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?

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......

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!

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.

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.

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".

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!

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!

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!

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.