MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page Pepper Spray Requiring FID Discussion
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: BrianC

Hi all. Something that's always puzzled me............What's everyone's opinion here, on the requirement of having an FID card for Pepper Spray and like chemical defense weapons ?
Personally, I've thought it to be rediculous.
My reasons:
1) It's NOT a FIREARM. So why a FIREARM identification card????
2) It's not lethal, like a baseball bat, broken beer bottle, or EVEN a fist could be.

I've pondered over this ever since it became law, and have yet to make sense of it. I'm sure it was made law, because of several individual abuse instances, involving chemical defense sprays.
We all know that if someone intends on commiting a crime, the're gonna find whatever they can for a weapon. And personally.....I'd rather be assaulted by pepperspray that an assailant bought at a department store freely, than to be hit over the head with a bat, or stabbed by a knife (if given a choice !).

Let's hear some input about the sensibility of the law, but not get into a heated debate !

Posted by: jasonbr

I believe one of the common uses of OC used during a crime was to subdue a woman to sexually assault her.

Posted by: SOT

Consider this, firearms as defined in the MGL = Pistol. Your FID card (Firearms ID card) doesn't allow you to own a pistol.

Posted by: Wolfman

A shot of pepper spray from inside a car will turn the tide of a motor vehicle stop really fast.

Posted by: Crvtte65

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianC

...like a baseball bat, broken beer bottle, or EVEN a fist could be.

I would say these are much more dangerous but are not weapons by design. OC spray doesn't have a purpose other than to incapacitate someone.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianC

It's NOT a FIREARM. So why a FIREARM identification card????

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they have Restricted FID's for those that just want to carry and use pepperspray.

Pepperspray does nothing but incapacitate someone, it has no other uses, so I guess they figured, why not keep track of those who have it, or at least attempt to.

Posted by: Curious EMT

Yes, one can get a Spray Only FID card, its $25.

In regards to spray, I personlay purchased spray when I was 19. They said "we cant ask for your FID card" I didnt know what that meant.

Or, you can simly drive to any other bordering state to get it. They dont ask for ID and arent banned from selling it to out of state-ers, like firearms.'

Then again, anyone can go to these states and buy a rifle and take it home so.... just another failed liberal law

Posted by: BrianC

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT_II

Consider this, firearms as defined in the MGL = Pistol. Your FID card (Firearms ID card) doesn't allow you to own a pistol.

Very true SOT_II. But that would just be more in the lines of different "classifications" to firearms. But still pertaining to firearms.
Chemical weapon is not a firearm. That's mainly my pieve.

And as djgj200 said.........yes, there IS a seperate FID for just chemical weapon. But it's STILL called an FID.

Now.....let me throw another coal in the fire ! No FID required for BB and pellet guns, or paintball (ever see what a FROZEN paintball can do?).. I believe the reason is....the're not FIREarms. (not powder fired). But either is pepper spray.

But djgj200 DID make a valid point about the spray having no other use. But I still think it's the most humane way of defending ones self, and I think requiring any kind of permit for it is overkill.

Posted by: REILEYDOG

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to require an FID for pepper spray. It's just another one of the pointless, over-restrictive laws that the powers that be have enacted in the Communist Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

And, by the way, OC does have other purposes. I have used it on my scrambled eggs when nothing else is available, and it's not bad.

Posted by: SOT

Look it is MA, if you are looking for sense in firearms law or laws regarding OC pepperspray...this ain't the state to try and find it.

Posted by: SOT

Buying out of state, then brining it into the state where there is a restriction or license proves intent to violate the law. The "theory" is you buy pepper spray to use it, if at some point you use it or are caught with it and do not have the FID PPS, you are screwed.

Yes you can buy a rifle or shotgun in another state so long as it is legal to purchase there and legal to own in your home state. IN MA you must submit an FA-10 within 7 days of returning to the state to register that rifle or shotgun in MA.
As well any where you purchase a rifle or shotgun for personal use, you will end up doing a 4473 so you still get the BC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

Yes, one can get a Spray Only FID card, its $25.

In regards to spray, I personlay purchased spray when I was 19. They said "we cant ask for your FID card" I didnt know what that meant.

Or, you can simly drive to any other bordering state to get it. They dont ask for ID and arent banned from selling it to out of state-ers, like firearms.'

