Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: 4198

This has to do with guns, so I stuck it in here do you think this statement is true?

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: The police are violating people's rights when it comes to carrying firearms. We're supposed to be able to carry them, according to the Constitution, but the cities and towns like to control it and don't want to issue permits. Fact is; they don't want anyone carrying a gun legally and want to arrest those who are carrying them illegally!

What do you think about this? seems to be right on with most departments, but should the average "joe" be able to get a license to carry without having to go to the staton 10 times, complete a firearms course, etc? even then it usually won't be issued for "all lawful purposes" it will be only target/hunting etc.

Please share your opinion on this issue. Thanks!

---

Posted by: pahapoika

i would have to say yes

---

Posted by: SOT

Losing? Losing? we have lost our RIGHT to bear arms, now it's considered a privilege.

---

Posted by: Wolfman

+1 SOT. Name me one other consitutionally protected right that requires a person to pay over $100 for a license to exercise it. Those who still enjoy this right/privilege are watching it being eroded more and more each day by the actions of the uneducated, the misinformed, the cowards, the moonbats and the politicians.

There are certainly those out there who are not socially fit to be carrying a firearm; however it is absurd to automatically assume everyone is unfit until they go through a lengthy, expensive and frequently biased inquisition and licensing process. There should be no differentiation between carrying a firearm for hunting, target or defense.

However, you are mistaken on one aspect of the original post: it is not the police who are violating your right to keep and bear arms, it is your elected officials. They write the laws that the police are sworn to enforce. I would guess that the majority of rank and file police officers (a) really couldn't care one way or the other or (b) have no problem with a law abiding citizen safely keeping and carrying arms.

---

Posted by: Macop

No right is absolute no matter how you put it. You cant yell fire in a theater or the like.

---

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop No right is absolute no matter how you put it. You cant yell fire in a theater or the like.

What do the words "...shall not be infringed" mean to you?

---

Posted by: RumRunner

we lost our rights a long time ago in MA
it makes you sick that just north of us NH has a right to carry law.

---

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop No right is absolute no matter how you put it. You cant yell fire in a theater or the like.

But do you automatically gag everyone who goes into a theater to make sure, unless they pay you $100 and go through an interview process to have their gags removed?

---

Posted by: Dane

I know I don't remember ever paying $100 to vote in an election. I guess gun owners don't enjoy "equal protection under the law."

---

Posted by: Tuna

I deal with lots of people carrying all different types of firearms during hunting season. My take on all this is that 99% of these people are absolutely legit but have to jump through all types of hoops just to maintain the right to carry. On the other hand the 1% who can't legally have a firearm in their possession, WHEN CAUGHT, never get anything from the court. I charge a person ch269s10 and it always gets pled down to something under 140. It's the courts and the politicians that put the burden on the legal gun owner and allow the law violator to conduct business as usual. There would be fewer as-holes out there if there were more legit gun owners carrying. Just my 2cents

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

As long as the voters in Massachusetts keep electing the liberal left,
who appoint more liberal left judges things will never change in this
state.

I have been banging my head against the wall along with a lot of
other people to change the gun laws in this state for over 40 years.

If we gain one step foward we are kicked back forty by the liberals.

If it wasn't for my wife having so close ties to her family I would move to
a free carry state in a second.

Join and support the NRA, Goal, etc. they are the only ones that have
been supporting our rights in MA for years, without them fighting
none of us would have an LTC now.

Harry
NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA-ILA
GOAL

---

Posted by: RumRunner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna There would be fewer as-holes out there if there were more legit gun owners carrying. Just my 2cents

Agreed

---

Posted by: Harley387

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop No right is absolute no matter how you put it. You cant yell fire in a theater or the like.

MACOP, how are ya brother? I feel compelled to respond to your post. You stated that "No Right is absolute"....yet, doesn't that statement violate the very pricipal of having "Rights"? In fact, I refer you to the Declaration of Independence, which states in part....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pusuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I pesonally feel that a persons "Rights" are irrevokeable. As far as gun laws, I understand that a person such as a convicted felon must give up some of his/her rights, but revoking, altering, or denying the rights of any person without reason is just plain WRONG. Just my 2 cents Bro.

---

Posted by: cj3441

At the very least this state should become a "shall issue" state. This could keep the current process pretty much the same but could take the "absolute" power away from the Police chiefs who say you can't have a LTC just because. Only in Massachusetts could the Supreme Court of the US not be able to take away your rights but a local Police Chief can take away your 2nd amendment rights for no reason.

