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.

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.

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.

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.

In article ,
says...

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".

Sure they were founding fathers. What would make you think they weren't?
Is there some written classification regarding what is considered
founding fathers, or who gets to make that judgment?

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"?

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!

In article ,
says...

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.

That's not unusual.

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".

That's because you can think on your own, as opposed to staring at FOX
on TV and believing everything those kooks say.

We don't live in a black and white world. You have to actually *think*
about some things and many people think differently.

Exactly!

I'd invite the cop in.
You can tell him to take a hike if you want.
It's my right, and yours.

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!

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!