Then again, anyone can go to these states and buy a rifle and take it home so.... just another failed liberal law

Posted by: BrianC

Quote:

Originally Posted by REILEYDOG

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to require an FID for pepper spray. It's just another one of the pointless, over-restrictive laws that the powers that be have enacted in the Communist Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

And, by the way, OC does have other purposes. I have used it on my scrambled eggs when nothing else is available, and it's not bad.

Hahaha. Scrambled eggs. I love it !!!

I tend to look at the "big picture", and the effects that a law has on the big picture. I'm thinking that a LOT less people carry chem defense weapon, because of the fact they have to get an FID for it. In a small town, it's a quick simple process to obtain one. But in a larger city, it can be time consuming due to the lack of manpower.
So I think requiring the FID greatly reduces the number of people out there that carry the spray, as opposed to how many WOULD if it was readily purchased off a store shelf.

So how many people fell victim to crimes, that may have otherwise escaped it, due to this?
It's bad enough that criminals know fewer and fewer law abiding citizens are carrying and owning firearms as each year goes by. The law is making it VERY difficult for people to defend themselves against being victims.

I wouldn't call it "communist". But I would say some laws are just not thought thru enough, as to what effects they will have long term.
Crime will never reduce, if it's not met with resistance. And I don't think it's at all fair, to place the entirety of that resistance on the shoulders of our police.

I mean, I understand the whole motive of laws. To keep things in check, and work toward keeping us "civilized". And there WAS a time things were going well in the right direction. But anyone that's my age, knows that we are slipping backwards from having civil order. Why is that? Human beings are still human beings. So what's changed to bring about more and more crime? Could it be less chance of resistance being encountered by criminals? Think about it.

Posted by: BrianC

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT_II

Buying out of state, then brining it into the state where there is a restriction or license proves intent to violate the law. The "theory" is you buy pepper spray to use it, if at some point you use it or are caught with it and do not have the FID PPS, you are screwed.

Yes you can buy a rifle or shotgun in another state so long as it is legal to purchase there and legal to own in your home state. IN MA you must submit an FA-10 within 7 days of returning to the state to register that rifle or shotgun in MA.
As well any where you purchase a rifle or shotgun for personal use, you will end up doing a 4473 so you still get the BC.

Right SOT_II. Curious EMT kinda steered the topic off in another direction. I'm trying to discuss sense of the law pertaining to chemical weapons, not point out ways to defeat it. But I guess Curious EMT was trying to point out sense of laws in general, as to how effective they are. But heck, we ALL know that.

Posted by: Mongo

The reason is felons can't have F.I.D. so they can't buy O.C.

Even though that is weak I beleive that is the reasoning behind it.
Of course the last time I saw a felon buying a weapon of any type it was not at a respectable firearms dealer.
It was at the corner street or in some dark alley in a respectable gang banger hood.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mongo

Of course the last time I saw a felon buying a weapon of any type it was not at a respectable firearms dealer.
It was at the corner street or in some dark alley in a respectable gang banger hood.

That's why gun control does not work.

Posted by: jasonbr

C'mon.... The state already provides for responsible citizens to carry OC. You just go down to the local PD and apply for one of those pink FID cards. They cost $25, and if i'm not mistaken the turnaround time is much quicker than a regular FID. The state is licensing a dangerous product... what's wrong with that? You guys seem to think that anything short of Romney sending you a special package full of OC to your doorstep is "communist". If you want to carry OC take a pro-active approach to legally getting it instead of bitching... simple.

Posted by: benike84

I agree

Posted by: BrianC

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

C'mon.... The state already provides for responsible citizens to carry OC. You just go down to the local PD and apply for one of those pink FID cards. They cost $25, and if i'm not mistaken the turnaround time is much quicker than a regular FID. The state is licensing a dangerous product... what's wrong with that? You guys seem to think that anything short of Romney sending you a special package full of OC to your doorstep is "communist". If you want to carry OC take a pro-active approach to legally getting it instead of bitching... simple.

I wouldn't say it's communist. I just feel is a bit extreme that someone has to "apply" to defend themselves with a non-deadly weapon. And pay money to get the permission no less.

Posted by: REILEYDOG

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

Why don't we just license everything that is dangerous? Kitchen knives should require a $25 license fee. I bet far more people are killed anually by kitchen knives than OC.

