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 Gun permits drop 25% in Bay State
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: kwflatbed

Gun permits drop 25% in Bay State

(By Matt Carroll, Globe Staff)

The number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts has declined by more than a quarter in the past six years, a falloff driven by restrictive laws, higher licensing fees, and cultural change, according to police officers and gun owners.

INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC: Gun licenses in Massachusetts

Getting a gun license: a primer

Posted by: BB-59

Cultural change?

Somebody wanna explain that to me, please.

Posted by: SGT_GRUNT_USMC

The disarming of a state.I would imagine in the next 20 years or so..NO ONE
except cops and criminals will have guns in MassachusettsThey will be completely outlawed by the libtards in the state legislature.My father (who works for the Mass. Department of Correction) said he would like to get a handgun permit,but said it's so expensive and difficult that he does not want to even bother until he retires and moves out of Massachusetts.I can't even believe there are cops in Massachusetts that can't carry guns on or off duty.

Posted by: SOT

Go figure! The "cultural change" is that MA law makers don't think there is this thing called the Second Amendment.

Posted by: Delta784

When you have people like this in charge of licensing, is this really any surprise?

http://ledger.southofboston.com/arti...ews/news01.txt

http://ledger.southofboston.com/arti...ews/news06.txt

http://ledger.southofboston.com/arti...ews/news04.txt

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Too many gun nuts out there. ALthough I think the QPD chief is a dink I agree with him being stricter on issuing LTCs.

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

"Fewer firearms on the street makes life safer for everyone," said Robert F. Crowley, Quincy's police chief. "The average citizen who has a gun 24-7 I don't believe has the experience, knowledge, and training to know when and if they should use a firearm."

Then, by that reasoning, Boston, Worcester, Springfield, and other big cities, who basically don't give out licenses to carry, unless someone is a police officer, corrections, private security or has some heavy connections, should be virtual gun-crime free paradises. I see that plan in especially working well in Dorcester.

"Culture Change" is just another word for people who are social cowards, people who would rather be victims then stand up for themselves. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way this whole country is going, Mass is just ahead of the curve with all the rampant liberalism.

Posted by: pahapoika

gun permits are down by 25% percent here in Mass thanks to draconian gun laws
but we're buying bullet proof back packs for our kids.
hope , nothing wrong in this liberal utopia

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

Too many gun nuts out there. ALthough I think the QPD chief is a dink I agree with him being stricter on issuing LTCs.

I see the Kool Aid is working. Driving a car is a privilege that must be granted through licensing. Keeping arms is a right (important enough to be the second one enumerated) that should only be forfeited upon sufficiently egregious criminal activity.

When a woman / babysitter / (insert innocent victim here) is home at night and some thug breaks into the house looking for jewelry to sell for a fix and an easy piece of tail, should she just hide - call 911 and hope they get there in time - be a noble victim?

When you're taking a drive and some blade-wielding thug decides that your car (with the kids strapped in the back) is a nicer ride than the mountain bike he stole last month would you rather hand him the keys or a .38 caliber breath mint?

How many LTC holders robbed convenience stores or did drive-bys last year? How many of the nightly "shots fired" calls in our cities are the result of duly licensed gun owners just blowing off steam?

When some blizzard, hurricane, or earthquake hits hard enough to knock New England on its ass for a month how will you protect yourself and your family?

When the welfare system collapses under its own weight and there are gangs of criminals looting in the streets, whose house are you going to hunker down in?

When it turns out that a percentage of these illegals that are being allowed to entrench themselves in our communities are not just day laborers but in fact up to something more destructive - like blowing up bridges, malls, schools, are you going to rely on your government to protect you?

When some future White House administration evolves to the degree that would make Comrades Mao and Stalin proud, will you be happy to ride your bicycle down the street past the Hillary billboard with your little red book under your arm?

Screw that. If you don't like guns, don't own them. But keep your hands off of mine and I don't want to see you crying at my doorstep when the shit hits the fan. Ultimately Darwin will prevail.

