU ARE A MEANYPANTS TO BPD859 ON NES.

THIS IS A RIGHT ENUMERATED BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT A PRIVILEGE GRANTED TO US BY THE POLICE AT THEIR DISCRETION.

 

[MisterHappy]

Honestly, what is it that gets your goat??

If you had an exemption would you take advantage of it? Very simple question. Yes, is truthful. No, is bullshit. So please spare us the suspense and respond without all the nonsense. I have asked this same question multiple times. Nobody has answered.

They are not getting called in for anything. It is for personal defense, self protection of himself and his family. Probably something that you possess firearms for. Why can't he??

This crazy hatred of a profession is absurd. I hate contractors, they lie and fudge numbers. I hate plumbers who charge you 500 buck for 10 minutes of work. I hate mechanics who falsely sell you shit you don't need and swindle you out of money. But, yet all talk to all of you with no animosity..but you folks can't help yourself. Why?

What gets my goat, and the goats of others, is that cops see themselves as special. They see themselves as "special" whether they're on the clock, off the clock, or retired. If they're not on the clock, why should they have any "exemptions" from laws that others don't?

If you can cogently answer this, I'll acknowledge it, and I'm sure that others will, too.

As for personal defense, yes, he has a right, but it should be the same for all. Why should a retired cop have a choice (or exemption) that a retired barber does not?

The contractors and plumbers and mechanics are brought into your life, by you. (If you want a good, reasonable mechanic, call Syr Auto Care in Northborough. Tell Nabil that Mike with the Kia sent you. Can't help you with the plumber or contractor).

Cops enter your life by their choice.
Cops can detain you, question you, search your vehicle, confiscate your property, assault you, and kill you, and will not face the same judicial process as a non-cop would. Are there good cops? Sure. Just like there are good mechanics. But when you have countless videos of cops fabricating evidence, assaulting people, etc., including videos from body-worn cameras, and the cops not being held accountable, you get....resentment. Oh....generally, the other professions don't hold the power or life and death over you, when you're dealing with them.

About the "bad apples" argument that gets trotted out when this sort of thing gets published: other cops allow it. IMO, it's like the Catholic Church, and the sexual abuse: the priests are bad; the ones that covered it up and enabled it, are far worse. A cop that "tunes up" a perp is bad; the Brothers of the Badge that allow it to happen are far worse.

How's that for an answer? Or am I just a cop-hater?

 

[bpd859]

Oh, by the way, it's not me...It's the court..you can set standards and reasonable regulations

In Rahimi, the Court clarified how the Bruen standard was to be applied. Noting that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, the Court observed that the Bruen analysis requires a challenged firearms regulation to be consistent with the Nation’s regulatory tradition and that the Bruen standard requires a relevantly similar law rather than a ‘dead ringer’ or a ‘historical twin. The Court observed that surety laws had been used to prevent spousal abuse at the common law as well as misuse of firearms. Looking at going armed laws, the Court noted that such laws were part of American jurisprudence and that in conjunction with the surety laws, they showed that individuals posing a danger of physical violence to another could be disarmed.

Justice Kavanaugh, quoting from Heller, reiterated that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and may allow for many kinds of gun regulations.

On June 21, 2024, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court applied Bruen for the first time in United States v. Rahimi, holding that [a]n individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

 

[aphextwin11]

I've spent some time watching Robert Alessi recently and am feeling inspired:

---

By chance does anyone know what and if there are any exemptions on law enforcement owning, possessing or buying handguns not on the Mass approved list. (Such a farce)

First post under this account (vs. his other account named mordeeb), asking NES, of all places, if as a police officer sworn to enforce the egregiously unconstitutional, draconian, transparently malicious firearms laws in the commonwealth of MA, if he gets a special stormtrooper exemption to the same laws he would destroy someone's life over if his job was on the line. This is where a little self awareness would come in handy and you might be better served using ChatGPT vs. coming here and asking that. Luckily for you Crackpot gave you an honest answer - probably the most GOATed NESer when it comes to that stuff.

Damn. You are so witty and intuitive. You should open up a tarot card shop.

So what if I am?? WGAF. Am I bothering you? Damn I hope so.