Posted by: jasonbr

That's stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by REILEYDOG

Why don't we just license everything that is dangerous? Kitchen knives should require a $25 license fee. I bet far more people are killed anually by kitchen knives than OC.

Posted by: REILEYDOG

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

That's stupid.

"That's stupid" is a reply that is used when no other logical arrgument can be made.
Requiring a permit for OC is stupid.

Posted by: Irish_Cop_In_Va

LOL@ permit for OC. What kind of pacsifist commies are running your state? Everytime a woman gets raped in your state every pol in Ma should give the victim a grand in apology for not allowing them the right to carry a self defense weapon without a (lol) permit. I bet that would get that law changed in a hurry!

Posted by: jasonbr

Quote:

Originally Posted by REILEYDOG

"That's stupid" is a reply that is used when no other logical arrgument can be made.
Requiring a permit for OC is stupid.

Yes - I had trouble making a logical argument against licensing kitchen knives....

Posted by: REILEYDOG

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

Yes - I had trouble making a logical argument against licensing kitchen knives....

There is no logic in requiring a license for pepper spray. None whatsoever. How many crimes have you seen that involved a perp. using pepper spray? I haven't seen one. I have seen plenty of gun crimes, even with the extreme over-regulation and licensing of firearms.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by REILEYDOG

I agree.

I am glad you see that gun control doesn't work, if you even noticed that. The guns used in most gun crimes are obtained illegally and gun control laws don't mean a damn thing when that happens.

Posted by: jasonbr

First of all- you comparison of gun crimes to pepper-spray crimes is as stupid as comparing the licensing of OC to the licensing of "kitchen knives". Second: You act as if MA outlaws OC. We don't and it isn't. ANYONE whos wants OC (asides from a felon) can have a permit for $25 - NO QUESTIONS ASKED. What is you're point exactly? You think felons should be able to purchase OC????? Or is your point that $25 is too much of a burden? Your argument is absurd and without merit or even a point, all you say is "There is no logic". Explain what's illogical and why....

And it even gets better, even DJGY agrees with you.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by REILEYDOG

This is pretty much the DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD!!! Geeez, he says dumb things..... but this is by far the stupidest.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

Posted by: REILEYDOG

Here's the question, plain and simple, so even jasonbr can understand.
Why should anybody be required to go to their local PD to get a license and pay $25 for something as mundane as pepper spray? Please, please explain the point in that (other than generating revenue).

Posted by: JoninNH

Quote:

Here's the question, plain and simple, so even jasonbr can understand.

I'm not sure that's a valid statement.

Posted by: JoninNH

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT_II

Look it is MA, if you are looking for sense in firearms law or laws regarding OC pepperspray...this ain't the state to try and find it.

That says it all.

Posted by: REILEYDOG

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoninNH

That says it all.

My point exactly. Thank you.

Posted by: jasonbr

Here's the answer, plain and simple, that's already been stated many times. OC is a chemical weapon. The act of controlling the posession of such a weapon is to the advantage of everyone. The only people that gain by not controlling the posession of such a weapon are felons, as they are the only ones restricted from posessing OC. I just don't think it's such a rediculous idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by REILEYDOG

Here's the question, plain and simple, so even jasonbr can understand.
Why should anybody be required to go to their locae'sl PD to get a license and pay $25 for something as mundane as pepper spray? Please, please explain the point in that (other than generating revenue).

Posted by: DEPUTY DAWG

It is probably moreabout the fee for the fid than anything else.

Posted by: REILEYDOG

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

Here's the answer, plain and simple, that's already been stated many times. OC is a chemical weapon. The act of controlling the posession of such a weapon is to the advantage of everyone. The only people that gain by not controlling the posession of such a weapon are felons, as they are the only ones restricted from posessing OC. I just don't think it's such a rediculous idea.

Requiring law-abiding citizens to get a license for a simple "weapon?" like OC controls criminals. That's very convincing. Now I feel safe that no criminals will have OC, or firearms for that matter.

Posted by: jasonbr

You're argument is growing thin. The whole point of the applicant process is to decide who ACTUALLY IS "law-abiding". And if you believe that MA should give up on gun control because you don't think it works..... you are a moron.

