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 Justices to Hear Gun Control Case
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: CJIS

Justices to Hear Gun Control Case
New York Times - 1 hour ago
By DAVID STOUT WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - The Supreme Court agreed today to consider an issue that has divided politicians, constitutional scholars and ordinary citizens for decades: whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual ...

Posted by: mpd61

Oh Shit!

This ones for all the marbles kids! better start saying your prayers NOW!
[-o<

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

Got that right, this is for the whole shooting match! Scarry as hell too.

Posted by: id1811xecj

I don't think there has ever been a better court for the pro gun side. This will be interesting to see. I was reading an interesting and pretty unbiased evaluation of the historical arguments behind the amendment. The conclusion was that there is support on either side and it is not clear. The wording is just strange and it is punctuated in an odd way.

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

thats true enough and were not likeley to get a " better" court

Posted by: BB-59

You are all correct, but look what is going to be going on in Boston. LE performing warrantless searches for weapons in private dwellings without a warrant.

In Germany after Hitler came to power the same thing was done in the name of good public order.

We are on slippery slope. "What happened in Germany will not happen here."

What happened in New Orleans when the public was at there most venerable, strip the Law abiding citizen of there registered guns. Better to be a victim of both the scum and the Government than have the right to protect life and property.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by id1811xecj

I don't think there has ever been a better court for the pro gun side. This will be interesting to see. I was reading an interesting and pretty unbiased evaluation of the historical arguments behind the amendment. The conclusion was that there is support on either side and it is not clear. The wording is just strange and it is punctuated in an odd way.

One last time:

When the constitution talks about rights it's simple:

People(s)= individual
Government= State

Posted by: kwflatbed

Support The NRA they are pushing.

http://www.masscops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24291

Posted by: Macop

Anyone who is foolish enough to compare us to hitler/nazi germany should not reproduce. The searches are consent searches. What part of that do you not understand? That means they can say no and the search doesnt happen, no violation of rights!! oui vey, these morons are coming out of the wood work.

BTW doesnt New York city have something similar, I heard someone say that the fed carry law for cops does not apply there for some reason, can anyone elaborate?

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

Anyone who is foolish enough to compare us to hitler/nazi germany should not reproduce. The searches are consent searches. What part of that do you not understand? That means they can say no and the search doesnt happen, no violation of rights!! oui vey, these morons are coming out of the wood work.

BTW doesnt New York city have something similar, I heard someone say that the fed carry law for cops does not apply there for some reason, can anyone elaborate?
Our current gun laws are based on Nazi Germany's gun laws. One of the prosecutors in the Nurenbug trials was Dodd, who became a Us senator and helped Ted Kennedy write the assine laws we have now.
For now the searches are concentual...just like seatbelts used to be voluntary.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macop

Anyone who is foolish enough to compare us to hitler/nazi germany should not reproduce. The searches are consent searches. What part of that do you not understand? That means they can say no and the search doesnt happen, no violation of rights!! oui vey, these morons are coming out of the wood work.

BTW doesnt New York city have something similar, I heard someone say that the fed carry law for cops does not apply there for some reason, can anyone elaborate?

Aaron,

Watch out you're gonna get somebody pissed again! In any event, HR 218 is so ambiguous and rambling it's hard to flesh out the parameters. Following areas leave alot open to interpretation
1. Who's a "law enforcement officer"
2. Annual qualification standards left open to interpretation (each state different)
3. Credentials for "retired" L.E.
4. HR 218 v. 14th amendment (states versus feds, NYC is own animal etc...)

It's a bunch of bullshit! 2nd amendment helps guarantee the other parts of the Constitution and the Media folks, who always try to wave the 1st amendment so feverishly, try to stomp out the right to bear arms!

Posted by: id1811xecj

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

One last time:

When the constitution talks about rights it's simple:

People(s)= individual
Government= State

If it were that simple, you would have 200 years of case law on your side. Frankly, I think you are going to get a good decision for you.