Posted by: kwflatbed

AMEN WOLFMAN

oneoutofyourmind I sure as hell hope that you never
answer a call in my area if you are a leo.
More than likely your holster would be EMPTY
like your thoughts.

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

AMEN WOLFMAN

oneoutofyourmind I sure as hell hope that you never
answer a call in my area if you are a leo.
More than likely your holster would be EMPTY
like your thoughts.

No, you better hope that everything you have done was inline if you decide to carry or use a weapon. It's funny how all the non-LEOs always want to carry guns and preach the constitution every chance they get. My PD issues LTCs but are also very strict and guess what, no one wins at court. Since 1994 it is much easier for us to deny LTCs to all the losers out there that want one for any reason.

Posted by: Wolfman

Glad to see you could respond to specific points of argument with some inane and completely clueless generalizations. Also good to see that you are targeting due process as well as RKBA. The citizens in your community must love having you as their watchdog.

Don't tell me - let me guess - if there was a natural disaster (a la Katrina) where you work, and your chief told you to go round up people's lawfully owned weapons (a la Katrina) - you would do so without a second thought, wouldn't you? I would go so far to say that you would probabaly be excited about the idea of kicking in someone's door and taking their guns away. Kind of a modern-day "Krystallnacht", no?

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Quote:

Kind of a modern-day "Krystallnacht", no?

YA, ok Wolfman, decaf time .

Posted by: Rocco39

The system is flawed, plain and simple. As stated, the right to keep and bear arms is our constitutional right (some folks have a different interpretation though) and not the eminent domain of LE only. Now, that does'nt mean LTC holders should take the law into their own hands, ie. playing cop, but they should have the right to protect themselves, their families and their property.
Not allowing a law abiding, responsible citizen to carry for self protection is absurd and akin to communism. I myself have an LTC Class A and don't even own a handgun anymore, BUT, my better judgement will keep me renewing as necessary because if I let it lapse I have no doubt It'll be a bitch (if not impossible) to get it back.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

I have more than likely been carrying a weapon longer than you have been around.
No blemish on my record,firearms instructor,range officer.
Also Life Endowment NRA member.
ILA-NRA involved for many years.
So I guess that I know nothing in your book about firearms and the rights
jerks like you and your chief would like to take away from the law abiding
citizens.
Do a little homework and look at the crime rate were people own guns and
are not persecuted by your kind.

Posted by: screamineagle

funny, the small town I live in there is damn near a gun in every household. And suprisingly, very little crime too! But then again, us gun nuts must not prey on each other.

And in yet ANOTHER thread, outofmanyone speaks and has nothing to say.

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

YA, ok Wolfman, decaf time .

Let me know when you come up with a lucid and logical rebuttal instead of your crafty witticisms. In the meantime here's a little light reading:

Quote:

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or group of people as superior to the individuals composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders (Führerprinzip). Fascism is also considered to be a form of collectivism.

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Quote:

Fascism exalts the nation, state, or group of people as superior to the individuals composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders

Funny, it sound like an agency you know very well. But on another note, I PERSONALLY do not believe that LTCs should just be handed out as easy. Right to bear arms? Fine get an FID and get a shotgun or hunting rifle. You don't need to carry a desert eagle when you go shopping at Wal-MArt. Again my personal belief and my right. Sorry I am not a gun nut.

Quote:

ow many LTC holders robbed convenience stores or did drive-bys last year? How many of the nightly "shots fired" calls in our cities are the result of duly licensed gun owners just blowing off steam?

How many gun owners killed their wives and kids during domestics and how many shot cops with them, last one was in Shrewsbury.

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

How many gun owners killed their wives and kids during domestics and how many shot cops with them, last one was in Shrewsbury.

Number of spouses & kids shot with a legally possessed weapon? Can likely be counted on one hand. I'd be interested in seeing some actual numbers - if you have any please put them up. Now here's a question for you: How many spouses were beaten with fists, hammers, 2x4's, belts, books, boots and other instruments? Just had one in Palmer - no gun, drowning. How many people who have been served restraining orders (even frivolous ones) are allowed to keep their LTC? Is the lawful gun owner the problem here?