Posted by: Curious EMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

You're argument is growing thin. The whole point of the applicant process is to decide who ACTUALLY IS "law-abiding". And if you believe that MA should give up on gun control because you don't think it works..... you are a moron.

How HAS Mass's gun "control" worked? Guns are controled, gun crimes are out of control.

Thinking a criminal about to commit a robery, or a carjacking, or a shooting cares about his illegal gun is like thinking a car-bomber cares that he is double-parked.

Posted by: JoninNH

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

And if you believe that MA should give up on gun control because you don't think it works..... you are a moron.

Yes, I think that MA should give up on gun control because it DOESNT WORK.

And you, my friend, are a moron.

Quote:

You're argument is growing thin. The whole point of the applicant process is to decide who ACTUALLY IS "law-abiding".

Riiight. The would-be murderer, who will be faving life in prision, is going to opt to use a baseball bat rather then a pistol because he's worried about the consequenses of thew weapons charge. Right! That makes sense!

Posted by: jasonbr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

How HAS Mass's gun "control" worked? Guns are controled, gun crimes are out of control.

It is working. The problem isn't MA gun laws, it's NH, VT, PA gun laws. Their lack of gun control is the problem - and many of those guns are being brought to MA because of the 'supply & demand' rule. Guns are much harder to aquire in MA than in some neighboring states - so they smuggle them into MA where they will fetch a higher street price. After all, stolen/illegal firearms aren't worth much when anyone with a drivers license (pending a BG check) can get one. Obviously not every gun used in a crime in MA is from out of state, but i bet many of them are....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

Thinking a criminal about to commit a robery, or a carjacking, or a shooting cares about his illegal gun is like thinking a car-bomber cares that he is double-parked.

No i guess they don't - so i guess the only way to prevent gun crimes is not with large sentances, but to keep the guns out of their hands in the first place........with.... gun control!

Posted by: Curious EMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

so i guess the only way to prevent gun crimes is to keep the guns out of their hands in the first place........with.... gun control!

That would ONLY work if such an idea was implimented in the 1600's when firearms were first developed. Then again, if such did happen, we wouldnt be speaking english.

Gun control is failing, and you can not deny that. More and more innocent and law abiding citizens now fear every shadow because they have been denied the right to protect themselves.

Why do you think it's appropriate for a mother to sit it home and be at the whim of a CRIMINAL? SJC already said you cant protect her....

Posted by: SOT

MA gun control is not working at all.

Perfect example:

In Pittsfield the CLEO will not issue ALP. The only people involved in gun crimes (say 98% of gun crimes) are criminals. Pittsfield is LESS safe becuase only the criminals are carrying guns. The ones that had no background check, never took a safety course, and are generally engaged in some other crime.

Federal law does not allow a person to go into a less restrictive state and purchase a pistol. Most gun crimes are commited with a pistol. If someone is making a straw purchase in NH or ME or VT, or brining guns into MA without the proper license THEY ARE ALREADY CRIMINALS. Get it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

Posted by: djgj200

Jay, do a little bit of research on why gun control doesn't work (the material is out there) and you will see legitimate and logical reasons as to why that DOES NOT work. In places around the world those assault guns are in the hands of the average person and they could be smuggled into this country and sold on the black market. its not the states' laws that are to blame. Criminals commit the crimes making them unable to obtain a gun legally because they can't even get a license.

The reason why we have the second amendment in our constitution is back in the 1600's in England a suppressive ruler took away all their guns and they couldn't defend themselves and they made sure that they put something in place in this country to guarantee their right to have a gun. If the criminals have all the guns and law-abiding citizens have shit to defend themselves with, then wtf do you think is going to happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT_II

MA gun control is not working at all.

Perfect example:

In Pittsfield the CLEO will not issue ALP. The only people involved in gun crimes (say 98% of gun crimes) are criminals. Pittsfield is LESS safe becuase only the criminals are carrying guns. The ones that had no background check, never took a safety course, and are generally engaged in some other crime.

Federal law does not allow a person to go into a less restrictive state and purchase a pistol. Most gun crimes are commited with a pistol. If someone is making a straw purchase in NH or ME or VT, or brining guns into MA without the proper license THEY ARE ALREADY CRIMINALS. Get it?

That truly is a perfect example. Simple and good enough to prove the point.

