...No Excuse for Suspending Gun Rights in Taunton, Mass

[Superfly]

Link

The curious timing of Taunton, Mass. Police Chief Raymond O'Berg's vacation in the midst of a flap about renewing gun licenses for city residents is ample proof that the state's gun law is not simply in need of an overhaul, it is insidious.


That was the opinion of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), after Chief O'Berg went on vacation as his decision to stop issuing new gun licenses was reversed by the Taunton City Council. CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said his absence allowed the police to continue following his order, despite the council's mandate.

O'Berg had ordered his department to stop accepting gun permit applications earlier this month, claiming budget constraints. But that doesn't wash, said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, because gun permit fees are ample enough to cover any costs. Public pressure brought a quick order from the council to the chief to reverse that policy. Massachusetts residents may not possess firearms without a license, nor can they obtain a license in a neighboring jurisdiction. O'Berg's advice to gun owners whose licenses expired was to turn their guns over to someone else who has a license.

[MrBenchley]

1. Turn the guns over

Or are we talking about armed crazed loners who have no friends?

[pnb]

3. Just give away their property?

That's your answer?!?

[MrBenchley]

5. Boo hoo hoo hoo!

Imagine, a gun nut forced to part with his loved ones....

[Moosenose]

10. Imagine....

somebody being forced to give up their civil rights because the Chief of Police refuses to accept an application...Imagine, being forced to dispose of legally owned property without compensation or redress...

I guess you don't give a shit about the REST of the Constitution, either....Why am I not surprised?

[CO Liberal]

11. Imagine Living a Life Without Guns

I can ..... and do.

[iverglas]

12. and imagine ...

Just imagine somebody having to do any of those things simply because it was literally impossible for him/her to comply with the law -- because the police had made it impossible.

Imagine the police laying a charge against such a person. Imagine the courts convicting someone of such a charge. Imagine such a conviction standing up on appeal.

I'm having to invent a lot of imaginary friends just to people this imaginary universe.

"I guess you don't give a shit about the REST of the Constitution, either...."

Oh, there's one now! Whomever you're talking to, that is.

Can I borrow your friend to play the cop who testifies in court that he charged someone with being in possession of a firearm without a permit after the police dept. refused to renew the permit? Let's hope that this friend of yours has some experience in Kafka dramas. The Trial, maybe?

A whole world peopled by straw folk; that would indeed be something to see. Fortunately, our real world isn't.

Or maybe, in addition to forgetting my paranoia pills, I just don't understand how all this stuff works in the big complicated USofA, and somebody there really would be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for failing to do the impossible. More particularly, for failing to comply with a law that the law-enforcement authorities had made it impossible to comply with.

So ... if I drive down a highway in your state, and see bunch of flashing lights and a cop standing there waving me onto the shoulder to avoid the accident scene, I guess I shouldn't be surprised when the cop follows me and writes me a ticket for driving on the shoulder ... and my car is confiscated, and I'm locked away for a few years ...

.

[Emoto]

15. You might win, if...

... you have thousands of dollars to defend yourself. Money you will never get to spend on, say a mortgage or food. And, as you will have been arrested for illegal possession of a gun, you will be leading the fight from jail. How long can you go without an income? Do not make the mistake of assuming an easy victory for logic where the law is concerned...

[iverglas]

19. oops, I need my medication

Paranoia pills; over here please!

You might win, if...
... you have thousands of dollars to defend yourself.

Yeah ... and if you're a character in a Kafka play.

In the real world, I kinda think that about all you'd have to do is show up with one of the newspaper articles referenced in this thread. Maybe bring along the application form you filled out, and the badge number of the cop you tried to give it to, just to demonstrate that it was impossible for you to comply with the law. Cripes, a lawyer who charged someone money for that case would deserve to be the first one at the bottom of the ocean.

And that is of course all *IF* a prosecutor who had drunk him/herself silly just before entering court actually proposed to proceed with the charge of failing to renew a firearms possession permit at a time when police were refusing to renew such permits. And *IF* that prosecutor were not tossed out of court on his/her ear by a judge irritated beyond human tolerance at being dragged into a municipal police budget dispute. ...

But I forget. Kafka is writing our script, and our characters are all made of dry vegetation.

.

[Emoto]

35. Do you have any idea how much lawyers cost here?

Any good, and you're talking at least $300.00/hour. It gets very expensive, very fast.

You evidently do not understand the situation on the ground here in MA. We have a rabidly anti-gun AG who uses all manner of underhanded measures to go after guns.