Second post, immediately inviting negativity and taking it personally. You would probably catch more bees with honey but we'll get to that later

So original. Wow, as if there is no other profession that gives professional courtesy or steals from their job or employer. You folks are all angels. Probably never drink and drive. When you start digging on regular folks you quickly find out that not all is a seems, pedophiles, perverts, drunks and thieves. Take a good look in the mirror boys.

15 year old Sandra Birchmore was groomed, raped, and strangled to death by police officers she trusted, while every other officer knew and looked the other way (thin blue line, amirite?) Karen Read's life has been upended and is getting bankrupted by the kangaroo court in Norfolk County because a bunch of Boston/Canton townie dipshit tough guy police officers were shitfaced (driving around Canton, btw) and beat someone to death because they were jealous of some 40 year old badge bunny hag. The State Police looked the other way during their investigation, Canton police recused themselves because of a conflict of interest but took the time to delete evidence anyway (original Sally port video, cell phone evidence, etc.). The judge has ties to the McAlberts and refused to recuse herself, presiding over the case with extreme prejudice as determined by anyone with eyes and half a brain. Enrique Delgado-Garcia was mysteriously beat to death in a state police "training" session. In addition to hundreds (thousands?) of other examples from the police protecting and serving thread. This is not the same as a CPA amortizing capitalized leases using US GAAP instead of IFRS and creating a material misstatement on a company's balance sheet and receiving "professional courtesy", or not reporting $605 of unqualified dividend income on your tax return, or goofing off at your job while on the clock, or crossing the street without a walk signal, or driving back from the bar with a .09 BAC. Feeling justified by likening the two is unfortunately behavior I would only come to expect from someone working as a police officer. I'm not an ACAB cop basher, I have many good friends I've known for decades who are extraordinarily conscientious, brave people who are state and local police. But guys like that seem to be increasingly the exception instead of the norm, at least in the public eye.

I would argue that they all do. Except for the constitution part. So you have just told me that you feel as though it is perfectly fine to swindle, lie and steal from others because you haven’t sworn an oath. Yeah let me hire you. Clown. This is why almost everyone hates far right idiots. Do as I say. Not as I do.

For the record. This cupcake has done the job for 34 years without a complaint working in the toughest areas of the city. I have no intention of throwing in the towel.

Also, I don’t know one cop who has ever busted the balls of a law abiding citizen. Matter of fact. I gave a pass to a business owner who shot a thief 3 times in the back as he fled. Your issue is with the bosses. The heads of the departments and the legislature. Rank and file could care less and support 2a.

34 years? By the "city" I'm assuming you mean Boston. I don't think anyone would refer to Great Barrington as the "city" and automatically assume everyone knows what they mean. This immediately contradicts your next point. You've been policing as long as I've been alive and you've never seen a law abiding citizen get a hard time, ever? Do you work behind a desk?

As a police officer, you gave a pass to a business owner who shot a fleeing thief 3 times in the back when his life wasn't being immediately threatened? Why on earth would you ever admit that, never mind on an internet forum, never mind on NES re: your first post? Would that make you a non-law abiding citizen because you deliberately lied in a potential murder case? Are you unsuitable, lacking moral character, have your LTC pulled, become a PP for life, and face a Bartley Fox mandatory minimum? Wait, no - you're a member of the king's guard. You can do whatever in MA I forgot. This would only apply to trough-eaters who aren't sworn in.

I hope I can help. I know folks on both sides. From the judge to the defense to prosecutors and most of people involved. I don’t condone what’s going on there. But I can say this, there were no drag marks from the house to where John was found. Even though it was snowing at a heavy rate. The depression would remain even as it snowed. Never rising to equal level.

The clothing bore no evidence of holes or bite marks consistent with bite marks. Head injuries to back of head cause intense swelling to the head which is exhibited in areas of the head where there are openings. The eyes and eye sockets. Coup and contra coup.

As for collecting evidence by the first on scene. Yeah they used cups to collect the blood. I do not have an issue with u have to use what you have available at that time to prevent degradation and destruction. It doesn’t change the DNA. It will preserve it for analysis.

I’ve been before the judge. I feel she is very conscientious. Sometimes too cautious. But fair.

I don’t feel as though he was beaten in the house. That many people sticking to same story. Unheard of. Get 10 cops in a room. We have 10 different uniforms on. We can’t even agree on a uniform of the day. lol. The only way to keep a secret between 3 people is to kill the other two.