Posted by: Wolfman

Slightly of topic but somewhat relevant:

The .gov is getting into a lot of matters they really have no business being involved in...
Seatbelts - used to be optional, now mandatory
Health insurance - used to be optional, now mandatory
Smoking - regulated just as much, if not more, than firearms
...to name a few.

"That government is best that governs least." It's about time that people stop brooming their personal responsibilities and difficult choices off on their government and start taking more control of their own lives. This door-to-door firearms horseshit concerns me (a) because is smacks of fascism, (b) it shows just how woefully ignorant of their rights the people are, (c) it's targeted towards lower-class population and (d) it encourages people to allow the police to step in and take over as a "big brother", and opens a door to numbing of people towards this type of government intrusion.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I am thankful that my great (x 11) grandparents took the brave step and huddled together on a small ship hundreds of years ago and came across the ocean to form a nation where the will of the King was not arbitrarily imposed on the people.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by id1811xecj

If it were that simple, you would have 200 years of case law on your side. Frankly, I think you are going to get a good decision for you.

Good point. Fact is though that the Supreme Court has only around a seventy year history mulling through Gun laws, starting after WWI.

I am NOT a constitutional law expert or constitutional historian. I did however write a Thesis at U/Mass Boston regarding the FAILURE of gun control LEGISLATION to impact crime. Got a 4.0 and would like to think it was a critical and objective product. In any event, I pray you're right about the conservative slant of this current Supreme Court, for all our sakes!
[-o<

Posted by: KozmoKramer

Another one that I think will come down to Kennedy..

Roberts +
Scalia +
Thomas +
Alito +

Kennedy ?

Stevens -
Souter -
Ginsburg -
Breyer -

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

1. Who's a "law enforcement officer"
2. Annual qualification standards left open to interpretation (each state different)
3. Credentials for "retired" L.E.
4. HR 218 v. 14th amendment (states versus feds, NYC is own animal etc...)

1) Spelled out in the law - the fact that some campus cops and other "non-traditional" LE don't like it, doesn't change it.

2) Spelled out in the law - comply with your PD's standards.

3) Spelled out in the law - carry a retired ID & comply with #2.

4) Federal law trumps state, county, city, and town laws.

Posted by: mpd61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

Bruce,

I'm not really sure about your absolute and concrete answers...but since you put it out there;

1. Your "non traditional" analogy seems a bit subjective and cynical. ANY cop with a "governmental agency" I.D. that issues weapons should be covered. Like EPO's, State College PO's, VA cops, school police, etc... When traveling in a different part of the country, the indigenous police might not have a clue wether or not your agency is "governmental" and/or issues weapons.
3. Retired guys running into problems since many PD's don't issue retired I.D.'s certifying weapons quals etc. `(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.
4. It may be a wonderful defense to state that federal law trumps State/local laws, yet it may not help in the short term when your facing local cops far from your own home.

I have a governmental I.D. and have carried in NYC. My daughter lives there and the funny thing is you can jump right on the train (amtrak) in South Station, ride into Grand Central and walk right past twenty NYPD and National Guard teams without a hitch.

Posted by: id1811xecj

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delta784

1)

4) Federal law trumps state, county, city, and town laws.

Federal law is supreme only where explicit. In this case, I think there are some problems. I don't rely on HR218 but I am pretty sure that my issue ammo is unlawful in New Jersey. I do not believe that HR 218 preempts that state prohibition.

Posted by: Delta784

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

1. Your "non traditional" analogy seems a bit subjective and cynical. ANY cop with a "governmental agency" I.D. that issues weapons should be covered. Like EPO's, State College PO's, VA cops, school police, etc... When traveling in a different part of the country, the indigenous police might not have a clue wether or not your agency is "governmental" and/or issues weapons.