Posted by: jasonbr

The point was that the problem isn't so much with MA gun laws as it is with other states rediculously lax gun laws. I'm not talking about straw purchases or people crossing state lines to purchase guns (which i know doesn't work) at all....
In states with no gun laws there are less checks and balances, less accountability for people that "lose" guns or have them stolen. I'm not saying that MA gun laws are perfect - in fact i know they're far from perfect, i.e. Stupid AWB and approved firearms roster and as you mentioned the innability for many honest people to obtain an ALP. All things that need fixing- and from what i can figure seem to be in the works of getting fixed. But i do feel like MA is doing better than most states in gun control. Although - granted some of the laws are STUPID..........

OC was a simpler subject...

DJGJ: Thanks for the history lesson, but actually you're wrong.... The next time you attempt to explain to someone why we have the second amendment, you should probably include the Revolutionary War.... Do a little bit of research....

Posted by: Curious EMT

Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. They will be purchased in other countries, stolen, and purchased with fake ID's.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO changing that...

The only option is to "level the playing field" so that a criminal will realize that there is a likely chance they will be severly injured or killed if they opt to attack you for cash for their next fix.

Jasonbr: What is Your ideal system of gun control?

Mine? Keep the current NICS system in effect, no fellons can buy guns. A one-figerprint authorization gives the go-ahead for the sale (like in mass). If not disqualified due to that, then the purchase goes ahead.
IF you're disqualified (but not for violent crime): allowed only long guns. (Destruction of property +250 shouldnt mean you cant protect your family)
If disqualified for ANY violent conviction: Get a Super-Soaker.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

If the gun is the problem, and guns are easier to get in NH or Vt, then NH and Vt should have more gun crime... But they don't.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

That's another reason. There are plenty of reasons and I don't feel like listing them all.

Posted by: Curious EMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

That's another reason. There are plenty of reasons and I don't feel like listing them all.

You're not old enough to have a firearm. Go away.

Posted by: Irish_Cop_In_Va

Ok here's my two cents. Virginia is a very big state as you may know and like MA is a Commonwealth. Being a Commonwealth each Jursidiction differs in the way they conduct buisness (ie. the issuing of licenses and permits). For example in Richmond you must pass an extensive background check, prove that you have been to an NRA approved 40 hour gun safety class before being able to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Now on the flip side the Hampton Roads metropolitan area composed of seven cities and multiple countis has in general far more lax requirements in getting a concealed weapons permit. The estimated population of Hampton Roads is about 2 million making it one the larger metropolitan areas in the country. We have gangs, ghettos, a growing MS-13 problem, drugs, domestics, and of course murders- between the 7 cities we have about 55 as of August of this year. In Richmond the population is about 250,000 they have about 70 murders thus far this year, and are rated as the 3rd highest in the country for per capita crime. Now perhaps these discrepencies can be attributed to a large range of factors, however there is little doubt in my mind that one of those factors is allowing honest and law abiding people to be able to obtain and carry weapons. Let's face facts if I'm a dirtbag and I want to rob someone am I going to rob Mr. liberal yuppie wearing his "vote for kerry '04" T-shirt or Mr. harley-davidson Orange County Chopper (probably carrying a weapon) red neck? The fear of honest people carrying guns can be enough to take away the willigness of a dirtbag. Remember the good old crime pyramid? Oppurtunity, Ability, Desire? Take away Oppurtunity and desire and ability don't mean a whole lot. In the mind of a dirtbag a .38 round going into your chest takes away his idea of oppurtunity.

Posted by: SOT

There is a federal background check done for EACH retail purchase of any firearm, handgun, rifle, shotgun. It is the same in EVERY state. That being said there is NO reason to require a purchase license AT ALL anymore in MA. It's just a way to make people not own guns pure and simple. If you have to pay $100 every 4 or 6 years just to own a gun or two, it's going to stop you from owning guns.
Also how dumb is a one time in 4 or 6 year BC to get a license? The NICS check is much better as it's done EACH TIME at purchase. Not some static thing that rolls around ever 6 years now.
If MA is doing a "better job" gun crime should be going down...is it? It sure as hell isn't by me and it has nothing to do with lawful guns or lawful owners. Gun laws are only observed by lawful owners...so it's a sugar pill towards fixing things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

The point was that the problem isn't so much with MA gun laws as it is with other states rediculously lax gun laws. I'm not talking about straw purchases or people crossing state lines to purchase guns (which i know doesn't work) at all....
In states with no gun laws there are less checks and balances, less accountability for people that "lose" guns or have them stolen. I'm not saying that MA gun laws are perfect - in fact i know they're far from perfect, i.e. Stupid AWB and approved firearms roster and as you mentioned the innability for many honest people to obtain an ALP. All things that need fixing- and from what i can figure seem to be in the works of getting fixed. But i do feel like MA is doing better than most states in gun control. Although - granted some of the laws are STUPID..........