It just wouldn’t sustain. And the Feds. Don’t get me started. Most criminal organization there is. If they had something to charge cops. They would’ve. I believe they care dropping their investigation.

You know folks on both sides? For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

There were no bite marks consistent with bite marks? ...What? As opposed to what, bite marks that are consistent with bite marks? Never mind the stupidity of this statement, did you actually see the guy's arm? Where do you suppose those bite-marks-that-aren't-consistent-with-bite-marks came from? Strange coincidence that the McAlbert's people-aggressive German Shepard took a trip to a farm in vermont soon after John was murdered in their house, is it not? Not to mention the dozens of other smoking guns, no pun intended.

No issue with storing evidence in solo cups? Color me unsurprised.

You clearly are not familiar with the details of the trial if you think Aunt Bev is conscientious

Nobody cares how you "feel" about what might have happened. People are basing their opinion on the evidence (or lackthereof, due to people destroying it). It's exponentially easier to not see something than it is to coordinate stories.

Oh that’s comforting. You obviously didn’t or couldn’t read what was said and posted. But that’s ok. I’ll put on the cops hat. How the Christ did you get an LTC.

Responding to a south park meme goofing on your self righteousness and attributing that to LTC suitability is.... something. It would be funny if you weren't LEO, but you are - which is why people (rightfully, IMO) flamed you in response to your 1st post and serves as an illustrative example as to why there is are potential certain philosophical aversions to MA LEO around NES.

Uhm, no. It's one of those, I'm a law abiding citizen and I should be able to whatever the f*** I want. The job has nothing to with it. Why are you a dick??

You're actually not a law abiding citizen, remember? But you are correct about the second part, in MA you are able to do whatever you want.

Well, in some states you do. This one happens to be one of them.
Wow, they placed a reasonable request to secure or secrete your firearms, that's insane!!
Would it kill you to maybe keep it out of sight? No, too easy, right. So, shame on you if you can't abide by simple rules.
I'd rather have a local Chief of Police issuing them.
More than likely they know you personally and are likely more apt to issue one to you, unless you are a complete a-hole. It could be some clown from the state who hates guns and refuses to issue one.

Reasonable according to who? Is destroying someone's life because they had an unloaded shotgun leaning against the wall when calling 911 for a medical emergency reasonable? Interesting take.

"Unless you are a complete a-hole" is not true. It could be for whatever reason they want and it's virtually unwinnable in an appeal, unless you have the resources to go to bat - Bruen makes this an incrementally more uphill climb for the state, but there's extraordinary deferral to the CLEO's "judgement". The second part of this statement happens time and time again, everywhere across this entire state. Even if they issue, they do so with malicious compliance dragging the process out for 6+ months, even years - White v. Cox (1:23-cv-12031)

Cops did and will not obey an unlawful order. As for violating somebody's rights, not sure they would do that. I'm not going to jail for any clown. Suppose the military was there and took action. Whose fault would it be?? Question? I don't know what you claim to do or be, but there had to be at least one time you faced an issue like this. Do as the boss says or pack yo shit and go home. I bet you kept your job, right??

Do I really need to say anything?

I do have to point out one very obvious fault with this whole thing. Trump was re-elected (rightfully so) because the Dems and Libs were way out of touch with reality. Jamming shit down people's throats. Our way or the highway. Very distasteful. People flipped the other way.

This is also true of the gun debate. Here I asked for simple clarification on an issue from some folks who live and breathe this shit and everyone comes out of the wood work to insult, harass, name call, and question a person whom they don't knows, integrity. Make assumptions based on nothing. Lump everyone into the same category. Very narrow minded.

Well the folks who make the laws in this state keep watch of the behavior of gun rights advocates, some are good, some are far right zealots. Who cannot fathom even a small restriction, like a license, OMG!! Or locking up or securing a firearm from being used against them, being found and used by a child or stolen. Wow, stolen. That is where all the crime guns come from in Mass. Stolen in house breaks in other states. Sometimes straw purchase, but mostly stolen. They are used to commit more crimes, like murder.

It's all about reasonableness. Be rational and get a lawyer. debate rationally. Make valid points. Don't go trying to intimidate or bully people. You guys have never learned that. More bees with honey, ect.

When you alienate people who support you, you make enemies, who will go out of their way to take away your rights.

