|
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/13, 3:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is that law to be enforced? Here's an idea: If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison. Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you go to prison. Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law. This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". I don't have any problem with such an inspection, either. There are no kids running around here, and all but one home defense weapon are locked up in a safe. We don't get many doorbell ringers around here, other than UPS/FEDEX and the Sunday church ladies, and I always peek on the video monitor before I open the door anyway. Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge. Paranoid, or you live in a high crime district. I have video cams around the exterior. Nothing paranoid about that. What's paranoid about greeting someone breaking in at night with a 12 gauge? Breaking in at night? Where was that mentioned. You commented about answering the front door. The last sentence of the the post to which you responded. The sentence that reads" "Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge." Reading is fundamental. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/13, 3:41 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:24:23 PM UTC-5, True North wrote: Man...you guys in Massachusetts are practically Canadians. Congratulations. ~snerk~ There, I fixed it for you! Changing other's posts? That's pretty childish. It's all they have. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/13, 3:57 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/13/2013 3:33 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:11:32 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/13/2013 12:13 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:49 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: There are several of those cases working their way through the court as we speak. Florida? $25 fine, right? 2d degree misdemeanor $500 and 60 days in jail for the first offense, if there are no other charges present. If you knowingly provided a weapon to a minor or anyone else who was prohibited from having one you can get up into felony territory. Here's the law in MA: Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user. (b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. That's just for them finding out you didn't secure them as required. The last sentence in (a) gives you an easy out. Except that if you want to have quick access to one at night while you sleep, it sounds like you must sleep with a holster. Having it under the bed (12 gauge) or in a night stand drawer (9mm) doesn't sound like it qualifies for that exemption. It has to either be locked up, or in your hands/on your belt. Refer to John.. he has it... it's all leading to confiscation, the desired outcome. Problem is libs don't ever compromise, they just think they are smarter than you.. The microorganisms in used kitty litter are smarter than you are. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
No need for any snerking, seeing progressive attitudes down there gives me hope for the future of the USA.
|
Speaking of guns and horses
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:41:15 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:24:23 PM UTC-5, True North wrote: Man...you guys in Massachusetts are practically Canadians. Congratulations. ~snerk~ There, I fixed it for you! Changing other's posts? That's pretty childish. Only if you do it without pointing it out. I didn't do that. Others have been caught changing text and leaving out text when quoting from other sources. That's not childish, that's dishonest. I *can* point out some very childish posts. You won't like the originator of them, however. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 3:33 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:11:32 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/13/2013 12:13 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:49 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: There are several of those cases working their way through the court as we speak. Florida? $25 fine, right? 2d degree misdemeanor $500 and 60 days in jail for the first offense, if there are no other charges present. If you knowingly provided a weapon to a minor or anyone else who was prohibited from having one you can get up into felony territory. Here's the law in MA: Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user. (b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. That's just for them finding out you didn't secure them as required. The last sentence in (a) gives you an easy out. Except that if you want to have quick access to one at night while you sleep, it sounds like you must sleep with a holster. Having it under the bed (12 gauge) or in a night stand drawer (9mm) doesn't sound like it qualifies for that exemption. It has to either be locked up, or in your hands/on your belt. I don't interpret it that way. Having it on or in a nightstand beside your bed qualifies as "under direct control" I think. Same as having one in the center compartment of your truck or car. It doesn't have to physically be "on" you in order to be "under direct control". In reality, in this state I suspect there would be an investigation and even preliminary charges brought against you, even if you shot an intruder in the middle of the night. Where the guns are kept would become a minor point. MA has a castle law that can be used in your defense in the event of a shooting, but I suspect you would have to convince everyone that it was self defense. It's a squishy law in a squishy state when it comes to guns. Our governor, Deval Patrick (we call him "Minnie Me") is intent on tightening gun control laws further to the point where very few would qualify for a new permit or renewals of existing permits. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 3:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is that law to be enforced? Here's an idea: If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison. Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you go to prison. Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law. This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". I don't have any problem with such an inspection, either. There are no kids running around here, and all but one home defense weapon are locked up in a safe. We don't get many doorbell ringers around here, other than UPS/FEDEX and the Sunday church ladies, and I always peek on the video monitor before I open the door anyway. Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge. Paranoid, or you live in a high crime district. I have video cams around the exterior. Nothing paranoid about that. What's paranoid about greeting someone breaking in at night with a 12 gauge? Breaking in at night? Where was that mentioned. You commented about answering the front door. Bill, you must have missed the last sentence of Harry's post: "Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge." |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