OC was a simpler subject...

Posted by: SOT

Just STFU little girl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

That's another reason. There are plenty of reasons and I don't feel like listing them all.

Posted by: jasonbr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

Jasonbr: What is Your ideal system of gun control?

Mine? Keep the current NICS system in effect, no fellons can buy guns. A one-figerprint authorization gives the go-ahead for the sale (like in mass). If not disqualified due to that, then the purchase goes ahead.
IF you're disqualified (but not for violent crime): allowed only long guns. (Destruction of property +250 shouldnt mean you cant protect your family)
If disqualified for ANY violent conviction: Get a Super-Soaker.

I'm not sure what my system of gun control would entail, but i do believe we need some kind of system to keep the guns in the right hands... however i think, to add on to yours, i would include drug charges as a disqualification. Also, i think destruction of property -250 would be better. Seems like +250 should probably be a disqualification. But i think both those should have some kind of statute of limitations. Say, violent crime/drug charge/ whatever within 20 yrs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto

If the gun is the problem, and guns are easier to get in NH or Vt, then NH and Vt should have more gun crime... But they don't.

Well in 2004 the population in MA was 6,398,743. NH: 1,309,940 and VT: 623,050. So you can't just say "NH and Vt should have more gun crime" Because MA population is more than both of them combined - then doubled.

Posted by: Curious EMT

Destructin of prop -250 is not a fellony. You cant use minor life events like that to disqualify people from owning firearms, plain and simple. Where do you draw the line? A speeding ticket? Parking ticket?

There is NO reason to punish someone by not allowing them to protect themselves if they have never displayed a violent tendancy. That's conviction without justice.

SOT: exactly. Make the NICS check almost fool-proof (since now a VERY simple case of identity theft can foil it). Require the one-fingerprint. If you're not in the system: GO SALE.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

You're not old enough to have a firearm.

Really??? Prove it to me.

Posted by: Curious EMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

Really??? Prove it to me.

MGL 140/121:
“Firearm”, a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors. Age to possess them in mass: 21

MGL140/131
All licenses to carry firearms shall be designated Class A or Class B, and the issuance and possession of any such license shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions: (iv) is at the time of the application less than 21 years of age;

For the 8th fucking time, go away. Leave the subject to educated adults.

Posted by: jasonbr

I think i made a typo.. i wouldn't include -250... but it takes a lot of destruction to be +250 it seems.... IS there a +1000 or something? i think that +250 is as high as it goes, so even if you destroy $10,000 it still a charge of +250... I think.
Anyways... i'm not pretending to have a better system, i just think we have a better system than other states minus the stupid things i pointed out earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

Destructin of prop -250 is not a fellony. You cant use minor life events like that to disqualify people from owning firearms, plain and simple. Where do you draw the line? A speeding ticket? Parking ticket?

There is NO reason to punish someone by not allowing them to protect themselves if they have never displayed a violent tendancy. That's conviction without justice.

SOT: exactly. Make the NICS check almost fool-proof (since now a VERY simple case of identity theft can foil it). Require the one-fingerprint. If you're not in the system: GO SALE.

Posted by: jasonbr

I'm very much pro gun.. don't get me wrong...... I also like being able to walk out of a store with a pistol that very day also, so for that the LTC is convienent... Also - there are many, many, many idiots out there that qualify to own and carry a pistol... it's nice that the chief has some kind of discretion in that respect, but stupid when the chief uses his discretion to not give a permit to anyone.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

You want to talk about educated...