Just a thought....all this over a simple question I needed clarification on..

Reasonableness according to who, Giffords or Colin Noir? "It" is not about reasonableness, it's about constitutionality, autonomy of personal safety for you and your family, deterrence of a tyrannical government, and countless others. If you have to ask what the other reasons are, then you're already lost.

More bees with honey - have you met yourself?

"When you alienate people who support you, you make enemies, who will go out of their way to take away your rights" You are a police officer and you are being alienated in this thread. Using deductive reasoning, am I to assume you are now going to err on the side of being adverse to constitutional rights? I'm confused, I thought you weren't sure "they would do that", but here you seem pretty sure.

Why not? Should you give a job at a reception desk to someone who has face and neck tattoos? Yes, absolutely, but really, would you? You're the owner of a company and someone comes in for a job interview and they have a sour attitude, nasty disposition, do you give them the job or move on to someone else?? This is the face of your company..don't you want someone suitable, trustworthy, of good moral character to be running the streets with a boatload of firearms...you have to weigh the risks when you issue licenses. If they get denied, appeal it to the district court. Have a judge take the responsibility.

Suitable, trustworthy, of good moral character are nebulous, subjective, attributes subject to abuse. Also, you have proven in this thread you are not included in this bunch. You are not suitable because you are emotionally unhinged and defend government sponsored murder because "other people are bad too". You are not trustworthy because you intentionally lied about a store owner murdering someone by shooting them in the back as they fled. You do not have good moral character because you took an oath to enforce and abide by the laws of the commonwealth and broke them anyways. You should not be able to own guns and the FFLs were correct to deny your purchases.

See how that works?

Don't worry though, if I was a CLEO, denied you, and you appealed I could theoretically present that information to a district judge, state I denied it based on "public safety", the judge would defer to my account, your appeal would get denied, you'd be out the $5K it took to sue, and wouldn't be able to breath on a firearm unless you want to do the mandatory minimum for unlicensed possession or play cornerback for the Patriots. You don't have to worry about that though, you're a police officer. This is where the resentment you're seeing on NES comes from.

-----

While I do somewhat sympathize with your plight, trying to gain clarity on something deliberately engineered to be unclear, I'm not sure you've done yourself any favors.

As for feeling alienated and otherwise disenchanted by the vibe your getting, nobody asked you to post your question and nobody would think twice about it if you stopped posting in this thread. The door is that way, you could probably see yourself out if you want.

 

[drgrant]

I'm sure you are watching the thread. Yes, I was formally a member of this group, same name actually and let it slip away. Could not remember my password. The reason I stopped posting and interacting was because of the same shit going on here. A pack of unreasonable ass wipes. Who think they are the cats shit when it comes to guns and rights and so forth, and will or cannot engage in debate, questioning, other valid points. So, this so called sock puppet completely understands why the 2nd Amd. is under attack from all sides. It's no friggin wonder. You folks all spew hatred.

Protip: Nobody here is buying that excuse. In the past 4+ years there's a bunch of retreads that have appeared here, they left before because they couldn't take the heat (or got banned for trolling) then they come back thinking they're going to reinvent themselves somehow, but it never works. You are quite obviously one of these people. We've had so many of them I've honestly lost track, I'm sure one of the heuristics bloodhounds will tell me later who you are, probably moredweeb or one of his cohorts from "down there".

There's nothing to "debate" about here, you are literally "part of the problem" based on the few things you've posted in this thread.

 

[MGnoob]

The act simplify gun rights. Well it went from three pages to 118… pretty much sums it up

 

[bpd859]

What gets my goat, and the goats of others, is that cops see themselves as special. They see themselves as "special" whether they're on the clock, off the clock, or retired. If they're not on the clock, why should they have any "exemptions" from laws that others don't?

If you can cogently answer this, I'll acknowledge it, and I'm sure that others will, too.

As for personal defense, yes, he has a right, but it should be the same for all. Why should a retired cop have a choice (or exemption) that a retired barber does not?

The contractors and plumbers and mechanics are brought into your life, by you. (If you want a good, reasonable mechanic, call Syr Auto Care in Northborough. Tell Nabil that Mike with the Kia sent you. Can't help you with the plumber or contractor).