---

Posted by: Macop

Otta and Wolfman your analogies don't make sence. Besides whats all the whinning about. I mean the gun laws are silly in this dam state. But if people's rights are being violated with respect to the 2nd Amendment, why do I have a LTC for all lawful purposes, every town I have worked in LTCs for all lawful purposes were handed out like friggin candy.

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

Macop your head must be stuck in the sand if you think that LTC's
are given out like candy in MA.

---

Posted by: j809

I don't know where you guys live, but in all the towns i lived and the PDs I worked, giving out LTCs is not a big deal unless you got a record.

---

Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:

I don't know where you guys live, but in all the towns i lived and the PDs I worked, giving out LTCs is not a big deal unless you got a record.

Walk into Boston PD with a clean record and a smile and watch what happens with your LTC.

---

Posted by: screamineagle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killjoy Walk into Boston PD with a clean record and a smile and watch what happens with your LTC.

same with Worcester.

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

The list of cities and towns that you will have a problem with
is much longer then the places you will not have a problem.
I don't care how clean your record is.
Even if you are just renewing your LTC the problems are there.

---

Posted by: Wolfman

macop, our analogies make perfect sense. The Constitution does not grant rights, it lists and protects rights that are acknowledged to be inherent and preexisting and specifically states that the government may not interfere with the free exercise of those rights. It does not preclude criminal prosecutions should one of those rights be exercised in an unlawful manner; if someone uses the press falsely and maliciously they may be subject to civil penalties; if someone murders another with a firearm they may be sent away to jail (unless they live in MA, then they will be acquitted and sent back out amongst the sheep).

However the government may not assume that a person will be predisposed to use their rights in an unlawful manner. That is why no one is forced to wear a gag going into a movie theater under the logic that they will falsely shout "FIRE!" - but for some reason it is assumed that should a citizen take a firearm in their hands they will transform into a psychotic killing machine. Until fairly recently in our nations history this has not been the case - 50 years ago you could walk into your local hardware store and purchase a shotgun along with a bag of nails and fenceposts.

One of the primary reasons that the Second Amendment was incorporated into the Bill of Rights was as an "insurance policy" so to speak - our nation was under the thumb of an oppressive regime which taxed its subjects unfairly and heavily, placed burdensome restrictions on people's ability to thrive and flourish. The only way left for the people of the United States to shake off this oppression was to take up arms and do it the "hard way". Our founding fathers, showing extraordinary vision, wrote a safety valve into the Constitution to make sure that if the new government became oppressive, bloated, and tyrannical then the citizens would be once again able to take up arms if necessary and set things straight.

Should the right of the people to keep and bear arms be whittled away, there would be nothing to prevent a tyrannical government from rising once again - which many people feel is happening to us now. Look at the taxes, tolls, restrictions, government mandates, political power struggles and unchecked fiscal gluttony and tell me that those who enjoy being in power fear the ability of the citizenship to stand up and say "enough is enough!" - and actually be able to do something about it.

Macop, tell me you are not so naive and narrow minded that you buy into the whole "gun control" myth. Take a step back and look long and hard at the big picture, if you dare. It can be frightening - and honestly a few years ago I was exactly where you are. The arduous licensing processes and incomprehensible laws do nothing to control the unlawful use of firearms, are bizarre restrictions written by those who have no understanding of the issue that only serve to make an honest citizen a criminal when the collapsible stock on his rifle is turned into criminal contraband with the stroke of a pen.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

---

Posted by: pahapoika

Walk into Boston PD with a clean record and a smile and watch what happens with your LTC.

and don't expect any "professional courtesy" either

but sarge , i carry a gun in work. yah that's nice kid , beat it !

---

Posted by: KozmoKramer

In 25 years as an NRA member, I have never read such eloquently written editorials on what the Second Amendment means as those put up by Wolfman and Killjoy.
You can read some more of their pearls here:
http://www.masscops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35734
You guys are Patriots in purest sense of the word and I'm glad your on our side.

---

Posted by: Macop

kwflatbed you are wrong, there are more smaller towns where they are gonna hand em out unless you have a record as opposed to places like Boston, Worcester, and the other cities which are out numbered by smaller P.Ds. And my head is NOt stuck in the sand, your just to ignorant to actually think there is a world outside where you live or work. I'll say it again, towns I have worked and lived in give anyone a LTC if there are no complications. I have seen it, so take you head out of the sand

Wolfman you are the narrow minded one, and rather long winded. I never spoke of any gun control myth either way, so if you don't mind, don't put words in my mouth. And your preeching to the quire I understand what you wrote. I am well aware of the 2nd amendment. All I said was that certain rights are not absolute, even liberals are smart enough to know that. Maybe you should go live in a bunker if your so paranoid.