Next

As far as the Shrewsbury incident, which was not a domestic but instead a false alarm call:

Quote:

No second probe of Ragsdale case Policeman was shot accidentally By Kevin Keenan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
SHREWSBURY— Car dealer Mark P. Ragsdale will not face another grand jury probe for the accidental shooting of a Shrewsbury police officer last July, according to Timothy J. Connolly, spokesman for Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr.

In November, a grand jury heard evidence on the case, but did not indict Mr. Ragsdale. Police Chief James J. Hester Jr. asked Mr. Early to take a second look at the case in February. In a brief written statement released yesterday, Mr. Early said the case will not be submitted to another grand jury for review.

“The evidence in this case was presented to the grand jury in a thorough and complete manner. I’m not going to question the decision of the grand jury,” Mr. Early said in a statement.

Quote:

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dl...ANEWS/60714002
Chief Sampson said the department will review protocols used during such incidents, but that different situations are handled in various ways.

In this case, the officers did not announce who they were and that they were entering the home. Chief Sampson said such an announcement could be useful in certain circumstances but could also give away an officer’s tactical advantage depending on the situation.

“These are decisions police officers make every day,” he said. “The officers used the appropriate discretion.”

Not fixing blame on either side - this sucked for everyone - but this is hardly a convincing argument for depriving people the right to defend themselves. A Grand Jury will indict a can of soup but didn't see enough to go on here. If you want to save lives and protect people, do something about cars and motorcycles that can go 150 MPH. More people are killed by motor vehicles daily than shot by a legally-possessed weapon in a year.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

Too many gun nuts out there. ALthough I think the QPD chief is a dink I agree with him being stricter on issuing LTCs.

He went WAAAY about being "stricter". One guy with a spotless record needed a Class A (renewal) for employment (he collected parking meter money for a city) but when his new LTC came in, it was a Class B. When he simply questioned this, his LTC was revoked and he lost his job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

How many gun owners killed their wives and kids during domestics and how many shot cops with them, last one was in Shrewsbury.

I've made plenty of gun arrests; not one single suspect had an LTC, and I have yet to have an incident where an LTC holder committed a crime with a gun.

If someone wants someone else dead, they're going to kill them, gun or not. If all else fails, go to Sears and buy a chainsaw. The noise & mess will be dramatically worse, but the victim will end-up just as dead as if they were shot with a $10,000 match-grade target rifle.

Posted by: pahapoika

after many years with a FID card , the time came to renew it in Boston and the abuse was unreal.

hunter/skeet shooter for 20 years , 15 year correction officer with no problems inside or outside of work and i've got some cop screaming at me calling me all sorts of names in the middle of police headquarters and this is o.k.?

got a lawyer ( $1000 ) and he actually got me a class A permit which came in handy for my new part-time job.

we have had officers move to another town because the chief wouldn't issue a permit for personal grudges that went back to high school !

i'm sure the women that have been raped along the esplanade with they had some protection or the elderly that have been mugged.

but the serfs don't need to defend themselves. that's only for "trained professionals"

Posted by: 5-0

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Read up on #5 dork.

The problem with your position (Like Wolfman pointed out) is that our Constitution shouldn't have to account for your 'Personal' feelings about the situation. If a person falls within the guidelines that are set re: Criminal Record, etc..., then what is the problem?

What is your definition of a gun nut btw?

I love your point about a Shotgun or Rifle... Am I supposed to carry that when I take my family into Boston? I have 3 kids, and there are scumbags who know what I look like out of uniform. And don't even bother saying that only LEO should need it then, because I worked for many years with DYS and DSS kids that I ran into constantly outside of work, and twice had an issue with them. Can I carry a gun to protect myself in that instance? Would that personally offend you?

Posted by: sabreRED

Too many people want to change laws based on the most obscure and improbable situations. The fact of the matter is permit holding gun owners probably commit less than .001% of all gun crimes.

To me its not about having the right to own a gun, its about having the right to protect myself and my family.