MGL 140/129B

(6) A firearm identification card shall not entitle a holder thereof to possess: (i) a large capacity firearm or large capacity feeding device therefor, except under a Class A license issued to a shooting club as provided under section 131 or under the direct supervision of a holder of a Class A license issued to an individual under section 131 at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range; or (ii) a non-large capacity firearm or large capacity rifle or shotgun or large capacity feeding device therefor, except under a Class A license issued to a shooting club as provided under section 131 or under the direct supervision of a holder of a Class A or Class B license issued to an individual under section 131 at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range. A firearm identification card shall not entitle a holder thereof to possess any rifle or shotgun that is, or in such manner that is, otherwise prohibited by law. A firearm identification card shall be valid for the purpose of purchasing and possessing chemical mace, pepper spray or other similarly propelled liquid, gas or powder designed to temporarily incapacitate. Except as otherwise provided herein, a firearm identification card shall not be valid for the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental or transportation of a rifle or shotgun if such rifle or shotgun is a large capacity weapon as defined in section 121.

If you couldn't figure that fancy wording out, an FID card allows the holder to buy, possess, carry, etc. a non-large capacity shotgun or rifle.

Section 129B. A firearm identification card shall be issued and possessed subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

(vi) is at the time of the application more than 15 but less than 18 years of age, unless the applicant submits with his application a certificate of his parent or guardian granting the applicant permission to apply for a card;

With that considered, with parental permission someone could apply and get an FID card at the age of 15-17. Obviously at age 18, parental permission is not required.

Posted by: BSP268

emt! chapter 266, section 126a and 126b malicious/wanton desrtuction of property $ defacement of property.... 3 year felony douse not matter if over or under 250

Posted by: jasonbr

GO AWAY TWERP!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

Posted by: Curious EMT

Right. A firearm identificatoin card does NOT ALLOW YOU TO POSSESS OR BUY A FIREARM.

Details, you fuck, DEATILS. You dont get it!

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbr

I wasn't suggesting total numbers, but per capita.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

A firearm identificatoin card does NOT ALLOW YOU TO POSSESS OR BUY A FIREARM.

Maybe in your world...

Posted by: SOT

Firearm in the MGL is defined as a pistol, being 18 or 19 you can not buy a firearm, you can buy a rifle or shotgun but not the MGL defined firearm.
It's one of the ironies of the MA firearms laws. FID card really doesn't let you buy a firearm, it lets you buy rifle or shotguns as per the MGL.
ATF defines firearms like we all think of firearms...but as you are talking about MA firearms laws...one must abide by the def as posted.
Firearm = pistol in MA.

Posted by: Fozzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

Destructin of prop -250 is not a fellony. You cant use minor life events like that to disqualify people from owning firearms, plain and simple. Where do you draw the line? A speeding ticket? Parking ticket?

A "minor life event" is getting turned down for a prom date. Trashing someone else's stuff is a crime. I'm not saying that no one who has been convicted of this type of offense should ever have an LTC/FID, but it should be a consideration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious EMT

There is NO reason to punish someone by not allowing them to protect themselves if they have never displayed a violent tendancy. That's conviction without justice.

What ARE you talking about???

Massachusetts defines chemical sprays as ammunition:

"Section 121. As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:-
“Ammunition”, cartridges or cartridge cases, primers (igniter), bullets or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm, rifle or shotgun. The term “ammunition” shall also mean tear gas cartridges, chemical mace or any device or instrument which contains or emits a liquid, gas, powder or any other substance designed to incapacitate."

As long as this definition remains, an LTC or FID will be required for chemical spray- Period.

Mass. has no waiting period. Walk into your friendly gun shop with your LTC and your cash and walk out with oh, say... A Barrett .50 BMG semi auto. Plenty of other states have a waiting period.

And not for nuthin'... How many cops, trained and experienced in OC, end up hosing each other with spray? Picture someone untrained and with no experience. They'd be lucky not to OC themselves.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Picture someone untrained and with no experience. They'd be lucky not to OC themselves.

All I can think about is a bear hunter carrying that 30% OC stuff and ends up having a bear coming after them for whatever reason and OC's themself. That would just suck. hahaha.

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

Mass. has no waiting period. Walk into your friendly gun shop with your LTC and your cash and walk out with oh, say... A Barrett .50 BMG semi auto. Plenty of other states have a waiting period.