Cops enter your life by their choice.
Cops can detain you, question you, search your vehicle, confiscate your property, assault you, and kill you, and will not face the same judicial process as a non-cop would. Are there good cops? Sure. Just like there are good mechanics. But when you have countless videos of cops fabricating evidence, assaulting people, etc., including videos from body-worn cameras, and the cops not being held accountable, you get....resentment. Oh....generally, the other professions don't hold the power or life and death over you, when you're dealing with them.

About the "bad apples" argument that gets trotted out when this sort of thing gets published: other cops allow it. IMO, it's like the Catholic Church, and the sexual abuse: the priests are bad; the ones that covered it up and enabled it, are far worse. A cop that "tunes up" a perp is bad; the Brothers of the Badge that allow it to happen are far worse.

How's that for an answer? Or am I just a cop-hater?

I'll go with the last statement.

Special? Yeah I guess, some of the guys do. It's not like any other job. You are on 24/7/365. You are bound by standards and rules and can be held accountable for all of your actions. Even minor stuff, like profanity. Conduct Unbecoming. Behavior while out drinking can impact you job when off duty. Do, I want to carry my duty weapon all the time. nope. I'd like the opportunity to carry what I want, where I want. If there is an exemption to do that, I'd use it. (Just like every one of you would, but nobody admits it.).

As for every other profession, the point was you all have perks and exemption and choices, that others don't have access to. That is the truth. You take advantage, why can't we. The only reason I can see is the jealously angle.

Cops do not enter anyone's life by their choice. There is a 911 system where people call us to intervene. Cops enter your life when there is an enforceable action. Traffic violation, drug sales and use, shooting, stabbing, domestic, robbery. Yes, we can absolutely, by law. Stop you, search you, search your vehicle and confiscate your property. Hell, we can even throw you out of your home while we are getting a search warrant. Yes, we can assault you to repel an attack, to defend ourselves or others, we can use force to take you into custody. Arresting somebody who does not want to be arrested is one of the ugliest things you can see. If somebody does not want to go, it's going to take several people to make them. As for killing, yes we can legally utilize deadly force, as can any citizen to defend themselves or others if required. Additionally, if it determined that it was wrong or inappropriate, officers routinely face charges. Just like everyone else. The false notion of "qualified immunity" is just that. It is qualified based on the lawful actions in the performance of your duties. If you violate the law, then you are held criminally and civilly responsible.

I don't see any body worn cams which blatantly show any plating or fabricating of evidence. If they existed, the officers would be jailed. Rightfully so. In my review of body worn cameras, it, in my opinion has shown what has been said for years. People behave badly. Everyone wanted them, demanded them. Now they are worn, they are in cars, they are even attached to firearms, to record the incident. Now the ACLU is involved, trying to get them removed, trying to have the evidence gathered thrown out of court or be inadmissible, because it inculpates their clients when they are drunk, assaulting others and behaving badly and it doesn't show what they wanted, cops behaving badly.

Please do not believe everything you read or hear. Most is not true or is edited to show only what they want you to see to perpetuate a false narrative.

As for tuning up someone. That was a long time ago. I would not risk my job to give a beaten to an idiot. However, you spit in my face, that may be a different story all over again. I'm just a human. I don't get paid to take your shit or a beating. I / we are not the publics punching bag, which many people think we are and can get away with anything. that rope only goes so far.

 

[deerdad]

 

[bpd859]

Protip: Nobody here is buying that excuse. In the past 4+ years there's a bunch of retreads that have appeared here, they left before because they couldn't take the heat (or got banned for trolling) then they come back thinking they're going to reinvent themselves somehow, but it never works. You are quite obviously one of these people. We've had so many of them I've honestly lost track, I'm sure one of the heuristics bloodhounds will tell me later who you are, probably moredweeb or one of his cohorts from "down there".

There's nothing to "debate" about here, you are literally "part of the problem" based on the few things you've posted in this thread.

It's not an excuse when its a fact. The guys here think their shit don't stink. No, I can take the heat. Try me. I'd gladly exchange true names with you. Not an issue. I'm not part of the problem, I'm just pointing out the problem. The gun zealots here think everything about guns should be unrestricted, no regulations. That is just unreasonable, the Supreme Court has said so. But yet, you attack everyone who doesn't share the same view or opinion. Pretty childish. Just like the DEMs ? Libs who go DJT elected again.