Land of the FREE home of the BRAVE. If you are not brave enough to face the fact that securing the rights of the entire population is ultimately more important than guaranteeing your personal safety 100% of the time than you are nothing but a COWARD and theres no room for cowards in my Country.

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

Too many gun nuts out there. ALthough I think the QPD chief is a dink I agree with him being stricter on issuing LTCs.

Your mode of thinking is EXACTLY why criminals feel emboldened to commit violent crimes. Given your comment, it is clear that you are not mentally qualified to even discuss the issue.

Posted by: csauce777

‘‘You have a right to carry a firearm - you shouldn't be forced to give a reason,'' Wallace said. ‘‘Do the police need a reason to carry a gun? They're running into the same people on the street that we are."

While I agree that LTC's should be issued...this guy strikes me as a complete moron. He doesnt see the distinct difference in the encounters police officers have everyday with violent offenders and those of the civilians. He equates the public's everyday need to carry a gun with that of police officers. Dumbass...

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

Thank God I live in a state where I dont have to explain to ANYONE why I choose to use my God given right of self defense!

Posted by: SGT_GRUNT_USMC

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

Are you a cop?Where do work?Your views about the 2nd Amendment are very scary.Citizens have the right to protect themselves.I've probably made more felony arrests in the last few months than you've made in your whole career,and I've never had a problem with a citizen that is a CCW holder.

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

No I am just playing one, unlike you Mr.Felony Arrest King. Give us a break, my opinion and my personal belief. Las Vegas is a different world,everyone carries and it is one of the most dangerous cities in the country, also has the most officer involved shootings. Keep it up!

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

No I am just playing one, unlike you Mr.Felony Arrest King. Give us a break, my opinion and my personal belief. Las Vegas is a different world,everyone carries and it is one of the most dangerous cities in the country, also has the most officer involved shootings. Keep it up!

Hey, I may look like the SS, but you sure think like one, Herr Hauptman!

In its most basic form, the issue of gun control is an issue of elitism. In places like Europe, only a privileged "warrior class" were allowed to bear arms and defend themselves. The lowly serfs and peasants were forbidden because the Kings and Nobles feared a class rebellion. Fast forward to the the revolution when the so-called "lower classes" fomented rebellion, threw out the King and his armies, and built a better country. This due, in no small part, to the presence of the armed militia, the citizen defending his hearth and home. When the framers of the Constitution wrote the Bill of Rights, they wanted to guarantee that no General, Dictator or Monarch could hold sway over free men. Their guarantee was the 2nd amendment, insuring a person could defend themselves from tyranny, both their government and criminality.

It would seem that in our current society, riddled with selfishness, pettiness, idiocy, and lack of responsibility we have forgotten our roots. This country was founded on the belief that all men are created equal. Every person should not only have the option of defending themselves, it should be considered a social responsibility!

Ask yourself why, when proportionate gun ownership is actually much lower than in any time our nation's history, is criminality at an all time high? Because we let them. We are told in media "give the criminal your money", "give him your dignity", "its not worth your life", but what you are actually doing is telling criminals that what they are doing, preying on their fellow man, is okay! Our nation of laws exists because those who live within it agree to follow the social contract, the criminals who do not are traitors to the very fabric of our way of life.

Because of the cowardly mentality that is prevalent among our society, these predators strike at will, with very little chance anyone will fight them. 100 years ago, crime existed, but criminals tread a lot more lightly. The gentleman walking down the street in the late hours carried a heavy walking stick and a small pistol in his vest pocket to discourage any banditry. The farmer kept a shotgun at his bedside, and taught his wife and children how to use it, in case he wasn't around. Police existed, but no one thought of them as their personal bodyguards, the way people think they are today. And no police officer would ever think to take away a good citizen's right to defend themselves.

To rob people of their constitutional right to defend themselves is not a "safety measure"; it protects no one but the criminals and the heavy-handed government. It is truly a step backwards to the days when the terrified peasant had to rely on the nobles to protect them.

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

Very Well Put Killjoy!

Posted by: BB-59

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

Too many gun nuts out there. ALthough I think the QPD chief is a dink I agree with him being stricter on issuing LTCs.