Mass may not have a waiting period on the books but the reality is depending on the dept where you live it can be months before you get an FID never mind a licence to carry.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT_II

Firearm in the MGL is defined as a pistol, being 18 or 19 you can not buy a firearm, you can buy a rifle or shotgun but not the MGL defined firearm.
It's one of the ironies of the MA firearms laws. FID card really doesn't let you buy a firearm, it lets you buy rifle or shotguns as per the MGL.
ATF defines firearms like we all think of firearms...but as you are talking about MA firearms laws...one must abide by the def as posted.
Firearm = pistol in MA.

Now that I look it over again I see what you are saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT_II

being 18 or 19 ...you can buy a rifle or shotgun ...

That's what I was trying to say. You guys kept telling me that the term "firearm" included handguns. I was a little slow on picking that up. haha.

Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

I was a little slow on picking that up. haha.

That aint the only thing....

Posted by: andy0921

hahah

Posted by: Fozzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanotherparatrooper

Mass. has no waiting period. Walk into your friendly gun shop with your LTC and your cash and walk out with oh, say... A Barrett .50 BMG semi auto. Plenty of other states have a waiting period.

Mass may not have a waiting period on the books but the reality is depending on the dept where you live it can be months before you get an FID never mind a licence to carry.

Agreed... However the law requires that the licensing authority make a decision on the issuance of the FID/LTC within forty (40) days of the date of application. That 40 day requirment applies to both FIDs and LTCs under their respective chapters. I can tell you that things get balled up sometimes at various stages of the process, but the bottom line is that the decision must be made within 40 days.

Once you do get your LTC/FID, no waiting period.

Posted by: HELPMe

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanotherparatrooper

\\

I had to wait over a month for my LTC. I also had to attend a pistol course by the NRA and the instructor had to be MSP a certified trainer. Given all that and the background check. I dont see a need with a prolonged waiting period to get the firearm you just purchased. Besides how many registered gun owners commit felonies with their weapon? Other then an accidental hunting shooting..i havent heard of many. Compare that to the amount of gang bangers on the streets with unregistered black market handguns that are for example shooting children/lawful citizens in dorchester.

Also as for the FID for OC. It is simply another means for the state to get your money. I know a few PD's that require you to take a training course to become OC certified in order to get your FID restricted. So its not that easy of a process. Granted training is good, but its not that much more indepth then just reading the sheet of paper that comes with the OC. Spray 4-6 feet away, dont store in your car, yada yada.

It is a defensive weapon i agree. However, it lacks the ability for it to do severe bodily harm or even cause harm other then the form of eye and skin irritation that goes away in an hr. If a criminal really wanted to use OC to commit a crime they can just drive to RI. However, this is usually not the weapon of choice. In theory the requirement of training and proficiency is a good idea. However, it lacks practicality.

Posted by: EOD1

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

All I can think about is a bear hunter carrying that 30% OC stuff and ends up having a bear coming after them for whatever reason and OC's themself. That would just suck. hahaha.

its hunter with tabasco... its great. well if the bear is into spicy buffalo hunter.

Posted by: Curious EMT

Quote:

Originally Posted by HELPMe

I know a few PD's that require you to take a training course to become OC certified in order to get your FID restricted.

Name a few?

Posted by: Fozzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by HELPMe

A whole month? Wow! That was quick. The licensing authority has 40 days just to DECIDE if you get your permit or not.

The pistol course is so you know which end of the gun to hold. The trainers are certified by the Department of Safety so that someone can keep track of whether or not the instructors know which end of the gun to hold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HELPMe

Also as for the FID for OC. It is simply another means for the state to get your money. I know a few PD's that require you to take a training course to become OC certified in order to get your FID restricted. .

Yeah... The state (Actually the city or town issuing the FID) needs that whopping $25.00 for a 6-year FID/Restricted.

FYI, an FID of any type is a 'shall issue' unless the applicant is disqualified by statute or commits a crime by making a false statement on the application. The licensing authority may not (By law anyway...) impose any further requirements. There is no course requirement under law for an FID/Restricted.

I'd be extremely curious to hear which cities or towns require an OC course. Care to name a few of them?

Posted by: sherifflittle

i got an idea....buy a bag of ceyenne pepper, put it in a sandwich bag...when you feel as though you should use it, wet the tip of your thumb and index finger then get some on your fingers and smear it in an individuals face..that way you save money on the fid card, and the time and hassle to get one...thank you and god bless happy holidays

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108