---

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Wolfman you are the narrow minded one, and rather long winded. I never spoke of any gun control myth either way, so if you don't mind, don't put words in my mouth. And your preeching to the quire I understand what you wrote. I am well aware of the 2nd amendment. All I said was that certain rights are not absolute, even liberals are smart enough to know that. Maybe you should go live in a bunker if your so paranoid.

Sorry if you think my reply is long-winded, my License to Speak Freely is unrestricted and it has a high capacity endorsement.

Also, firearms licensing is "gun control" - or more precisely, "gun owner control". You say that peoples rights are not being violated; the greater restrictions and costs placed on gun licensing and ownership is the violation of rights of which I speak. As the rules are changed by those in office (as they have been changed in the past and continue to be changed), the number of people who are lawfully able to protect themselves, their families, and their principles will continue to dwindle until all that will remain are those who answer directly to the politicians. Paranoid? Refute my arguments. Show me legislation that has allowed more people to become licensed. AWB sunset? Not in MA. Hicaps for civilian purchase? Not in MA. Steal a chicken 60 years ago and try to get your LTC renewed? Not in MA.

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

Macop why don't you just admit it that you side with the liberal left on gun issues.
Do you support Duval,the Kennedy's, and Kerry and the rest of the liberals ??

When you have worked as hard as the people who fight the politicians and their
laws that they try to pass in this state maybe you would understand.

You sound like you have only worked in East Podunk with 2 residents, you
and the chief who issues the LTC.

You have read on MassCops that there are chiefs that will not issue an LTC
to members of their own force.

Go and listen sometime to the horror stories that the chief from the western
part of the state that is one of the few that belive that everyone has the right
to own and carry.

Go and listen to the stories from the hunters that have had permits for 40+ years
that have gone for a renewal and been refused for some minor offense that happened
40 years ago,but nothing since and many renewals in between.

Ask the guy or gal whose spouse got pissed and filed a false complaint and had
their firearms taken away and permits revoked.

Macop it's time to get out of East Podunk and into the real world.

---

Posted by: Macop

Where is east podunk? So you call me a liberal cause I disagree with you, now your going to far.

---

Posted by: Harley387

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop Where is east podunk? So you call me a liberal cause I disagree with you, now your going to far.

MACOP, relax bro. I understand where these guys are coming from, and knowing you, I also understand what you are saying. I think that perhaps your not understanding the gist of the argument here. The real fight isn't about "the guns". The bigger issue is the fact that politicians have systematically taken a constitutuional right away from citizens. Let's just consider for a moment this.....let's say that Politicians decided to attack some of our other constitutional rights with the same reckless abandon that they have used to manipulate the "RIGHT TO CARRY". Let's suppose that tomorrow, Deval Patrick decided that your right to free speech was in fact a priviledge, and in order to protest anything, you had to pay $100, take a class that cost you another $100, and pass a background check. Let's suppose that if your ex girlfriend (I know you have a few ) has ever called the Police because she was a vindictive expletive, you must forfeit your right to free speech. How would you feel about it? I'm guessing that you would be pissed, as anyone would. Well, you may not be a "gun guy". However, many citizens are. When you strip those people of a Constitutional right.....they understandably get pissed. Try to consider the issue as a "rights" issue, as opposed to a "gun" issue. My guess is you'll better understand why this is such a heated issue. Take care Bro.

---

Posted by: Macop

Harley, im gonna knock that nice new house right down to the ground.

---

Posted by: Harley387

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop Harley, im gonna knock that nice new house right down to the ground.

Well, you may......if you ever leave Podunk! LOL!!

---

Posted by: Macop

Well, since im a liberal, probably not. LOL

---

Posted by: BB-59

This is an old tired subject. The minute you (we) were required to obtain a license it ceased to be a right and became a privilege.

The second amendment when taken in it's purest form was intended to give the everyday citizen protection from a tyrannical government. It was not intended to safeguard sportsmans, and hunters.

Why the attorney general does not prosecute the anti-gun newsman Rosenthal for traveling to another state, violating federal law (straw purchase) than breaking MA law (bringing an illegal in the state), demonstrates how unbalanced our process has become.


Just be lucky we still have privately owned guns in this state at all, look at the line up against gun owners; Duval, Kennedy, Mumbles, Kerry.

---

Posted by: Macop

Your right it is a old tired subject. And BTW, I aint no stinkin liberal.

---

Posted by: j809

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop Your right it is a old tired subject. And BTW, I aint no stinkin liberal.