What is your definition of a "gun nut"?

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy

To rob people of their constitutional right to defend themselves is not a "safety measure"; it protects no one but the criminals and the heavy-handed government. It is truly a step backwards to the days when the terrified peasant had to rely on the nobles to protect them.

Q: What's the first thing every totalitarian government has done once in power?

A: Banned the private ownership of firearms.

Coincidence?

Posted by: kwflatbed

oneoutofyourmind is not going to answer as to where he works or what he does truthfully,
he would be an embrassement to his department and fellow LEO's if he is one.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

if he is one.

That's the $100,000 question.

When I was in graduate school, I did a major research paper on the so-called "shall issue" states, especially Florida. When Florida started issuing CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permits on-demand of qualified individuals, violent crime dropped immediately and steadily. And, in spite of what many politicians predicted, there were no gunfights in the street between CCW permit holders. Eventually, less than 1/10th of 1% of CCW permits were revoked for misuse of a firearm.

I still have that paper on disk if anyone's interested in reading it, PM me your e-mail address. Just keep in mind the data is over 5 years old, so I make no guarantees of its current accuracy.

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

The Second Amendment ends with, "... shall not be infringed."

Do I need a permit issued by my chief to exercise my right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Giving up this right would make us all safer. The police would then be able to stop everyone and enter homes and get many more guns (and a lot more everything).

Should we give up this right, in your personal belief? If not, do you think you are being consistent?

Posted by: OutOfManyOne

Who said of anyone taking away guns. Give them an FID, shotgun,rifle, hell give them a LTC for a pistol permit but with restrictions and they can keep all the guns they want in their homes. You should have some solid reason to be carrying a pistol with you at all times. Since 1994 it's been easier to deny LTCs to people with various records including CWOFs, that is the reason the LTCs in MA have decreased. I just don't see why you would want to carry a pistol with you at all times, especially when if you don't really need one. 90% of the officers I know NEVER carry off-duty, except for the new guys but that wears off in a few years.

Posted by: REILEYDOG

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

Who said of anyone taking away guns. Give them an FID, shotgun,rifle, hell give them a LTC for a pistol permit but with restrictions and they can keep all the guns they want in their homes. You should have some solid reason to be carrying a pistol with you at all times. Since 1994 it's been easier to deny LTCs to people with various records including CWOFs, that is the reason the LTCs in MA have decreased. I just don't see why you would want to carry a pistol with you at all times, especially when if you don't really need one. 90% of the officers I know NEVER carry off-duty, except for the new guys but that wears off in a few years.

The "solid reason" for carrying a pistol that you speak of is called the SECOND AMENDMENT! It is a constitutional right, not a "reason". Why can't you seem to understand that? Nobody should have to explain to you why they want to carry a firearm. It is their right.

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

I just don't see why you would want to carry a pistol with you at all times, especially when if you don't really need one. 90% of the officers I know NEVER carry off-duty, except for the new guys but that wears off in a few years.
I was shopping with a friend of mine and his kids a few years ago and we ran into a pos that he had arrested 2 weeks before, the arrest was resisted and the asshole was taken into custody. Ted NEVER carried off duty for a number of valid reasons that Ive heard over the years.Fortunately the ass just shot off his mouth and was escorted out of the mall. IT just as easily couldve gone the other way. If your a cop you should always be strapped ....too many vindicative people out there and as a police officer you deal with a dispropotionate amount of them.IMO

Posted by: SGT_GRUNT_USMC

Quote:

Originally Posted by OutOfManyOne

I don't know a Cop that doesn't carry off duty.some guys I know even keep their shotguns and AR-15's in thier personal vehicles in case the Sh*t hits the fan off duty.A police officer that does not carry off duty is seriously neglecting their officer safety.I carry EVERYWHERE, to the gym,the mall,to church,even when I visit Massachusetts per HR218.As far as a "reason to carry a pistol" for citizens...how about the 2nd Amendment.Here in Nevada all a citizen needs is a valid form of identification,be a Nevada resident,and pass a background check and they can buy any weapon in any gun store they want including handguns and so called "assault weapons".Open carry and glovebox carry is legal without any type of permit.To carry concealed one must obtain a permit,which is issued by the Sheriff.Nevada is a "shall issue" state.There was a home invasion this morning in my area.A citizen with a gun saved his family's life because he was armed.