In article 579345792406067882.642720bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 14377863406053108.919177bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn, and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in the barn area. Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of firearms? === Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling. Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause, and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of northeastern nanny state mentality run amok. Yeah, what he said. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! It's the GOP that doesn't want progress..... Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very important to the Founders of this country. So was witch hunting. I don not know of any of the founders that were involved in witch hunting. Maybe you can give a link. Wait, are you trying to say that the founding fathers were personally involved in everything that they subscribed to? Do you not think the Pilgrims can be labeled as "founding fathers"? Have you never heard of the Salem Witch trials? |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article ,
says... On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 3:41:15 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:24:23 PM UTC-5, True North wrote: Man...you guys in Massachusetts are practically Canadians. Congratulations. ~snerk~ There, I fixed it for you! Changing other's posts? That's pretty childish. Only if you do it without pointing it out. I didn't do that. Others have been caught changing text and leaving out text when quoting from other sources. That's not childish, that's dishonest. I *can* point out some very childish posts. You won't like the originator of them, however. Sure you can...... |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article , says...
On 11/13/2013 3:33 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:11:32 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/13/2013 12:13 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:49 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: There are several of those cases working their way through the court as we speak. Florida? $25 fine, right? 2d degree misdemeanor $500 and 60 days in jail for the first offense, if there are no other charges present. If you knowingly provided a weapon to a minor or anyone else who was prohibited from having one you can get up into felony territory. Here's the law in MA: Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user. (b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. That's just for them finding out you didn't secure them as required. The last sentence in (a) gives you an easy out. Except that if you want to have quick access to one at night while you sleep, it sounds like you must sleep with a holster. Having it under the bed (12 gauge) or in a night stand drawer (9mm) doesn't sound like it qualifies for that exemption. It has to either be locked up, or in your hands/on your belt. Refer to John.. he has it... it's all leading to confiscation, the desired outcome. Problem is libs don't ever compromise, they just think they are smarter than you.. Oh, man, there goes that jawbone again! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:13:39 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/13/2013 3:33 PM, wrote: Except that if you want to have quick access to one at night while you sleep, it sounds like you must sleep with a holster. Having it under the bed (12 gauge) or in a night stand drawer (9mm) doesn't sound like it qualifies for that exemption. It has to either be locked up, or in your hands/on your belt. I don't interpret it that way. Having it on or in a nightstand beside your bed qualifies as "under direct control" I think. Same as having one in the center compartment of your truck or car. It doesn't have to physically be "on" you in order to be "under direct control". I suppose I tend to take things pretty literally. "Carried" is pretty clear. "Under my control" is a bit muddy, since under the bed doesn't seem like it's under my direct control. I do get your point, especially regarding that I'd have to lock things up every time I left the house. In reality, in this state I suspect there would be an investigation and even preliminary charges brought against you, even if you shot an intruder in the middle of the night. Where the guns are kept would become a minor point. MA has a castle law that can be used in your defense in the event of a shooting, but I suspect you would have to convince everyone that it was self defense. It's a squishy law in a squishy state when it comes to guns. Our governor, Deval Patrick (we call him "Minnie Me") is intent on tightening gun control laws further to the point where very few would qualify for a new permit or renewals of existing permits. Fortunately, we are not to the point your state is in regard to gun restrictions. I can say that it has been years since anyone rode around with a gun rack in the rear window of their truck. Funny, it seems there was far less violent crime back in those days. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 4:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:13:39 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 3:33 PM, wrote: Except that if you want to have quick access to one at night while you sleep, it sounds like you must sleep with a holster. Having it under the bed (12 gauge) or in a night stand drawer (9mm) doesn't sound like it qualifies for that exemption. It has to either be locked up, or in your hands/on your belt. I don't interpret it that way. Having it on or in a nightstand beside your bed qualifies as "under direct control" I think. Same as having one in the center compartment of your truck or car. It doesn't have to physically be "on" you in order to be "under direct control". I suppose I tend to take things pretty literally. "Carried" is pretty clear. "Under my control" is a bit muddy, since under the bed doesn't seem like it's under my direct control. I do get your point, especially regarding that I'd have to lock things up every time I left the house. In reality, in this state I suspect there would be an investigation and even preliminary charges brought against you, even if you shot an intruder in the middle of the night. Where the guns are kept would become a minor point. MA has a castle law that can be used in your defense in the event of a shooting, but I suspect you would have to convince everyone that it was self defense. It's a squishy law in a squishy state when it comes to guns. Our governor, Deval Patrick (we call him "Minnie Me") is intent on tightening gun control laws further to the point where very few would qualify for a new permit or renewals of existing permits. Fortunately, we are not to the point your state is in regard to gun restrictions. I can say that it has been years since anyone rode around with a gun rack in the rear window of their truck. Funny, it seems there was far less violent crime back in those days. That could never happen around here. If I had a gun rack in my truck with a rifle in it, I'd be surrounded by 35 cops with lights flashing in a matter of minutes. What's weird is I can carry a loaded handgun on me (concealed) or have one loaded in my center console (out of direct view) but if I want to transport a shotgun or .22 rifle to the range legally, it must be unloaded and within a solid, locked case or a soft case with a trigger or breech lock installed. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 4:32 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 579345792406067882.642720bmckeenospam- I don not know of any of the founders that were involved in witch hunting. Maybe you can give a link. Wait, are you trying to say that the founding fathers were personally involved in everything that they subscribed to? Do you not think the Pilgrims can be labeled as "founding fathers"? Have you never heard of the Salem Witch trials? The Pilgrims weren't the "Founding Fathers". They were "Flounder Fathers". |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:38:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. Years ago when we were wintering in Florida and Mrs.E's. horses had been transported down there, we received a letter from our home town indicating that a barn inspection had been conducted and her permit to have horses was renewed for another year. Mrs.E. was happy. I was ****ed. The barn had been secured for the winter. No horses. It's located on our property. It also contains a lot of fairly expensive equipment and gear. What right did a town official have to enter the barn without our knowledge or permission? I know it was harmless and for a specific purpose but still the idea that anyone ... town official or private citizen could enter whenever they felt like it got under my skin. To me, it's trespassing. I called the town hall and explained my concern. I wasn't an ass about it or anything but made the point that if it were anyone else, it would be considered a break-in, in my opinion. I asked them what would happen if we reported some equipment as being missing when we returned in the spring? I guess the town had never considered anything like that. Since then they always call the day before they would like to visit for an inspection. To me it sounds like a bunch of liberals trying to expand the powers of government, much further than they should be. To Wayne it sounded like more nanny statehood. I would hope the NRA would tie those folks up in court until the town went broke. I'd contribute to the NRA for that one, even though I disagree with some of their positions. I still feel the same, even though you find it best to snip that part of my post. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is that law to be enforced? Here's an idea: If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison. Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you go to prison. Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law. This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". That's fine, but suppose you *didn't* feel like having your house inspected? Should there be consequences? Who here do you consider a 'Tea Party' type - anyone who disagrees with the idea of warrantless home searches? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:13:39 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 3:33 PM, wrote: Except that if you want to have quick access to one at night while you sleep, it sounds like you must sleep with a holster. Having it under the bed (12 gauge) or in a night stand drawer (9mm) doesn't sound like it qualifies for that exemption. It has to either be locked up, or in your hands/on your belt. I don't interpret it that way. Having it on or in a nightstand beside your bed qualifies as "under direct control" I think. Same as having one in the center compartment of your truck or car. It doesn't have to physically be "on" you in order to be "under direct control". I suppose I tend to take things pretty literally. "Carried" is pretty clear. "Under my control" is a bit muddy, since under the bed doesn't seem like it's under my direct control. I do get your point, especially regarding that I'd have to lock things up every time I left the house. In reality, in this state I suspect there would be an investigation and even preliminary charges brought against you, even if you shot an intruder in the middle of the night. Where the guns are kept would become a minor point. MA has a castle law that can be used in your defense in the event of a shooting, but I suspect you would have to convince everyone that it was self defense. It's a squishy law in a squishy state when it comes to guns. Our governor, Deval Patrick (we call him "Minnie Me") is intent on tightening gun control laws further to the point where very few would qualify for a new permit or renewals of existing permits. Fortunately, we are not to the point your state is in regard to gun restrictions. I can say that it has been years since anyone rode around with a gun rack in the rear window of their truck. Funny, it seems there was far less violent crime back in those days. There was less violent crime, and these days, someone would break in to the truck and steal the weapons. I think that we have had too many years of lack of teaching children responsibility. |