I was not involved in the shooting sports from ~1979 until just a couple of years ago, due to life being busy, taking other directions, etc. When I decided to get into the sport again, I could barely believe how the legal climate had changed. My responses would have been much like yours. Initially, I went through a period of disbelief, but that has passed. Sadly, I have learned over time that things are bad here. It is not paranoia, I am sorry to report.

There are manditory sentences here. Judges have no latitude with gun "crime".

Like I said, you would win, but it would cost you a lot. The prosecutors are most likely to "let a jury decide" rather than not prosecute you, so that will take hours of your lawyer's time. In the meantime, the media will crucify you for flagrant violation of gun laws, etc., etc. It isn't pretty. I will move to a free state when I can.

[Moosenose]

18. You're right....

"Imagine the police laying a charge against such a person. Imagine the courts convicting someone of such a charge. Imagine such a conviction standing up on appeal."

It happens all the time.


"Or maybe, in addition to forgetting my paranoia pills, I just don't understand how all this stuff works in the big complicated USofA, and somebody there really would be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for failing to do the impossible. More particularly, for failing to comply with a law that the law-enforcement authorities had made it impossible to comply with."

Read up on the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by FOPA '86. Even if you file a Form 1 and pay the tax as required by law, the government will refuse to register a new manufactured gun, and if you get caught with it, you go to jail, period.

It happens with alarming frequency, and has been upheld on appeal (normally by denial of cert). Of course, my clever little boot, I don't expect you to know about it. You've displayed such stunning incomprehension of the US judicial system that I'd be SHOCKED if you did.

[iverglas]

22. we've graduated to red herrings!

"Read up on the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by FOPA '86. Even if you file a Form 1 and pay the tax as required by law, the government will refuse to register a new manufactured gun, and if you get caught with it, you go to jail, period."

And this has ... what??? ... to do with the case at bar? And I should care about it ... why???


An answer will consist of explaining how/why

A. your scenario regarding refusal to register a "new manufactured gun"

is analogous to

B. a scenario in which a police department apparently engaged in a labour-management dispute refused to comply with the law and renew a permit for the possession of a firearm.


In order to explain that, you'll need to explain the reason WHY, in your scenario, the refusal to register has been upheld as legal, so that silly li'l me can assess the pertinence of the scenario for analogy purposes.

Otherwise, I just smell fish.

.

[Moosenose]

28. the NFA example...

is "on the four corners", as they say. The actors are different, but the legal principles are identical.

It's been upheld as legal because it's a STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE, just as possession of any firearm without a license in the first case is a STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE.

You've got a LOT to learn about US law...

[MrBenchley]

26. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

What a frigging tragedy that some nutcase should have to go even a few days without being able to play with a gun.

Go snivel to somebody dumb enough to buy the crap you peddle....

[Moosenose]

30. Heh...as usual, you have no idea what's at issue....

it's not a matter of "being able to play with a gun"...It's a matter of a strict liability offense, and being a FELONY to be in possession of a firearm without the appropriate license in that jurisdiction.

BTW, would you care to guess what would happen if they "got rid" of their guns, without going through the appropriate procedure? Ever hear of a "catch-22"?

[MrBenchley]

31. Hand us another BIG laugh

"It's a matter of a strict liability offense, and being a FELONY to be in possession of a firearm without the appropriate license in that jurisdiction."
So much for those "law-abiding gun owners" gun nuts are always yapping about....

"BTW, would you care to guess what would happen if they "got rid" of their guns, without going through the appropriate procedure?"
They'd find out the world didn't end?

[Moosenose]

32. Nope....

"They'd find out the world didn't end?"

they'd go to jail for transferring a firearm without getting the proper police approval.

"sorry, can't keep them, you don't have a license to keep them. Sorry, can't transfer them, you don't have a license to transfer them. Your only choices are to abandon them to the police department, or go to jail."

And people wonder why gunners are unwilling to license their guns....

[MrBenchley]

33. Actually nobody wonders that

We know the reason gun nuts don't want to license their guns is because of hysterical hooey like this press release......

[iverglas]

38. so here's my next question

"sorry, can't keep them, you don't have a license to keep them.
Sorry, can't transfer them, you don't have a license to transfer them.
Your only choices are to abandon them to the police department,
or go to jail."

What happens when the police department refuses to accept them?

Oh -- I know! Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

You of course know why I simply do not believe a word you're saying, in the sense of recognizing your prediction of outcomes as credible based on the available data.

Not because I don't know anything about US law. (Something that is neither true nor, if it were, relevant to anything.)

Because you have an axe to grind. It is completely in your interest to assert that people would go to jail for violating a law that it was quite simply impossible for them to obey, nonsensical as that assertion may be.