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6928741

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

90% of the officers I know NEVER carry off-duty, except for the new guys but that wears off in a few years.

Who are the 10%? The gun nuts? The sharp ones? Why is being a victim cool? Why don't you tell that to Officer Ken Hammond, who probably saved dozens of lives with his quick thinking and .45 pistol. I guess we're lucky; had he been on a few more years he wouldn't be concerned about the safety of his family and himself, and could have been walking around unarmed like a "real" cop.

You act like being a lazy, irresponsible, unobservant cop is something to be proud of. "Don't worry about wearing a vest, kid, I've been on the job twenty years, and I've never been shot at." Is this the wise advice of a veteran officer or stupid advice of an officer too lazy to use his protective equipment?

They have word for that kind of attitude; its called complacent.

com·pla·cent 1.pleased, esp. with oneself or one's merits, advantages, situation, etc., often without awareness of some potential danger or defect; self-satisfied.

I always carry off-duty and have had several run-ins with people I've arrested, summonsed or cited. Nothing but a few harsh words has ever come of it, but you can bet your ass I was happy to be packing in case the sh*tbird wanted to escalate the situation.

Oh well...they say that ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy

I always carry off-duty and have had several run-ins with people I've arrested, summonsed or cited. Nothing but a few harsh words has ever come of it, but you can bet your ass I was happy to be packing in case the sh*tbird wanted to escalate the situation.

+1000

Unless I am consuming or planning to consume alcoholic beverages or I'm swimming I have a gun with me, even when cutting the grass. It's become so second-nature that I feel strange if I don't have a gun with me.

Given the current state of affairs in the US, it's just a matter of time before another potential tragedy is averted by an armed off-duty police officer....or an unarmed off-duty police officer watches the slaughter before it's his and his family's turn.

It's totally up to you which category you want to be in.

Posted by: SGT_GRUNT_USMC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

I don't even go to bars or nightclubs anymore since I've been a Cop because I want to have my gun except on rare occasions.Guns and alcohol don't mix.I have my own swimming pool.Even near the pool there is a gun in my bag.My girfriend also has here own gun that she keeps in here night stand.Then there's all my guns in the gun safe,plus my ammo lockers.Yes,I am firearms enthusiast,not a "gun nut"
I'm believe it's the duty of a police officer to be ready and armed even off duty especially in this age of terrorism and active shooters.

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGT_GRUNT_USMC

It's the right and duty of all citizens who live peaceably in our society...not just police officers. A citizen's right to defend themself trumps any cop's obligations.....because there are no obligations on an officers part other than their own moral beliefs.

Posted by: BB-59

Hey, I never used to carry a gun, now I do. Why you ask?

Since the liberals and the Political left wing have made there influence felt crime has gone up, not down. The philosophy of better to be a sheep and hope for the best does not, and has never will work.

I see all the posts damming the Sheriffs as a whole for being political hacks, and for the most part I for one will not argue with that. But when the colonel of the state police and various police chiefs in MA go in lock step with this assault on lawful citizens right to own, posses, or carry a firearm something is wrong somewhere.

Ask yourself an honest question, does a private citizen have the "right" to police protection? I give you the answer, "no". We have evolved to the point where we have insurance companies canceling home owners insurance because they have an "aggressive breed of dog". And no, I am talking about the people who raise fighting dogs. There is over 30 dogs on the list that disqualify a home owner from owning say a German Shepherd.

Now I know this sight is primarily a LE sight, and many on this sight feel "their" right to carry will never be touched because were LE. Have you seen how far the liberal left is pushing Gun Banning they have a bill pending in san Francisco that will require officers to secure there guns in the station when off duty.