 

[bpd859]

I've spent some time watching Robert Alessi recently and am feeling inspired:

---


First post under this account (vs. his other account named mordeeb), asking NES, of all places, if as a police officer sworn to enforce the egregiously unconstitutional, draconian, transparently malicious firearms laws in the commonwealth of MA, if he gets a special stormtrooper exemption to the same laws he would destroy someone's life over if his job was on the line. This is where a little self awareness would come in handy and you might be better served using ChatGPT vs. coming here and asking that. Luckily for you Crackpot gave you an honest answer - probably the most GOATed NESer when it comes to that stuff.



Second post, immediately inviting negativity and taking it personally. You would probably catch more bees with honey but we'll get to that later



15 year old Sandra Birchmore was groomed, raped, and strangled to death by police officers she trusted, while every other officer knew and looked the other way (thin blue line, amirite?) Karen Read's life has been upended and is getting bankrupted by the kangaroo court in Norfolk County because a bunch of Boston/Canton townie dipshit tough guy police officers were shitfaced (driving around Canton, btw) and beat someone to death because they were jealous of some 40 year old badge bunny hag. The State Police looked the other way during their investigation, Canton police recused themselves because of a conflict of interest but took the time to delete evidence anyway (original Sally port video, cell phone evidence, etc.). The judge has ties to the McAlberts and refused to recuse herself, presiding over the case with extreme prejudice as determined by anyone with eyes and half a brain. Enrique Delgado-Garcia was mysteriously beat to death in a state police "training" session. In addition to hundreds (thousands?) of other examples from the police protecting and serving thread. This is not the same as a CPA amortizing capitalized leases using US GAAP instead of IFRS and creating a material misstatement on a company's balance sheet and receiving "professional courtesy", or not reporting $605 of unqualified dividend income on your tax return, or goofing off at your job while on the clock, or crossing the street without a walk signal, or driving back from the bar with a .09 BAC. Feeling justified by likening the two is unfortunately behavior I would only come to expect from someone working as a police officer. I'm not an ACAB cop basher, I have many good friends I've known for decades who are extraordinarily conscientious, brave people who are state and local police. But guys like that seem to be increasingly the exception instead of the norm, at least in the public eye.



34 years? By the "city" I'm assuming you mean Boston. I don't think anyone would refer to Great Barrington as the "city" and automatically assume everyone knows what they mean. This immediately contradicts your next point. You've been policing as long as I've been alive and you've never seen a law abiding citizen get a hard time, ever? Do you work behind a desk?

As a police officer, you gave a pass to a business owner who shot a fleeing thief 3 times in the back when his life wasn't being immediately threatened? Why on earth would you ever admit that, never mind on an internet forum, never mind on NES re: your first post? Would that make you a non-law abiding citizen because you deliberately lied in a potential murder case? Are you unsuitable, lacking moral character, have your LTC pulled, become a PP for life, and face a Bartley Fox mandatory minimum? Wait, no - you're a member of the king's guard. You can do whatever in MA I forgot. This would only apply to trough-eaters who aren't sworn in.



You know folks on both sides? For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

There were no bite marks consistent with bite marks? ...What? As opposed to what, bite marks that are consistent with bite marks? Never mind the stupidity of this statement, did you actually see the guy's arm? Where do you suppose those bite-marks-that-aren't-consistent-with-bite-marks came from? Strange coincidence that the McAlbert's people-aggressive German Shepard took a trip to a farm in vermont soon after John was murdered in their house, is it not? Not to mention the dozens of other smoking guns, no pun intended.

No issue with storing evidence in solo cups? Color me unsurprised.

You clearly are not familiar with the details of the trial if you think Aunt Bev is conscientious

Nobody cares how you "feel" about what might have happened. People are basing their opinion on the evidence (or lackthereof, due to people destroying it). It's exponentially easier to not see something than it is to coordinate stories.



Responding to a south park meme goofing on your self righteousness and attributing that to LTC suitability is.... something. It would be funny if you weren't LEO, but you are - which is why people (rightfully, IMO) flamed you in response to your 1st post and serves as an illustrative example as to why there is are potential certain philosophical aversions to MA LEO around NES.



You're actually not a law abiding citizen, remember? But you are correct about the second part, in MA you are able to do whatever you want.