I'm not saying that they disobeyed it "by accident" -- a claim that might be no defence to a strict liability offence. I'm saying it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to obey. If your state legislature enacts a law that you are to be imprisoned if you have not flown to the moon by Tuesday, do you really think that your supreme court is going to uphold the jail sentence you are given for failing to fly to the moon? More accurately: are you really telling me that you think that?

Y'know what? I won't be surprised if you do tell me that you think that.

It is in your interest to portray legislators and law-enforcers as slap-happy gun-grabbers, merrily careening around violating people's rights. It is in your interest to portray owners of firearms as innocent victims of arbitrary state action.

You have here a story that can be spun to portray legislators and law-enforcers and firearms owners in exactly the light you want to portray them all in. It would be very much against your interests to acknowledge that it is extremely probable that the legislators and law-enforcers are acting out of some completely different motivation, and that no one's rights are remotely likely to be violated as a result.

My hypotheses about those motivations, and predictions about the results, are entirely logical and credible.

Yours and your cronies' are nonsensical and noncredible. But that wouldn't stop anybody trying to grind the same axe from claiming to find them logical and credible if s/he thought it would advance the cause, and if s/he were rather short on scruples ... and if s/he were writing on an internet board where s/he could just gayly ignore, or claim to have refuted, anything logical and credible stated in rebuttal.

.

[Romulus]

42. today's lesson:

In DC you have to have a permit to own a handgun, or else you are facing three years in jail if caught.

The DC government administratively stopped issuing permits in 1976. The permit law, however, is still on the books.

A lot of people have been convicted of possessing a handgun in DC without a permit.

[iverglas]

44. don't give up your day job

In DC you have to have a permit to own a handgun,
or else you are facing three years in jail if caught.

The DC government administratively stopped issuing permits in 1976.
The permit law, however, is still on the books.

A lot of people have been convicted of possessing a handgun in DC
without a permit.



I just expect people trying to teach me a lesson to do a slightly better job of it.

I don't have a clue, or care, about this "shall issue" / "may issue" business, but it occurs to me that it has something to do with this.

Is there some requirement, either express or (in your opinion, perhaps) implied, that the DC government issue handgun permits to someone or anyone?

If not, what's your point?

In my own paradigm, if a government may do something but doesn't do it, i.e. doesn't do it at all (rather than doing it sometimes and not others, for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons), then there's just no problem -- unless the refusal to act, itself, violates a constitutional right.

If the government of Ontario decided to stop issuing driver's licences to anyone, then somebody would undoubtedly challenge that decision/action in the courts. The argument would be that refusing to issue driver's licences -- as long as a driver's licence was still required for driving on the public highways -- was an unconstitutional interference with liberty.

Of course, the smart way of doing that would be to bring an application to compel the government to issue the licence -- not to go driving around without a licence and waiting until you get charged. (Gosh, maybe those firearms owners in that Massachusetts town could try that one, and get their costs awarded to them in the process.)

And unless the government could establish some really great big reason for doing what it had done -- that it was acting in pursuit of a really important public purpose, that what it had done was rationally connected to that purpose, that what it had done was the least possible impairment of liberty, and so on according to the tests that apply -- the courts would strike the law down.

So, in the DC case, if the state isn't discriminating, or arbitrarily interfering in some but not other people's exercise of a right, or denying the exercise of a right altogether, what's the problem?

And if the refusal to issue handgun permits is in fact a denial of the exercise of a right, how come nobody's challenged the decision not to issue him/her a permit? Or has somebody?

In any event, there's a slight difference between being unable to renew a firearms permit (and, shall we assume, unable to legally transfer ownership of it or persuade the police to take it), and thus being stuck in violation of the law without any possibility of remedying the violation, and purchasing a handgun without a permit. There isn't really a "necessity" situation in the latter case. That's not to say that there might not be grounds for challenging a conviction for violating a law that was itself an unconstitutional denial of rights, of course, but really, the clever person would challenge the refusal to issue the permit, not the illegal possession conviction.

Your country has a set of tests for determining whether an interference with the exercise of rights is constitutionally permissible or not that is similar, but not identical, to my country's. I keep recommending that folks hereabouts familiarize themselves with them if they aren't already familiar, since otherwise all anybody is doing is flinging around idiosyncratic assertions about what's "right" and what's "wrong", or that "it violates my rights!" without stating why the violation is impermissible ... and that just doesn't constitute a relevant or useful contribution to a discussion of public policy, especially when such assertions conflict with the actual rules. And there are rules; that's what we have constitutions and constitutional courts for.

Here's an example of a handy starter resource for this purpose, this one about "equal protection".