And how about when we retire? Oh yeah that Federal law that covers LE right to carry, because MPTC only has recommended courses of fire that does not satisfy the "state mandated course" section of the law. Do not threat I am sure we will soon have a commision set up to explore this at an astronomical course to the taxpayers

To be honest with the amount of licensed gun owners in this state this should be a non issue. We are all sheep waiting for or hoping it is the other person that gets trampled, and no LE will not be immune, wait and see.

Posted by: pahapoika

Have you seen how far the liberal left is pushing Gun Banning they have a bill pending in san Francisco that will require officers to secure there guns in the station when off duty.

all ready policy in Canada

and no LE will not be immune, wait and see.

i hope nobody really believes the Libs want us to have guns too.
the goal is to dis-arm everybody, then they can rule without fear of reprisal ( which is what the 2nd amendment is all about )

Posted by: BB-59

Quote:

Originally Posted by pahapoika

Have you seen how far the liberal left is pushing Gun Banning they have a bill pending in san Francisco that will require officers to secure there guns in the station when off duty.

all ready policy in Canada

and no LE will not be immune, wait and see.

i hope nobody really believes the Libs want us to have guns too.
the goal is to dis-arm everybody, then they can rule without fear of reprisal ( which is what the 2nd amendment is all about )

Unfortunately, we (LE) in general will not push our unions to spread the word about how the rank and file feel. (Most PDs have rules against individual officers making public comments about anything.)

By the time we realize what has happened we will be disarmed and at the mercy of a outlaws and our own government. All in the name of Public Safety.

Every country that eventually takes these measures assures it's citizens it is for a safer, more civilized society. Please compare Australia before and after the gun ban they placed on it's citizens in the 90s, crime doubled. When the anti gunners were confronted with this fact they replied that is the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Need I qoute Hitler for his explanation of Gun Control? The great purges began in Germany only after the guns were confiscated.

Look at our campus police being denied firearms and even body armor because "it may send the wrong message". And before anyone says campus police are not real police, keep in mind they are usually first on the scene and they know the lay of the campus.

Am I saying every one should carry a gun. Absolutely not! But if a citizen meets the criteria why put roadblocks in there way? "No chief or PD would do that!" Okay let me get a law abiding citizen of the city of Boston and attempt, repeat attempt to get a Class A permit. Oh, and then show me how this has lowered crime in Boston.

</IMG>

Posted by: Dane

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Posted by: BB-59

Outstanding! This is a well thought out intelligent statement.

The problem is if the groups that should be addressing this issue are pretty much silent in this area. LE Unions in this state add nothing to the pros and cons of gun ownership.

Individuals that post or state individually outstanding articles like this one get isolated and ignored by both the powers that be and our mainstream press. Why? Because in this area, the liberal left, and intellectualy superior mindset feels that defending one's life sneds the "wrong message".

I point out campus police as an example, many have posted on this sight the uphill battle, even after the VT killing spree, to get body armor for these officers who are the first LE responding to the scene. Why, because we laws that say and campus rules that say yau cannot bring weapons here.

So obviously, there is no need for an officer to have these items because sensible, reasonable, literate, people will not violate the rules of society.
After all, I watch the movies and I know the good guys always win, right?

Only together can we make a difference.

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

Awesome Post Dane!

Posted by: Dane

We can thank Major Caudill for that piece of wisdom. And as BB-59 put it so well, it's up to guys like us to get involved and get things done. Let those elected officials know for whom they work. They can't just have have our votes. They have to EARN them! If we let those liberal moonbats continue unchecked, well, you know what'll happen.

An armed society is a polite society.

Posted by: masterb183

Wolfman, Thanks for responding to that person.With the way things are going in the world these days, you would think there would be an increase in gun permits. If someone broke into my home and wanted to kill my family, I'd rather be a so called "Gun nut" with a loaded 45 in my hand than be a bleeding heart Liberal hoping the criminal will just leave so I can call the police. Well i've got news for those people that would rather "talk it over" or "reason" with a criminal that has a gun pointed at their victims head...... The coroner has plenty of body bags for you and yours. Think about It....

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