Boston do not need shotguns or rifles.

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by mseric, Jul 25, 2014.

  1. mseric

    mseric New Member

    4,171
    0
    0
    Looks like more of the same for the Democrat Controlled East Coast. Now they are going after Long Gun Possession.

    Having long guns--rifles and shotguns--especially here in the city of Boston. I think we should have, as the local authority, some say in the matter. [And] the federal [government] doesn't really allow us to have the discretion that we want in these particular cases.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Residents-Do-Not-Need-To-Own-Shotguns-Rifles

    http://www.guns.com/2014/05/29/massachusetts-lawmakers-propose-may-issue-gun-ownership-bill-video/

    “Our position is really very, very simple,” said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. “We, as an association, believe that it’s unconscionable that if we determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun, that they can then turn around and apply for a Firearms Identification Card, which allows them, by law, to purchase rifles and shotguns. And there’s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn’t make sense.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tes-at-odds-over-discretion-in-massachusetts/
     
  2. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,417
    312
    83
    Does it surprise you coming from the People's Democratic Socialist Republik of Massachusetts????:mad:
     

  3. Joeyg69

    Joeyg69 New Member

    33
    0
    0
    Another reason I'm glad I live in "The gunshine state" (Fl). But this is not surprising coming from them. All they want is more government control-control-control. But people up there for some crazy reason keep voting these people into positions of authority.... They're not gunna stop until you need a permit to take a sh*t.
     
  4. mseric

    mseric New Member

    4,171
    0
    0
    Sorry man, but this is coming form your brethren Law Enforcement officials, not just the politicians. It appears that the LEO in MA feel they should have more power than the Constitution.

    Do the LEO in MA not take the same Oath you have taken and supported all these years?
     
  5. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    118
    63
    MA is a very strange place. All the big city police chiefs are anti-gunners. Some, mostly rural, police departments issue permits for "all lawful purposes"; that includes concealed carry. In Boston it's almost impossible for an ordinary citizen to get a handgun carry permit for self defense. Those are reserved for the politically connected, the rich and famous.

    Anti-gun police chiefs in MA deny handgun permits based on political PC. Then they want to deny the right to own long guns too.
     
  6. WNGMSTR

    WNGMSTR Troll Scout

    1,418
    0
    0
    Ah yes, the Oath.....:cool:
     
  7. Donn

    Donn Active Member

    1,245
    11
    38
    Said it before. My empathy for our Northeast brothers goes only so far. They've been electing and re-electing progressives at all levels of government for decades. Now that tree is bearing fruit.
     
  8. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    i am so glad that an association such as theirs, feels they have the right to determine what people should or shouldn't own as far as firearms goes.:rolleyes:

    wow, just wow. :rolleyes:
     
  9. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,417
    312
    83
    These are politically appointed police chiefs, (not the street officers) that are beholden to lib-tard politicians. I doubt if over one out of ten have ever even driven a police car.

    I'll betcha a secret ballot poll of patrolmen, sergeants and even lieutenants would disagree with these chiefs by 3 to 1.
     
  10. mseric

    mseric New Member

    4,171
    0
    0
    ...and it boils down to this.

    The Police Chiefs are "beholden to lib-tard politicians."

    The Police officer is "Beholden to the Police Chief"

    So, in all reality the Patrolman, Sergeants and Even Lieutenants are "beholden to lib-tard politicians".

    Lest of course they follow their Oath and get their ass fired.
     
  11. tinbucket

    tinbucket Well-Known Member

    2,413
    54
    48
    i don't know what the central thread is among these anti Constitution Police Chiefs and Politicians. It has to be a well orchestrated string of appointments from the top down. A lot of British and Others came to Boston in the modern era of fifty yeas ago to now. They came to get wealthy and live free but brought their rul with them. A hand full want to dictate to others and tell them their Rights are denied or at lease cherry pick which ones they will let the rest of Americans have.
    Bostonians are a bunch of sheep if, They better gets some cojones and go to city council meetings and State House meetings etc, in numbers. They will be intimidated and kicked but do it over and over. If you don't your children will be wearing red and carrying little red books just like your masters are now.
     
  12. mseric

    mseric New Member

    4,171
    0
    0
    More info on the differing House and Senate bills.

    http://goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html


    It appears that the Senate version was modified and endorsed by GOAL, then the Police Chief and other Law enforcement officials through a fit when they found out that the Senate version stripped them of their power to disarm. This caused the House to reject the Senate version, now it is back in committee.
     
  13. TankTop

    TankTop Well-Known Member Supporter

    2,465
    33
    48
    I don't see how a law could exist that grant government the right to strip individuals of their constitutional rights. I'd almost want it to pass so that it can get struck down by the courts.


    Sent from my iPhone using Firearms Talk
     
  14. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,417
    312
    83
    What is the NRA take on this?

    That's the info I would be most likely to believe.
     
  15. ninjatoth

    ninjatoth New Member

    1,733
    0
    0
    If someone was legal to purchase that long gun, when and where did the previous " if WE determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun" come into play?
     
  16. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    FWIW, the NRA's Facebook post is a link to the aforementioned Breitbart story.
     
  17. Shoobee

    Shoobee New Member

    2,007
    1
    0
    Sounds just like Commiefornia too. :)
     
  18. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,417
    312
    83
    Thank you!:)
     
  19. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    Simply another example of politicians that know what's best for us peons of the unwashed masses. Too many people in office do not think that they are there to serve the public, rather they believe that they are there to rule over us.
     
  20. mseric

    mseric New Member

    4,171
    0
    0
    Sorry, but that is not what is going on here.

    The Politicians in the Senate worked with the GOAL and came up with a "Compromise" that the GOAL and Gun Owners could endorse.

    When Law enforcement and certain Police chiefs got wind that they would not have total and complete power over firearms possession in MA they through a Monkey Wrench into the works and convinced the House to shut it down until they can re-write the bill to give them total control.

    This is not about the Liberal Politicians, this is about the "long arm of the Law" over stepping it's bounds and trying to dictate laws and pass legislation.