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered
Approach to Equal Protection Analysis

1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that
the challenged classification serves a compelling state
interest and that the classification is necessary to serve
that interest.):

A. Suspect Classifications:

1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause
analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a
recognized "political community" exception, in which
case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).

B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights

1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental

2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must
show that the challenged classification serves an
important state interest and that the classification is at
least substantially related to serving that interest.):

Quasi-Suspect Classifications:

1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy

3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The
govenment need only show that the challenged
classification is rationally related to serving a
legitimate state interest.)

Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other
than those listed above, although some Supreme Court
cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a
second-order rational basis test") involving some
weighing of the state's interest may be applied in
cases, for example, involving classifications that
disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals,
or innocent children of illegal aliens. (See "Should
the Rational Basis Test Have Bite?")

That site's a little thin on due process, for example:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dueprocesstudents.htm
but it has a variety of other stuff:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html
I don't say that it's authority, just that it seems to be a decent introduction to the concepts.

.

[pnb]

13. Well golly MrB...

...when faced with ironclad logic like that, I just don't know what I was thinking...:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

27. That's okay

the rest of us are familiar with what goes through the mind of the weapons fetishists....

[JayS]

2. This is a good example of why I maintain my membership...

...in the NRA.

[papau]

4. A bit over the line - it is only a lic to possess - not carry

a simple form, $25 and background check.

I do not see where he has right to stop issuing - except the law says the police chief will issue - and the City Council can not order him to issue - it can only replace him as chief.

[Romulus]

6. umm

Mass. just upped the fee to $100, didn't it?

[jody]

9. Does the law say "may issue" or "will issue" or "shall issue"? eom

[iverglas]

7. ghoulies and ghosties

and long-legged beasties, and things that go bump in the night.

And monsters under the bed.

And gun-grabbers lurking around every corner.

I read the article. (The link didn't work; copy it and remove the extra two slashes at the beginning.)

Then I read some more. Like this (google's cache of a news article that had apparently already been replaced; likely an unstable link).

The city of Taunton appears to be locked in a bit of a classic labour-management battle, specifically over its police budget. In such situations, a police chief -- who is nominally "management" but has no control over his budget -- will often be monkey in the middle. Not necessarily supportive of union demands, but usually wanting more money all the same.

A bit more:
http://www.lawintelrpt.com/PayCompArchive/2003/Volume%201%20No.%209.htm

Taunton, MA --Police Chief Raymond O'Berg, under criticism over his budget by City Councilors, ...

The chief is apparently (from his perspective) being told to do more, and to do things he finds foolish and resource-wasting, with less:
http://www.lodisecurity.com/news/021103.htm

A 10-year-old policy that requires law enforcement officers to arrest all shoplifters is being debated in Taunton, Mass. Police Chief Raymond O'Berg has suggested that the policy be modified to give police the option to call for a show-cause hearing, issue a summons, issue a warrant, or arrest the person--a more common approach to dealing with shoplifters. Police have suggested that modifying the policy would cut down on police overtime.

Allow me an aside, relevant to yesterday's discussion about the role of the police and the role of the courts, and perhaps useful to anyone who still doesn't understand the difference between police "enforcing" the law and the courts "administering" the law. Regarding the "arrest shoplifters" directive:

"What's going on is they want us to punish people," says Taunton Police Patrolman's Association President John E. Munise III. Our job is not to punish, our job is to uphold the law," he says. "The court's job is to punish."

"Hitting them where it hurts" is a pretty classic technique in labour-management disputes. I remember years and years ago when Canada's federal government translators were in a strike position and unable to negotiate a contract ... until the interpreters at an important government conference walked out. The interpreters were completely committed to Canada's official language policy and their action could in no way have been interpreted as a protest against it; they just wanted more money. It worked.

Anybody suspect that Police Chief O'Berg might be engaging in a little hit-em-where-it-hurts action of his own? To spell it out: there's no real indication that he opposes the issuance of firearms possession permits, and quite good reason to think that he has picked a very good button to push to get what he wants from the city council.

Or did I just not swallow my ration of paranoia drugs this morning ...

.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnb]

14. So what?

It's OK to risk the rights of citizens in this case because it is POSSIBLE that maybe its being done for a different reason than some may think?

And YOU were getting someone's case for strawmen?!?

Please...

[iverglas]

17. another actor for my play!

"It's OK to risk the rights of citizens in this case because it is POSSIBLE
that maybe its being done for a different reason than some may think?"

Who said that?! Please, get your straw friend to send me a demo video, and I'll consider him/her for a role in that imaginary universe of ours.

"And YOU were getting someone's case for strawmen?!?"

No, no, you misunderstand. I merely want to borrow them.