Reasonable according to who? Is destroying someone's life because they had an unloaded shotgun leaning against the wall when calling 911 for a medical emergency reasonable? Interesting take.

"Unless you are a complete a-hole" is not true. It could be for whatever reason they want and it's virtually unwinnable in an appeal, unless you have the resources to go to bat - Bruen makes this an incrementally more uphill climb for the state, but there's extraordinary deferral to the CLEO's "judgement". The second part of this statement happens time and time again, everywhere across this entire state. Even if they issue, they do so with malicious compliance dragging the process out for 6+ months, even years - White v. Cox (1:23-cv-12031)


Do I really need to say anything?



Reasonableness according to who, Giffords or Colin Noir? "It" is not about reasonableness, it's about constitutionality, autonomy of personal safety for you and your family, deterrence of a tyrannical government, and countless others. If you have to ask what the other reasons are, then you're already lost.

More bees with honey - have you met yourself?

"When you alienate people who support you, you make enemies, who will go out of their way to take away your rights" You are a police officer and you are being alienated in this thread. Using deductive reasoning, am I to assume you are now going to err on the side of being adverse to constitutional rights? I'm confused, I thought you weren't sure "they would do that", but here you seem pretty sure.



Suitable, trustworthy, of good moral character are nebulous, subjective, attributes subject to abuse. Also, you have proven in this thread you are not included in this bunch. You are not suitable because you are emotionally unhinged and defend government sponsored murder because "other people are bad too". You are not trustworthy because you intentionally lied about a store owner murdering someone by shooting them in the back as they fled. You do not have good moral character because you took an oath to enforce and abide by the laws of the commonwealth and broke them anyways. You should not be able to own guns and the FFLs were correct to deny your purchases.

See how that works?

Don't worry though, if I was a CLEO, denied you, and you appealed I could theoretically present that information to a district judge, state I denied it based on "public safety", the judge would defer to my account, your appeal would get denied, you'd be out the $5K it took to sue, and wouldn't be able to breath on a firearm unless you want to do the mandatory minimum for unlicensed possession or play cornerback for the Patriots. You don't have to worry about that though, you're a police officer. This is where the resentment you're seeing on NES comes from.

-----

While I do somewhat sympathize with your plight, trying to gain clarity on something deliberately engineered to be unclear, I'm not sure you've done yourself any favors.

As for feeling alienated and otherwise disenchanted by the vibe your getting, nobody asked you to post your question and nobody would think twice about it if you stopped posting in this thread. The door is that way, you could probably see yourself out if you want.

Why would I do, that I like chatting with a bunch of Neanderthals, who can only see things one way. You opinion means absolutely nothing...just like a**h***s everyone has one. Going to stick around awhile and make some new friends...

 

[1sern]

FYI. Cops don't make laws or give permission for anything, so your argument holds zero water. The legislature, whom people elect do. People in your community, people that you support, people who are your friends in person, but kick you in the teeth when it come to gun ownership. Do you give them shit?? Probably not. But you blame cops for it?? In 34 years, I have never seen a legal, licensed gun owner be hassled by cops. Illegal, yeah you go to jail. That's on you. There is a game to everything, you just have to play it. I / we don't make the rules, the citizens and their legislature does, we just enforce what's on the books. You need a license for a car, a barbershop, a nursing license, ect. Why would you think guns would be any different?? I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Honestly, you're getting enough shit but you don't need a license for a car. You only need one to operate one on public roads, but I'm so far behind this thread it may already have been pointed out.

 

[1sern]

ect.

Yeah, absolute trolling sock puppet account here

 

[Bonesinium]

Have you found an optic for the rifle he won yet, Robert?

 

[FalArAk]

Cops did and will not obey an unlawful order. As for violating somebody's rights, not sure they would do that. I'm not going to jail for any clown. Suppose the military was there and took action. Whose fault would it be?? Question? I don't know what you claim to do or be, but there had to be at least one time you faced an issue like this. Do as the boss says or pack yo shit and go home. I bet you kept your job, right??

You live in a different reality wearing blue tinted sunglasses and carrying out orders under qualified immunity. There are thousands videos on YouTube of the Kings Men violating rights and the taxpayers footing the bill when lawsuits are filed.

Philip Brailsford just gave you a virtual high five lol