Shame on them for not knowing the law; especially when they get their asses sued off for false arrest if they're stupid enough to arrest a cop carrying under the LEOSA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

3. Retired guys running into problems since many PD's don't issue retired I.D.'s certifying weapons quals etc. `(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

The law is pretty clear; shame on departments who don't issue retired ID's and on retired cops who are too lazy to comply with the standards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd61

4. It may be a wonderful defense to state that federal law trumps State/local laws, yet it may not help in the short term when your facing local cops far from your own home.

If some dickwad cop wants to arrest me for carrying under the LEOSA, I'll laugh during my short-term incarceration, thinking about the big payday down the road.

Posted by: Macop

I kinda got the same jist when I read it, It makes it clear at the least if you have a Gov issued I.D and badge you should be good. I hope there are not too many cops that would bust nuts on another cop. I have dealt with D.C cops carrying back in the 90s when I was working on the Vineyard, have a nice day brothers!! I did hear about some home rule in NY city and was not sure what that meant. I am stopping there to see family on my way back to assachusetts and I have my Glock 27 40. Although I don't intend to have any negative contact with L.E.

Scotty I may very well piss someone off, but to hell with anyone who dares to compare our great country, president, or L.E to Nazi Germany. I mean its one thing to debate, but I won't lay down to any asshole liberal who makes those ridiculous comparisons.

Posted by: MtBiker

The LEOSA language may not be as clear as it should be but the intent of the law is very clear, to put guns in the hands of cops and retired cops anywhere they go, with a few exceptions like inside courthouses. I know that I would never hassle any cop who was armed because they didn't have proof of their most recent qual. If you have your creds or retirement creds that is all I need to see. And if you were at one of those excepted places I'd hold it for them in our armory until they were done.

As far as the SJCs coming ruling, I think we are in the best postition possible as far as Justices on the bench to see the DC gun ban eliminated. If all goes well, after that any other city-wide ban will be toast.

Posted by: Macop

Hopefuly you are right. I am am down here in GA right now and the gun laws here are so much different. I have a few freinds that are on the job down here. The only time you need a gun permit in the state of GA is if you are gonna carry on your person concealed. You only need to be 21 and have a GA driver's license to buy a gun and have it in your home, car or on your person out in the open. You walk into a gun store, show your GA D.L they call the G.B.I ( Georgia Bureau of Investigation) to make sure you have no history and your 21 and here ya go. Thats only if you buy it at a gun store, say your dad or friend gives it to ya, then you don't even have to do that, which I don't like but the rest sounds fine to me. It is a much, much different world down here with respect to gun laws and L.E. Some bad differences but mostly good. The only thing I really have a problem with is for extra $200.00 tax and approval of the Sheriff you can get silencers. Also my buddie who comes from Michigan, a state much like ours with respect to the way policing works and unions and all that. He says the hardest thing to get used to is stopping cars and seeing guns laying around, he said its VERY common. He told me of a few times where he has stoped a good ole boy in a truck with a shot gun or a rifle across the dash, and he does not work in little po-dunk town either. He said that took some getting used to. I can only imagine, that part I don't like.

Posted by: jettsixx

I heard that court declined to hear this case.

Posted by: Wolfman

You heard wrong.

Posted by: KozmoKramer

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-290.htm

Posted by: mikemac64

Not only are they hearing it, it is being portrayed in the SCOTUS community as the greatest 2nd amendment case in the last 100 years. The meaning of a "well regulated militia" may be redefined.

"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."

Check out www.SCOTUSblog.com for some well balanced insight.

Posted by: Delta784

Anyone know who is arguing the case for the right side?

Posted by: KozmoKramer

Delta - lead counsel for Mr. Heller is Alan Gura (Gura & Possessky, PLLC)
http://www.gurapossessky.com/attorneys/gura.html

Quote:

“The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia’s borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms..."

Posted by: dcs2244

Well, however it turns out...

Molon Labe.

Posted by: BB-59

Just hope the SC makes a ruling before Hillary gets in.

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