But let us suppose that the answer to your question is "yes". I am now forced to ask: "why do you ask?" Is there a point? What might it be?

If you're suggesting that moi was engaged in battle with little straw people, a little research might help you. An explanation for a phenomenon really is not a straw person argument. Beep, try again.

And dear me, at least I have presented fact and argument supporting the POSSIBILITY of my scenario; I surely haven't seen anything at all to support that "different reason" for why "some may think" something else is going on. In fact, I don't even know what in hell some may think is going on. The beginnings of a police coup in a small town in Massachusetts, perhaps? But I shall not speculate, unless forced by lack of data to do so.

My last post may help you out. I agree, it is really very naughty of the police chief to do this. Nobody, leastwise me, is saying that anything he is doing is "OK". He's interfering in the exercise of people's rights. Did you hear me say he wasn't? Did you hear me say I thought it was okay for him to do that? Please point to where I did, so that I may smack my head and wonder what I was drinking.

Police in my neck of the woods have a habit of refusing to write traffic tickets when they get uppity. The problem with this is that while it may annoy hell out of city council, it keeps the general public quite sweet. So nobody's chewing at the council's ankles to get them to do something about the police management problem. Refusing to do something that the general public wants them to do -- like renew firearms possession permits -- that's a whole lot smarter.

But nope, definitely not "OK" of him at all. I agree. Not that I'd agree that he is in any way "risking the rights of citizens" (as long as it's only renewals being refused of course; refusing new permits is a little more problematic). In fact I'd say that such an assertion is laughable, because people are not punished for violating laws that it is impossible for them to comply with. (It's called the "necessity" defence in some quarters.)

And hey, THAT was kinda MY point. Did you happen to notice it at all?

A. The police chief should not refuse to renew firearms possession permits.

B. No one can possibly be convicted of failing to renew a firearms possession permit if the police will not accept/process the application.

C. NO ONE'S RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED.

See? I didn't say:

A. you're wrong, the police chief is only trying to get more money,
-SO-
B. nobody's rights are being violated.

I said:

A. the police chief is only trying to get more money,
-AND-
B. nobody's rights are being violated.

Two separate, independent, unrelated concepts and statements.

And when YOU connect them in a way in which *I* never connected them:

It's OK to risk the rights of citizens in this case because it is POSSIBLE that maybe its being done for a different reason than some may think?

... YOU are the one jousting with straw thingies and misrepresenting me and what I said.

I respond to your post only to assist you with this little problem, not because it contained anything responsive or relevant to mine.

[Moosenose]

20. Heh...tell a client that here...

"B. No one can possibly be convicted of failing to renew a firearms possession permit if the police will not accept/process the application."

and you're well on the road to being disbarred...

[JayS]

23. I don't know the motives of the officer in question but I agree...

...that there is usually more to the story than what is reported. As to your statement that "people are not punished for violating laws that it is impossible for them to comply with" I think this is mostly the case, but it can be expensive to defend yourself if it comes to that...which is probably fairly rare.

I do want to point out an example of "unfollowable" rules from here in Texas just because it is humorous. You cannot possess marijuana in this State unless you have paid the taxes on it and have the stamp from the Comptroller to prove the taxes were paid. You cannot get the stamp without first having the pot, nor can you get the pot without first having the stamp. One college student showed up at the Comptroller's office with a small amount of marijuana and asked for the stamp but got arrested for not following the rules...but I think his case was later dropped and the law changed.

[DonP]

34. I didn't like the local cops "making the law in '64" ...

I'm old enough to recall when a lot of them down South decided to catch the "blue flu" rather than abide by the law and allow black voters to register.

The job of LEO's is to enforce the law as approved by the voters and signed off by the executive branch of their state. They should not get to choose when to enforce it and whether they agree with it or not.

If that's what they wanty to do run for office.

Letting LEO's make these kinds of choices is a really bad precedent and it doesn't really matter to me which law we are even discussing.

Don P.

[jody]

36. I agree and the same goes for presidential and governor executive orders.

In a democracy, only the legislative body is authorized to make laws.

[iverglas]

43. and I agree

People who perform essential government services should not be allowed to withdraw those services, in a labour dispute or for any other reason, when doing so interferes with the exercise of rights by members of the public.

The civil service, "the administration" as the French call it, is part of the executive branch of government: public employees execute the legislative branch's directives. They apply policy and enforce the laws. They do things that affect people's exercise of their rights. This may be particularly true of the police.

But each individual public employee is still an employee, and has to have some way of acting as such in the employer-employee relationship. That's why public employees who work in "essential services" are often subject to mandatory binding arbitration of labour disputes, for example.

I pretty much figure that everybody knows that I have said nothing in defence of the actions of the police chief or police officers in this instance. The fact that I regard their offence as considerably less earth-shaking than the time "when a lot of <police officers> down South decided to catch the 'blue flu' rather than abide by the law and allow black voters to register" is just one of those personal opinions.

Well, except that there is a real distinction. In the latter case, the victims of the police action quite possibly would have been and even were denied the ability to exercise a very important democratic right: the vote. In the case in issue in this thread, there's just no sound reason to believe that anybody is going to be denied the exercise of any right at all.

Nonetheless, refusing to enforce the law, or to do what the law requires them to do, whether as a collective action in a labour dispute or simply out of individual or group laziness or nastiness, is not acceptable on the part of the police.

.

[DonP]

48. Sounds like our only point of difference

... is how relatively important we view the right under discussion.

No question that voting is a crucial civil right, that many have fought to the death to retain and allow others to exercise their franchise. Even when it meant going face to face with the local civil authorities.

Many of us here believe the 2nd amendment is one of the core foundations of our system. We oft called "gun loonies" believe that any artificial infringment of that right, especially when its been vetted and regulated by the state itself, is a serious breach of the public trust and the law.

To me there is little difference between Ashcroft deciding to infringe on the 1st amendment by checking my library card out and this sheriff deciding that he doesn't agree with the laws on carrying firearms so he won't go along with the law.

He has every right, as a private citizen, to protest or run for elected office and try and overturn the law. What he can not do, and should be held criminally accountable for, is a refusal by omission of allowing citizens to exercise their rights.

If he gets away with this with no penalty, then what if he takes it into his mind that there are other laws he's not comfortable with and decides his judgement is more important than the legislature?

What if the next sherriff elected is a far right wing conservative that doesn't feel that those abortion laws are right and refuses to protect the entrances to clinics?

Scares me and should make others, pro or anti gun folks, nervous as a problem that could grow.

Don P.

[iverglas]

16. so much diversionary grooming

There are two points, both of which I have made quite plainly, that no one seems to want to address other than by posting the odd (quite odd, sometimes) ad personam remark.


1. The police department appears to be engaged in a power struggle with the city council over the police budget, which battle includes the council's instructions to do things -- perfectly legal things -- that the police consider stupid and wasteful. There is reason to believe that the chief's decision to stop renewing firearms possession permits (I do hope I've got that right) is a tactic in this battle.

I am not aware of any reason to believe that the police chief is engaged in a serious attempt to violate anyone's rights for any substantive reason having to do with his position vis-à-vis those rights.

Anyone? Some reason to believe that the police chief is doing anything other than effectively pressuring the city council to give him more money?


2. It has been suggested that people who are unable to renew their firearms possession permits should get rid of them so that they are not at risk of prosection for illegal possession.

I am not aware of any reason to believe that anyone would be prosecuted for, let alone convicted of, that offence for so long as it was impossible for him/her to renew the permit. I am not even aware of any way that such a person could be convicted of the offence.

Anyone? Some reason to believe that a person who failed to renew a firearms possession permit because s/he was unable to do so would or could be convicted of an offence?


Yes, yes, indeed. Nobody should ever violate any third party's rights as part of a labour-management dispute. Everybody go right ahead and rap the police chief's knuckles.

But lordy, spare us the wailing and gnashing of teeth about people having to give away their guns, or suffer some consequence of breaking the law.

Or heck, somebody could just answer those questions up above and offer some better reason to believe that my hypotheses are wrong than that they're right.

Or somebody could just emit another ad personam comment. No skin off my nose.

.

[Moosenose]

21. would you care to cite the exception in the law....

"Yes, yes, indeed. Nobody should ever violate any third party's rights as part of a labour-management dispute. Everybody go right ahead and rap the police chief's knuckles.

But lordy, spare us the wailing and gnashing of teeth about people having to give away their guns, or suffer some consequence of breaking the law."

that makes possession of a firearm without a valid license LEGAL if the license wasn't granted because of a labor dispute? It's a STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE. Talk about a moronic argument.....

[iverglas]

25. I would

But right now I have to go for a short dip before heading off to the big law library on the hill (nothing to do with you at all, don't worry) and taking my broken boot-holder to the doctor.

Meanwhile, you could try explaining to me why a necessity defence (feel free to spell that with an "s" when you google) would not be available to a strict liability offence (ditto) in this situation ... i.e. how it could possibly be constitutional (forgive a heathen uttering the sacred word ... ee plebnista ...) to convict someone of this offence in these circumstances.

Like, for all the reasons that have been gnashed and wailed about here. Deprivation of property without due process if compliance demanded giving the firearm away, blah blah.

Or tell me all about how USAmericans just don't have the rights that us benighted Canadians take for granted ...

.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moosenose]

37. As I thought....

all hat, no cattle....

BTW, my clever little boot/spelling policeperson...."defence" is a VARIANT of "Defense"...my BLD, 6th Edition, has many listings under "defense", but NONE under "defence". So take it someplace else... :thumbsdown:

[iverglas]

39. who knows?

"defence" is a VARIANT of "Defense"...my BLD, 6th Edition,
has many listings under "defense", but NONE under "defence".

Eh? What's a "BLD", a bacon, lettuce and domato maybe? Is that some kind of US spelling variant? And would be it "domatos", or "domatoes"?

My Oxford lists "defence (US defense)". The US spells it one way, the rest of the world spells it the other way. The rest of the world at least acknowledges the US's existence and ways; many of us are just like that.

Back when Samuel Johnson wrote his 1756 Dictionary of the English Language, he defined "defence". "Defense" is nowhere to be found in my reproduction of that volume. (Ditto "offence" and "offense".) I suspect it may be one of those back-formations (like when people hear "orientation" and then say "orientate", ew) from words he does list, like "defensive". Or perhaps a reversion to an older spelling, closer to the roots in French (défense) and Latin (defensio). But in English, it was "defence", and still is the world over, and since "defence" plainly preceded "defense" in modern English usage, and is still the version used in all but a minority of English-speaking countries (I believe Liberia is an exception, not coincidentally), we know who's the variant here.

But hey, I don't know what you've got all defensive about anyhow. All I did was spell a word as I spell it (and I can't think why I'd do otherwise), and invite you to spell it as you spell it for the purpose of locating information. Simple recognition that there are two ways of looking for particular information when asking a search engine. (I mean, you're not saying that if you asked Google for "necessity defence" it would tell you nothing existed, are you?) Nothing more nor less. So if I were to take that and "take it someplace else", I just don't know where an appropriate place be.

But speaking of hats and cattle, I'm still not seeing anything other than your very bald assertion that your scenario, and not mine, is the one we might expect to play out in the criminal justice system. Saying something over and over -- let alone appealing to one's own authority, and "authority" simply by virtue of one's citizenship at that -- doesn't make it so, y'know.

No, "because I say so many times" doth not proof, or even argument, make.

.

[iverglas]

40. poop

I just know you'll get cute. So I should point out that Black is really not an authority on spelling, and you should know that.

[iverglas]

41. but as long as we're going there

My Osborn doesn't have any listing for "defense", so there. I just wouldn't cite a law dictionary as authority when discussing orthography, me.

[Emoto]

45. Here's your reason

I am not aware of any reason to believe that anyone would be prosecuted for, let alone convicted of, that offence for so long as it was impossible for him/her to renew the permit. I am not even aware of any way that such a person could be convicted of the offence.


Because renewing your license is not the only way to remain law-abiding. The other way is to "transfer" (sell or give ownership of, whcih requires a state form be submitted for each gun, btw) to a person with a valid license. If you didn't know someone, this would be a gun store. The fact that there was a way to avoid breaking MA's draconian gun laws, means that inability to renew the permit is not an automatic "win" in court.

[iverglas]

46. I dunno ...

... being just a dumb foreigner and all ... but it seems to me that I've read something that goes a little like this:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All's I can say is that where compliance with a law requires an individual to relinquish property against his/her will in order to avoid criminal prosecution, I'd see one hell of a big deprivation of property.

If it happened without a judicial determination that the deprivation of property (whether by law or as the only means of complying with a law as in this case) was justified, i.e. constitutional, I'd see a denial of due process. Do governments in the US just expropriate people's houses, or compel people to sell their houses for $10, without giving the people any recourse?? Is there some way that a decision by a bunch of cops to violate their collective agreement and refuse to carry out the duties that the law imposes on them constitutes "due process"??

If somebody in whose car I was voluntarily riding decided to dump me, against my will and over my protestations and beseechments, in the middle of a railway bridge, I'd be breaking some law about walking on railway bridges if I walked to the end before getting off. I could avoid breaking the law by jumping into the raging rapids below. Is someone here seriously suggesting that I'd be prosecuted and convicted and sentenced for walking to the end instead of jumping off?

How it looks to me, funny furriner that I am, is that my right to life too precedence over the law that I may not walk on railway bridges, and that because I was on the railway bridge through no fault of my own, I was entitled to walk to the end rather than jump off.

What you are saying, on the other hand:

The fact that there was a way to avoid breaking
MA's draconian gun laws, means that inability to
renew the permit is not an automatic "win" in court.

is that I would have had to jump off the bridge or risk being sentenced for illegal bridge-walking. Forego the exercise of one of my constitutional rights, to my detriment. Forgive me if I find this medieval.

How your scenario looks to me, again, begging your pardon for having such a funny foreign opinion, is that the firearm owner's right to property takes precedence over the law that s/he may not possess firearms without a permit, and that because s/he was unable to renew the permit through no fault of his/her own, and where s/he had done nothing to contribute to the impossiblity of renewing it, s/he was entitled to remain in possession of the firearm rather than sell it.

And the whole part that I just don't get is why you types don't seem to be agreeing, that even if this is not how your courts have done things (which I'm not seeing any evidence to establish, just a bunch of bald assertions), you aren't bloody up in arms (haha) about it, and doing something about it.

.

[Emoto]

47. I do agree with you on this

I find no fault in any of your thinking in what you just posted, and am fundamentally in agreement with you...


... being just a dumb foreigner and all ... but it seems to me that I've read something that goes a little like this:


No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


All's I can say is that where compliance with a law requires an individual to relinquish property against his/her will in order to avoid criminal prosecution, I'd see one hell of a big deprivation of property.

Yes. And you would begin to see the tip of the iceberg. Many of our legislators from both major parties do not consider the Constitution to be anything they have to worry about.

If it happened without a judicial determination that the deprivation of property (whether by law or as the only means of complying with a law as in this case) was justified, i.e. constitutional, I'd see a denial of due process. Do governments in the US just expropriate people's houses, or compel people to sell their houses for $10, without giving the people any recourse?? Is there some way that a decision by a bunch of cops to violate their collective agreement and refuse to carry out the duties that the law imposes on them constitutes "due process"??

They routinely sieze the assets of people who are charged with drug crimes. They take your house away. Zero due process. Once this sort of thing is established through use on "undesireables" it becomes a relatively simple matter to expand the definition of "undesireables" to suit the needs of the moment. This is one of the reasons that I dislike the sort of villification of legal gun owners perpetuated by people like benchley; it nudges perception in a dangerous direction.

What you are saying, on the other hand:

The fact that there was a way to avoid breaking
MA's draconian gun laws, means that inability to
renew the permit is not an automatic "win" in court.

is that I would have had to jump off the bridge or risk being sentenced for illegal bridge-walking. Forego the exercise of one of my constitutional rights, to my detriment. Forgive me if I find this medieval.

No forgiveness necessary, you are correct about all of this. You see, here in MA, the "permit" required by state law in order to exercise a constitutional "right" to keep and bear arms (even the permit for mere possession int he home, or pepper spray) is not "shall issue", it is "may issue", meaning that the police don't have to let you have a permit if they don't want to. Some would argue that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says, and the lack of a recent SCOTUS decision defining the 2nd is relied upon when denying people's rights.

How your scenario looks to me, again, begging your pardon for having such a funny foreign opinion, is that the firearm owner's right to property takes precedence over the law that s/he may not possess firearms without a permit, and that because s/he was unable to renew the permit through no fault of his/her own, and where s/he had done nothing to contribute to the impossiblity of renewing it, s/he was entitled to remain in possession of the firearm rather than sell it.

Again, your logic in interpreting the highest law in the land and applying that to state law as being dished out by a local police chief is correct, but the law and logic are often not in synch.

And the whole part that I just don't get is why you types don't seem to be agreeing, that even if this is not how your courts have done things (which I'm not seeing any evidence to establish, just a bunch of bald assertions), you aren't bloody up in arms (haha) about it, and doing something about it.

Well... many are unhappy about the usurpation of rights by the gov't. But, what can you do besides join the NRA (which I have yet to do) and write to your elected officials and newspapers about it (which I do intermittently)?

I have been a "liberal" all of my life, yet I find myself out in the cold on this issue more often than not. I would never have had any idea how badly 2A rights are being trampled (often by well-meaning people) had I not I chosen to get into competitive pistol shooting and found out what I had to do to go forward, and how intricate the latticework of gun laws is (which I had to find out, to make sure I stayed legal.) I am somewhat irritated (not at you or anyone in particular) that the situation is such that I feel compelled to spending my time trying to inform people and discuss the issues as I understand them.

[jody]

49. emoto, do you have a link to the MA code for "may issue"

:hi:

[Emoto]

50. Not offhand

I will try to poke around tonight at home if I get a chance. There might be a link on www.goal.org which is the MA state-level gun owner's organization. (they endorse plenty of Democrats, BTW)

[jody]

51. Thanks eom

:-)