Speaking of guns and horses
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 579345792406067882.642720bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 14377863406053108.919177bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn, and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in the barn area. Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of firearms? === Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling. Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause, and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of northeastern nanny state mentality run amok. Yeah, what he said. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! It's the GOP that doesn't want progress..... Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very important to the Founders of this country. So was witch hunting. I don not know of any of the founders that were involved in witch hunting. Maybe you can give a link. Wait, are you trying to say that the founding fathers were personally involved in everything that they subscribed to? Do you not think the Pilgrims can be labeled as "founding fathers"? Have you never heard of the Salem Witch trials? The Pilgrims were not the founding fathers. And you realize the Pilgrims at Plymouth, MA were two different groups that did not like each other? And the Salem Witch Trials were more, a way too steal someone else's property. |
Speaking of guns and horses
iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 11/13/2013 3:33 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:11:32 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 11/13/2013 12:13 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:58:49 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: There are several of those cases working their way through the court as we speak. Florida? $25 fine, right? 2d degree misdemeanor $500 and 60 days in jail for the first offense, if there are no other charges present. If you knowingly provided a weapon to a minor or anyone else who was prohibited from having one you can get up into felony territory. Here's the law in MA: Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user. (b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. That's just for them finding out you didn't secure them as required. The last sentence in (a) gives you an easy out. Except that if you want to have quick access to one at night while you sleep, it sounds like you must sleep with a holster. Having it under the bed (12 gauge) or in a night stand drawer (9mm) doesn't sound like it qualifies for that exemption. It has to either be locked up, or in your hands/on your belt. Refer to John.. he has it... it's all leading to confiscation, the desired outcome. Problem is libs don't ever compromise, they just think they are smarter than you.. Oh, man, there goes that jawbone again! What a childish post. |
Speaking of guns and horses
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/13/2013 3:40 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is that law to be enforced? Here's an idea: If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison. Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you go to prison. Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law. This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". I don't have any problem with such an inspection, either. There are no kids running around here, and all but one home defense weapon are locked up in a safe. We don't get many doorbell ringers around here, other than UPS/FEDEX and the Sunday church ladies, and I always peek on the video monitor before I open the door anyway. Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge. Paranoid, or you live in a high crime district. I have video cams around the exterior. Nothing paranoid about that. What's paranoid about greeting someone breaking in at night with a 12 gauge? Breaking in at night? Where was that mentioned. You commented about answering the front door. Bill, you must have missed the last sentence of Harry's post: "Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge." I did. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 11/13/13, 3:40 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 12:09 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is that law to be enforced? Here's an idea: If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison. Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you go to prison. Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law. This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". I don't have any problem with such an inspection, either. There are no kids running around here, and all but one home defense weapon are locked up in a safe. We don't get many doorbell ringers around here, other than UPS/FEDEX and the Sunday church ladies, and I always peek on the video monitor before I open the door anyway. Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge. Paranoid, or you live in a high crime district. I have video cams around the exterior. Nothing paranoid about that. What's paranoid about greeting someone breaking in at night with a 12 gauge? Breaking in at night? Where was that mentioned. You commented about answering the front door. The last sentence of the the post to which you responded. The sentence that reads" "Anyone breaking in at night meets Mr. 12 Gauge." Reading is fundamental. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 5:15 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:38:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. Years ago when we were wintering in Florida and Mrs.E's. horses had been transported down there, we received a letter from our home town indicating that a barn inspection had been conducted and her permit to have horses was renewed for another year. Mrs.E. was happy. I was ****ed. The barn had been secured for the winter. No horses. It's located on our property. It also contains a lot of fairly expensive equipment and gear. What right did a town official have to enter the barn without our knowledge or permission? I know it was harmless and for a specific purpose but still the idea that anyone ... town official or private citizen could enter whenever they felt like it got under my skin. To me, it's trespassing. I called the town hall and explained my concern. I wasn't an ass about it or anything but made the point that if it were anyone else, it would be considered a break-in, in my opinion. I asked them what would happen if we reported some equipment as being missing when we returned in the spring? I guess the town had never considered anything like that. Since then they always call the day before they would like to visit for an inspection. To me it sounds like a bunch of liberals trying to expand the powers of government, much further than they should be. To Wayne it sounded like more nanny statehood. I would hope the NRA would tie those folks up in court until the town went broke. I'd contribute to the NRA for that one, even though I disagree with some of their positions. I still feel the same, even though you find it best to snip that part of my post. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I didn't intentionally snip your post for any particular reason. I often snip stuff from threads that have become very long due to quoted material that really isn't germane to the current discussion. If I "miss-snipped", my apologies. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 5:17 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is that law to be enforced? Here's an idea: If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison. Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you go to prison. Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law. This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". That's fine, but suppose you *didn't* feel like having your house inspected? Should there be consequences? No, not under current law that requires a warrant and probable cause. However, the point I was making about the selectman in Shrewsbury is that it appears to be an attempt to further restrict gun permits. If you don't agree to inspections up front ... no permit. Who here do you consider a 'Tea Party' type - anyone who disagrees with the idea of warrantless home searches? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! The "Tea Party" and it's followers is such an emotionally charged issue that I'll keep my opinions in terms of who here support it to myself. All it causes is hate and discontent. We don't need any more of that. I will say that some here present opinions and philosophies that are stronger or closer to those of the Tea Party than others, at least the way I interpret them. I don't necessarily disagree with everything the Tea Party represents either, BTW. I strongly disagree with the manner in which they have tried to push their causes however. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:07:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/13/2013 4:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:13:39 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 3:33 PM, wrote: Except that if you want to have quick access to one at night while you sleep, it sounds like you must sleep with a holster. Having it under the bed (12 gauge) or in a night stand drawer (9mm) doesn't sound like it qualifies for that exemption. It has to either be locked up, or in your hands/on your belt. I don't interpret it that way. Having it on or in a nightstand beside your bed qualifies as "under direct control" I think. Same as having one in the center compartment of your truck or car. It doesn't have to physically be "on" you in order to be "under direct control". I suppose I tend to take things pretty literally. "Carried" is pretty clear. "Under my control" is a bit muddy, since under the bed doesn't seem like it's under my direct control. I do get your point, especially regarding that I'd have to lock things up every time I left the house. In reality, in this state I suspect there would be an investigation and even preliminary charges brought against you, even if you shot an intruder in the middle of the night. Where the guns are kept would become a minor point. MA has a castle law that can be used in your defense in the event of a shooting, but I suspect you would have to convince everyone that it was self defense. It's a squishy law in a squishy state when it comes to guns. Our governor, Deval Patrick (we call him "Minnie Me") is intent on tightening gun control laws further to the point where very few would qualify for a new permit or renewals of existing permits. Fortunately, we are not to the point your state is in regard to gun restrictions. I can say that it has been years since anyone rode around with a gun rack in the rear window of their truck. Funny, it seems there was far less violent crime back in those days. That could never happen around here. If I had a gun rack in my truck with a rifle in it, I'd be surrounded by 35 cops with lights flashing in a matter of minutes. What's weird is I can carry a loaded handgun on me (concealed) or have one loaded in my center console (out of direct view) but if I want to transport a shotgun or .22 rifle to the range legally, it must be unloaded and within a solid, locked case or a soft case with a trigger or breech lock installed. I've never asked, but I wonder if you (or me) could carry a handgun in a holster in any of the places we could carry one concealed. I'll have to check into that. I'm seriously considering carrying one when I walk the dogs. There are too many big, mean dogs being walked by little old women. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 5:35 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/13/2013 5:17 PM, John H wrote: If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". Somehow that seems strange for someone who served to protect our rights, to give them up so easily because why? It's not inconvenient for you??? John didn't say that. I did. You have your attributes wrong. As for me, I don't see how my military service has anything to do with common sense regarding gun safety. I don't equate every reasonable law as being a threat to my "rights". We don't live in a black and white world. You have to actually *think* about some things and many people think differently. I'd invite the cop in. You can tell him to take a hike if you want. It's my right, and yours. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Refer to John.. he has it... it's all leading to confiscation, the desired outcome. Problem is libs don't ever compromise, they just think they are smarter than you.. Oh, man, there goes that jawbone again! What a childish post. There's no way guns will ever be "confiscated" as long as the Constitution exists. What *will* happen over the years is a state by state tighter reign on types of permits, etc. I suspect concealed carry permits will become much more difficult to obtain in years to come. In this state the standard "for all lawful purposes" reason is no longer sufficient for a concealed carry permit in an increasing number of towns. You have to have more of a reason. You will still get a permit, but for home defense, hunting or target practice only and you will not be permitted to carry a concealed, loaded firearm. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 5:53 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:07:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: What's weird is I can carry a loaded handgun on me (concealed) or have one loaded in my center console (out of direct view) but if I want to transport a shotgun or .22 rifle to the range legally, it must be unloaded and within a solid, locked case or a soft case with a trigger or breech lock installed. I've never asked, but I wonder if you (or me) could carry a handgun in a holster in any of the places we could carry one concealed. I'll have to check into that. I'm seriously considering carrying one when I walk the dogs. There are too many big, mean dogs being walked by little old women. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I guess you are talking about "open carry" versus concealed. I don't know about Virgina, but I know what would happen up here. Massachusetts is technically an "open carry" state by virtue of the fact that there is no specific law forbidding it. However: Concealed carry permits ... in fact *any* type of firearm permit is at the discretion of the local police chief or his designate. Walking through town with an exposed holster and your favorite .45 strapped to your waist is a sure way of having your gun permit revoked ... permanently. There *is* a state law that covers concealed carry. It *must* be concealed. If you pull out your concealed gun in a public place and anyone feels threatened in the slightest way, it is a potential felony. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/13, 7:37 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
Not shoving. Just asking. Let me be more straight forward so we don't go all loogie here... Do you believe after being told directly from the Oval Office to "watch the tea party, give them more scrutiny", that the IRS did not pursue Conservatives and Christians? Gosh, just how many "conservatives" and "christians" were locked up? If you are going to try to be a smart ass, Scott, first you have to be smart. Otherwise, you are just an ass. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
Speaking of guns and horses
On 11/13/2013 7:37 PM, Charlemagne wrote:
On 11/13/2013 7:29 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Your sig line? Sorry Scott but based on many of your past posts, I think some of your claims lack credibility. No offense, it's just the way I see them. You have your beliefs. Fine. Believe them and exercise your right to vote to support them. But don't try to shove them down my throat by requiring me to justify why I don't believe them. That's when it starts to get ugly and I am tired of all the ugliness. Not shoving. Just asking. Let me be more straight forward so we don't go all loogie here... Do you believe after being told directly from the Oval Office to "watch the tea party, give them more scrutiny", that the IRS did not pursue Conservatives and Christians? Do you not believe ATT and others when they say publically that the Govt bought/took private info on Americans inside and outside of the borders? If I had the answers to your questions and the proof to back them up I'd be qualified to run the CIA. Rumors and stories abound, spread by all with a political agenda. You choose to believe it all. Fine. I simply don't know. |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
In article 695555588406074347.336773bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 579345792406067882.642720bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 14377863406053108.919177bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:21:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The permit is issued yearly based on an inspection of the stables, barn, and grounds by the animal control inspector. She checks to ensure sanitary and safe conditions for both the horse(s) and that may visit in the barn area. Is that any different than home inspections for the safe storage of firearms? === Yes, big difference, unless your stable is also your dwelling. Inspecting the interior of a home except at the time of construction or renovation generally requires a search warrant and probable cause, and that's the way it should stay unless you want to roll the clock back to colonial times and British rule. It's another example of northeastern nanny state mentality run amok. Yeah, what he said. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! It's the GOP that doesn't want progress..... Progress? Maybe all progress is not good. Illegal search was very important to the Founders of this country. So was witch hunting. I don not know of any of the founders that were involved in witch hunting. Maybe you can give a link. Wait, are you trying to say that the founding fathers were personally involved in everything that they subscribed to? Do you not think the Pilgrims can be labeled as "founding fathers"? Have you never heard of the Salem Witch trials? The Pilgrims were not the founding fathers. And you realize the Pilgrims at Plymouth, MA were two different groups that did not like each other? And the Salem Witch Trials were more, a way too steal someone else's property. Who said they weren't "founding fathers"? |