Aaron, you have been called worse things.

---

Posted by: Macop

I know Yimmy, by your wife, lol.

---

Posted by: Otto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop ... I am well aware of the 2nd amendment. All I said was that certain rights are not absolute, even liberals are smart enough to know that. Maybe you should go live in a bunker if your so paranoid.

You may be well aware of the Second Amendment, but not what it means and why it is there. Please tell us what you think, "...shall not be infringed" means.

Wolfman: Very well put!

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

A Couple Of Examples Of "Shall Not Be Infringed"


http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/dan/eddd051300.htm Full article:

An Internet Publication for Real Americans
The SierraTimes News Ranch

"…shall not be infringed."
by Colonel Dan

I always thought that part of the Second Amendment was very simple and very clear:

"….the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Seems clear enough to me, but let’s dissect this somewhat.

We all know how the anti-gun crowd [really, the anti-constitution crowd] can distort language to suit their purpose, [remember the dispute over the definition of "is" by Clinton] so let’s look at this word by word under a light of common sense - devoid of spin or agenda. My question, "What is the government prohibited from doing by this last little phrase. According to Webster, here’s what those final four words mean. [I know this exercise might make some lawyers gag, but let’s go ahead with it anyway and see where it leads.]

shall: Determination or promise.

Inevitability. Command. A directive or requirement.

To have to: MUST not: " In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal or prohibition"

be: "Make: cause to become"

infringed: "To encroach upon something."

Another way then to state the concept of the Second Amendment would be:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms must in no way or to no degree become encroached upon."

Colonel Dan
is a contributing columnist for several well-known organizations. His pro-constitution articles and "no compromise on liberty" approach routinely strike a chord with conservatives and a nerve with liberals.



http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/infringed.htm

Shall Not Be Infringed

by Jennifer Freeman

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In May 2001, U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, publicly confirmed that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Later that same year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Texas) upheld this view in U.S. vs. Emerson. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (San Francisco) proclaimed that the Second Amendment did not protect individuals' right to own or possess weapons as stated in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer . The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear both cases on appeal.

The U.S. Department of Justice re-confirmed in December 2004 that the Second Amendment is very clear in that it pertains to individuals. It also confirmed that the term "militia" referred to a citizen militia comprised of adult male civilians, not a governmental agency such as the National Guard.
What has very clearly been neglected, however, is the latter part of the Second Amendment which very clearly states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (emphasis added by this author). And yet our right is being infringed on a constant basis from all levels of government. And the U.S. Justice Department seems to come up empty-handed when it comes down to enforcing its position on an individual right.
A few examples include:

• New Jersey - Assembly Bill 3998 would allow the government to confiscate your building or vehicle for the crime of illegally possessing a firearm. An illegal possession includes possessing an ordinary handgun, rifle, or shotgun without the proper permit. This bill was introduced in May 2005.
  
  
• New York - Ronald Dixon was prosecuted for defending his children against an armed intruder without first completing all of the necessary paperwork required to own a handgun. Mr. Dixon served time in the same facility as the burglar. June 2003.
  
  
• Massachusetts - Law-abiding citizen loses his concealed carry permit and his right to possess 20th century firearms over a "wardrobe malfunction". Basically, the wind blew his jacket open exposing his otherwise concealed firearm. No shots were fired, the firearm was not directed at anyone or anything. Unfortunately this gentleman's right to own firearms has been reduced to historical relics as a result. May 2005.
  
  
• Washington D.C. requires a license to purchase any handgun, shotgun, or rifle. All firearms must be registered with the police. However, the District ceased the registration process on handguns in 1976 making the ownership of handguns completely banned with a few possible exceptions.

The list of such infringements goes on and on across the country at the city, county, state, and federal levels. Of course, most of us are willing to accept some form of control. This is obvious based on the thousands of gun control laws that are already on the books. At what point, however, does common sense become blatant infringement? And what is the Justice Department doing to protect us from such infringements?
The only possible recourse, at this time, would be through the court system and would involve more money than most folks can afford. Of course, these cases never end with one judgement. Rather they tend to be appealed and appealed all the way up a Circuit Court where the rulings vary depending on your geographic locale. And while the average citizen may not be able to afford to fight such cases, the government can easily afford it through the use of our tax dollars.
Ultimately, the U.S. Justice Department and/or the U.S. Supreme Court will have to take definitive action to protect our right from the anti-American predators that seek to destroy liberty. If they fail to act, their position will be nothing more than words printed on paper as will the Second Amendment.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
http://www.libertybelles.org
jennifer@libertybelles.org

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser