TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
This thread may have outlived its usefulness. We'll let the next few posts determine...
CCW Holder in TROUBLE in MA!!!!!!
- Thread starter Little Wolf
- Start date
Just a little peep from the heartland. The rule of law is good. It's supposed to take the emotions of the minute and subdue them a bit. We subject ourselves in this way to obtain some impartial order within the chaos of freedom. The law favors no man, in so doing protects him at the same time.
Jury nullification is an accepted and legal concept. On the one hand we have the law and on the other a jury of peers who, while respecting the court, can choose to lawfully apply some common sense, when there are extenuating circumstances.
When the law no longer protects in balance with impartiality, you have tyranny.
If I have the jist of the situation: The man was in possession of a firearm that ultimately saved his life from the actions of aggressive thugs. He did not have his papers to satisfy the magistrate. In the heat of the moment, he acted in a way even the best among us might, under the circumstances.
So long as he properly aquitted himself regarding the actions of his self preservation, whether he had papers or not should not been an issue other than a proverbial slap on the wrist. His life was in the balance. That trumps the permit.
Do I think we should subject ourselves to the law. Yes. In the interest that some order is good in the face of chaos. Do we as civilized people choose, at times, to look the other way on those rare occasions when it is reasonable to do so? Oh, I certainly hope we still believe in that concept.
Jury nullification is an accepted and legal concept. On the one hand we have the law and on the other a jury of peers who, while respecting the court, can choose to lawfully apply some common sense, when there are extenuating circumstances.
When the law no longer protects in balance with impartiality, you have tyranny.
If I have the jist of the situation: The man was in possession of a firearm that ultimately saved his life from the actions of aggressive thugs. He did not have his papers to satisfy the magistrate. In the heat of the moment, he acted in a way even the best among us might, under the circumstances.
So long as he properly aquitted himself regarding the actions of his self preservation, whether he had papers or not should not been an issue other than a proverbial slap on the wrist. His life was in the balance. That trumps the permit.
Do I think we should subject ourselves to the law. Yes. In the interest that some order is good in the face of chaos. Do we as civilized people choose, at times, to look the other way on those rare occasions when it is reasonable to do so? Oh, I certainly hope we still believe in that concept.
rangermonroe
New member
well said, grampster.
I am through here.
Adios..sua sponte
I am through here.
Adios..sua sponte
Is it my imagination, or have y'all (on the side of evil) been unable, or unwilling to address my points?/quote]
Points? You actually had debatable points?
I thought your maunderings were just advocacy of lawlessness and a public admission of guilt.
Neither of which is debatable nor defensible.
Rick, as long as we still have the means to affect change in the law, then we should work to overturn bad law. Of course, part of that change is to re-educate the public as to the reasons for a Jury and their Powers to nullify bad law on a case by case basis.
Another point is to convince enough people that concealed carry represents no threat to the public, so that change can be made through the legislatures of the States.
Simply making the ideological assumption to disobey the law and not be held accountable is advocating anarchy. Making the leap to action leads to chaos, IMO. Action or no, it further alienates us gunnies from the public. In short, it is not a responsible answer to the dilemma posed by bad law.
It's obvious that we disagree in certain areas of strategy and tactics. But I'll take the less violent means of affecting change through legal means while we have such means available.
Another point is to convince enough people that concealed carry represents no threat to the public, so that change can be made through the legislatures of the States.
Simply making the ideological assumption to disobey the law and not be held accountable is advocating anarchy. Making the leap to action leads to chaos, IMO. Action or no, it further alienates us gunnies from the public. In short, it is not a responsible answer to the dilemma posed by bad law.
It's obvious that we disagree in certain areas of strategy and tactics. But I'll take the less violent means of affecting change through legal means while we have such means available.
Gray Peterson
Inactive
....
It does not take 6 months to get a non-resident permit in Massachusetts. There was a huge flood of applicants about two years ago and you need a few paragraph justification for the permit, but they don't give you a lot of crap for it.
This person was a CCW holder in Rhode Island. Why didn't he apply for a non-resident permit? If he did he would not have been popped for this charge. I spend hundreds of dollars every few years getting my carry permits in order for as much of the country as possible. With the exception of Rhode Island (for the moment), I can get permits to carry in every New England state BY MAIL. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts (Vermont requires no permit).
If I were on the jury, I would have voted to acquit based on jury nullification. However, since I'm not on the jury, then it's an issue of "The guy was too stupid to get a permit". This isn't a situation like New York State or California where you can't get a permit as a non-resident. He had the option of getting a non-resident permit to cover him. He didn't. He rolled the dice, and he lost big time.
This person should have known better.
It does not take 6 months to get a non-resident permit in Massachusetts. There was a huge flood of applicants about two years ago and you need a few paragraph justification for the permit, but they don't give you a lot of crap for it.
This person was a CCW holder in Rhode Island. Why didn't he apply for a non-resident permit? If he did he would not have been popped for this charge. I spend hundreds of dollars every few years getting my carry permits in order for as much of the country as possible. With the exception of Rhode Island (for the moment), I can get permits to carry in every New England state BY MAIL. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts (Vermont requires no permit).
If I were on the jury, I would have voted to acquit based on jury nullification. However, since I'm not on the jury, then it's an issue of "The guy was too stupid to get a permit". This isn't a situation like New York State or California where you can't get a permit as a non-resident. He had the option of getting a non-resident permit to cover him. He didn't. He rolled the dice, and he lost big time.
This person should have known better.
Little Wolf
New member
I think you just answered your own question here. A few paragraphs worth of justification and you don't think that is a lot of crap? What if they don't like your reasonings? I doubt it will be considered sufficent if you just go on and on for 3 paragraphs about how you want it for self defense. I'm sure they want you to state that you travel with large sums of money or valuables, or have a death threat against you, etc.
Are you suggesting one lie on their application? Otherwise, just spouting out on how you need to defend yourself because you may be attacked for three paragraphs just isn't going to cut it.
Not to confuse the issue with facts, BUT
"All Lawful Purposes" is the STANDARD reason for issuing a non-resident LTC in Massachusetts. They used to be issued pro forma, based upon one's home state license. The politicos intermeddled a couple of years ago, requiring some sort of "reason."
I always put down that it is the reason RECOMMENDED by the Mass. Chiefs of Police Association, by the author of THE book on Mass. firearms law and is the only reason that does not subject the licensee to possible criminal action based upon some third-party PD's interpretation of any other reason. It worked for my resident license, for my clients and would work just as well for a non-resident.
Next crisis......
"All Lawful Purposes" is the STANDARD reason for issuing a non-resident LTC in Massachusetts. They used to be issued pro forma, based upon one's home state license. The politicos intermeddled a couple of years ago, requiring some sort of "reason."
I always put down that it is the reason RECOMMENDED by the Mass. Chiefs of Police Association, by the author of THE book on Mass. firearms law and is the only reason that does not subject the licensee to possible criminal action based upon some third-party PD's interpretation of any other reason. It worked for my resident license, for my clients and would work just as well for a non-resident.
Next crisis......
Little Wolf
New member
Ok, the explanation you gave still doesn't fill up one paragraph. MA needs a more lenghty response than that to issue a permit.
Not really
"MA needs a more lenghty [sic] response than that to issue a permit."
Why? It contains 3 specific reasons, over and above any personal reasons the applicant may have, such as competitions in MA, travel to/through on business, etc.
It's an application; not a Book Of The Month Club selection...
"MA needs a more lenghty [sic] response than that to issue a permit."
Why? It contains 3 specific reasons, over and above any personal reasons the applicant may have, such as competitions in MA, travel to/through on business, etc.
It's an application; not a Book Of The Month Club selection...
How many people have to die, or be harmed, before a bad law is overturned?
How many people need to face prison time, just for the act of self defense by any means possible?
How many people will it take before one realizes that even though the law is made to "protect you", how many it will actually harm?
I'm going to have to go against the law and order folks here when it comes to life or death of the individual. Why should one be in such fear of the government that they chose to try to cover up what they did in self-defense in order not to be jailed for their act of self-defense.
The guy did what he had to do in a state that doesn't allow such a thing, and then did the wrong thing because what he should have been allowed to do without a permit, wasn't allowed, and he went into a panic about saving his life but knew that by that state's law, he wasn't allowed to do so by the means that he did so.
Think about it and then look in the mirror... is YOUR LIFE worth obeying a law? Honestly, is it? You know you only have one life right? What are you willing to do to protect it and what laws that go against that are you willing to obey?
Wayne
How many people need to face prison time, just for the act of self defense by any means possible?
How many people will it take before one realizes that even though the law is made to "protect you", how many it will actually harm?
I'm going to have to go against the law and order folks here when it comes to life or death of the individual. Why should one be in such fear of the government that they chose to try to cover up what they did in self-defense in order not to be jailed for their act of self-defense.
The guy did what he had to do in a state that doesn't allow such a thing, and then did the wrong thing because what he should have been allowed to do without a permit, wasn't allowed, and he went into a panic about saving his life but knew that by that state's law, he wasn't allowed to do so by the means that he did so.
Think about it and then look in the mirror... is YOUR LIFE worth obeying a law? Honestly, is it? You know you only have one life right? What are you willing to do to protect it and what laws that go against that are you willing to obey?
Wayne
Just a few thoughts to add to the fray;
1) He is lucky that his offense (carrying without a non-resident CCW permit) was in Massachusetts and not the other way around. Had he been a MA resident with a LTC caught in RI, his punishment would have been ten times worse as "carrying a handgun in RI, openly or concealed, without a permit is a felony punishable by a ten year prison term." (courtesy packin.org)
2) "RI does not have any reciprocity with other states nor does RI recognize any other states." (courtesy packin.org) So in one way, he is a victum of his own state's laws - no reciprocity. (But to be fair, neither does MA).
3) Number 6, While my LTC is and has been listed as "All lawful purposes" for the last 20 years or so in MA, there has been a subtle change. Now 'reason for issue' has been replaced by 'Restriction', and according to our local Police Chief, 'all lawful purposes' is only allowed for renewals where that had been the previous 'reason for issue'.
4) Grampster, Thanks for your voice of calm and reason.
5) Finally, we are a nation of laws - laws that we inherited and laws that we the voting public allowed our elected officials enact. For better or worse, if we don't like the way it is, then we have to change it.
6) Remember, everything that is Right is not always Legal, and everything that is Legal is not always Right.
1) He is lucky that his offense (carrying without a non-resident CCW permit) was in Massachusetts and not the other way around. Had he been a MA resident with a LTC caught in RI, his punishment would have been ten times worse as "carrying a handgun in RI, openly or concealed, without a permit is a felony punishable by a ten year prison term." (courtesy packin.org)
2) "RI does not have any reciprocity with other states nor does RI recognize any other states." (courtesy packin.org) So in one way, he is a victum of his own state's laws - no reciprocity. (But to be fair, neither does MA).
3) Number 6, While my LTC is and has been listed as "All lawful purposes" for the last 20 years or so in MA, there has been a subtle change. Now 'reason for issue' has been replaced by 'Restriction', and according to our local Police Chief, 'all lawful purposes' is only allowed for renewals where that had been the previous 'reason for issue'.
4) Grampster, Thanks for your voice of calm and reason.
5) Finally, we are a nation of laws - laws that we inherited and laws that we the voting public allowed our elected officials enact. For better or worse, if we don't like the way it is, then we have to change it.
6) Remember, everything that is Right is not always Legal, and everything that is Legal is not always Right.
Gary Conner
New member
Hate to say it... but he should have gotten a MA permit. No excuse
Regarding the above quote
How about the excuse that he was trying to keep from getting killed? Would that make a difference? Seems that since he wasn't the aggressor, it would help that he was just trying to stay alive.
Or maybe "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Would that be enough excuse?
To me it would. Because if a state passes a law, that says he doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms, then even though the law was passed by the state legislature, I would think the judicial branch should find that law as unconstitutional, since passing a law that says you cannot keep and bear arms is in direct conflict with the right recognized by the United States Constitution.
Anyway, the two together seem to certainly be an excellent excuse to me. Were I on the jury, and made my way past Voire Dire, I would vote not guilty and tell the judge they need to resolve the state law.
That is how injustices such as having to get a permit (to do what the big permit already says we can do) will be resolved. IMHO.
Regarding the above quote
How about the excuse that he was trying to keep from getting killed? Would that make a difference? Seems that since he wasn't the aggressor, it would help that he was just trying to stay alive.
Or maybe "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
Would that be enough excuse?
To me it would. Because if a state passes a law, that says he doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms, then even though the law was passed by the state legislature, I would think the judicial branch should find that law as unconstitutional, since passing a law that says you cannot keep and bear arms is in direct conflict with the right recognized by the United States Constitution.
Anyway, the two together seem to certainly be an excellent excuse to me. Were I on the jury, and made my way past Voire Dire, I would vote not guilty and tell the judge they need to resolve the state law.
That is how injustices such as having to get a permit (to do what the big permit already says we can do) will be resolved. IMHO.
Gary, since you're quoting my statement I'll respond.
Here is why I believe there is no excuse for not having the MA permit in this case:
No excuse.
Had I been on the jury, I may not have convicted him of this violation (carrying w/out permit). I say that only knowing what the article describes. Had I been privy to the facts described in the courtroom... who knows?
Hopefully WI will pass its CCW law this spring. Minnesota already allows CCW. I only travel to MN about thrice a year for fishing trips and to visit a good family friend. Do you think I should obtain a MN permit? I will, because I don't want to be in a situation where I wish I had filled out the application that was sitting on my desk for months. I am also obtaining a FL permit as its good in some *29 states* that I'll never travel to. But if I do, I won't have to worry.
Personally, I wish it were VT-style all across the land. But it's not. Don't like the law? Change them by conventional means - and I'll even contribute as much as I can of my own time and money to further the cause.. But if you ignore the law and want sympathy from me when you’re in trouble - go bark up another tree.
Here is why I believe there is no excuse for not having the MA permit in this case:
From the article. -- Bolding mine. said:
No excuse.
First of all, I said he had no excuse for not having a MA permit. I really don't know what the point of this comment is, since the man in the story was acquitted of all charges other than carrying w/out a MA permit. I am not crucifying the man for being an "aggressor,” or for keeping himself from getting killed. What's your point?Gary Conner said:
MA did not pass a law that says he doesn't have the RKBA. Are you even discussing the article anymore?Gary Conner. -- Bolding mine. said:
They're not an "excellent excuses" in my opinion. They would be a great excuse if he had been convicted of a number of other charges, but not for conviction of carrying in MA w/out a permit – which is what this discussion is about. The fact that he had the application on his desk for "months" is an indication that Bob knew damn well that he needed the permit in order to carry in MA. I'll wager that procrastination, along with feeling he didn't need it because he rarely went to MA, are the two things that put him in this position.Gary Conner said:
Had I been on the jury, I may not have convicted him of this violation (carrying w/out permit). I say that only knowing what the article describes. Had I been privy to the facts described in the courtroom... who knows?
Hopefully WI will pass its CCW law this spring. Minnesota already allows CCW. I only travel to MN about thrice a year for fishing trips and to visit a good family friend. Do you think I should obtain a MN permit? I will, because I don't want to be in a situation where I wish I had filled out the application that was sitting on my desk for months. I am also obtaining a FL permit as its good in some *29 states* that I'll never travel to. But if I do, I won't have to worry.
Personally, I wish it were VT-style all across the land. But it's not. Don't like the law? Change them by conventional means - and I'll even contribute as much as I can of my own time and money to further the cause.. But if you ignore the law and want sympathy from me when you’re in trouble - go bark up another tree.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Gary Conner said,
No, the 2nd Amendment is not an excuse. There are countless cases substantiating that the 2nd Amendment isn't all inclusive and that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. It is fine you feel that the local law is in conflict with the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. A lot of folks feel that way as do I, but that doesn't change things.
If you voted not guilty on the jury and told the judge they need to resolve the state law (apparently because you don't agree with it), then you could be charged in contempt of court since as part of the swearing in process to serve on the jury, you swore to uphold the laws in determining the person's guilt or innocence. I assume folks up that way are sworn in similar to how they are sworn in here.
There is potential further complication. By saying the man is not guilty because you don't agree with the law means you lied when sworn in since you would not uphold the law. The finding of the jury, if non-guilty, might then be rejected and a mistrial declared because as a juror, you failed to perform as required and while you might be replaced by an alternate, the prosecution would claim you had a misguided influence on the other jurors, hence the mistrial.
When you live in a land and choose to ignore laws you don't feel are valid, then get caught breaking the laws you don't think are valid, it is naive to think that you won't suffer the consequences that you don't think are valid either. To this day I don't understand why people get upset when they get busted for breaking laws they don't like.
No, the 2nd Amendment is not an excuse. There are countless cases substantiating that the 2nd Amendment isn't all inclusive and that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. It is fine you feel that the local law is in conflict with the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. A lot of folks feel that way as do I, but that doesn't change things.
If you voted not guilty on the jury and told the judge they need to resolve the state law (apparently because you don't agree with it), then you could be charged in contempt of court since as part of the swearing in process to serve on the jury, you swore to uphold the laws in determining the person's guilt or innocence. I assume folks up that way are sworn in similar to how they are sworn in here.
There is potential further complication. By saying the man is not guilty because you don't agree with the law means you lied when sworn in since you would not uphold the law. The finding of the jury, if non-guilty, might then be rejected and a mistrial declared because as a juror, you failed to perform as required and while you might be replaced by an alternate, the prosecution would claim you had a misguided influence on the other jurors, hence the mistrial.
When you live in a land and choose to ignore laws you don't feel are valid, then get caught breaking the laws you don't think are valid, it is naive to think that you won't suffer the consequences that you don't think are valid either. To this day I don't understand why people get upset when they get busted for breaking laws they don't like.