Speaking of guns and horses
In article ,
says... On 11/13/2013 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote: iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Refer to John.. he has it... it's all leading to confiscation, the desired outcome. Problem is libs don't ever compromise, they just think they are smarter than you.. Oh, man, there goes that jawbone again! What a childish post. There's no way guns will ever be "confiscated" as long as the Constitution exists. What *will* happen over the years is a state by state tighter reign on types of permits, etc. I suspect concealed carry permits will become much more difficult to obtain in years to come. In this state the standard "for all lawful purposes" reason is no longer sufficient for a concealed carry permit in an increasing number of towns. You have to have more of a reason. You will still get a permit, but for home defense, hunting or target practice only and you will not be permitted to carry a concealed, loaded firearm. Sounds good to me! |
Speaking of guns and horses
|
Speaking of guns and horses
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:47:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/13/2013 5:17 PM, John H wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is that law to be enforced? Here's an idea: If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison. Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you go to prison. Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law. This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". That's fine, but suppose you *didn't* feel like having your house inspected? Should there be consequences? No, not under current law that requires a warrant and probable cause. However, the point I was making about the selectman in Shrewsbury is that it appears to be an attempt to further restrict gun permits. If you don't agree to inspections up front ... no permit. Who here do you consider a 'Tea Party' type - anyone who disagrees with the idea of warrantless home searches? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! The "Tea Party" and it's followers is such an emotionally charged issue that I'll keep my opinions in terms of who here support it to myself. All it causes is hate and discontent. We don't need any more of that. I will say that some here present opinions and philosophies that are stronger or closer to those of the Tea Party than others, at least the way I interpret them. It's very true that some here are more conservative than others here. I sure can't argue that. Wondering whether I was a 'Tea Party' leaner, I went to their platform to see exactly what it was: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/ I'd have to say that I agree with their ten core beliefs. I don't necessarily disagree with everything the Tea Party represents either, BTW. I strongly disagree with the manner in which they have tried to push their causes however. Ditto. In another post you mentioned "Universal Pre-Kindergarden Day Care". This would, of course, require government employees to manage the program and increase the dependency of government handouts. In other words, another ploy to buy Democrat votes. It's all in the votes bought at the expense of the 'soon-to-be-minority' of the population that pays any taxes. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Speaking of guns and horses
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:41:16 -0600, Califbill wrote:
John H wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:00:12 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:57:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 11/13/13, 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/13/2013 7:18 AM, John H wrote: The idea that a cop could search, warrantless, your home and this would be acceptable is unfathomable. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I agree that a search of your home without a warrant showing probable cause is unfathomable. The sneaky thing about this selectman's proposal is that the authorization for the cops to search is tied to your permit to own firearms. In other words, you don't agree .. you can't legally own a firearm. To me, his idea is that in order to qualify for a gun permit you must give the police permission to enter and search your home ahead of time. If there is a local law requiring guns to be locked up safely, how is that law to be enforced? Here's an idea: If you have a gun and it is supposed to be locked and a kid gets his hands on it and shoots himself or someone else, *you* go to prison. Or, if someone steals a firearm and you don't report it right away, you go to prison. Those are already distinct possibilities. You can be charged for negligence and for not storing the firearms in the prescribed manner by law. This will **** off the Tea Party types here, but I would not object to an inspection of my firearm storage. If a cop knocked on the door right now and asked if I voluntarily agreed to him coming in and checking how my guns are stored, I'd say, "Come on in". I am not sure I would trust just any cop who knocked on my door When I got my original machine gun stamp I did have an undersheriff (2d in command for Lee County) make an appointment to interview my wife and I and look at my gun safe. That I can understand. Personally, I think retired Army officers should be able to mount a Ma Deuce on their hoods just to prevent assholish driving. I suppose cops should be able to monitor the installation and storage of same. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! Not the officers. But the grunts are more familiar with weapons and should have the right before some ossifer. How about OCS graduates who've seen the best of both worlds. I could buy that! John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com