Posted on 08/26/2014 11:59:12 AM PDT by marktwain
| The development is about 15 years old |
After he was kicked out of the party, he returned to the home with his 50-year-old stepfather and they started striking the residence with rocks and baseball bats, officials said.Once it is clear that ownership is contingent on government approval, then the restrictions on approval can gradually be increased to reduce the number of firearm owners. This is already underway in Massachusetts.
The 77-year-old homeowner, Robert Distefano, fired at the two men when they approached him, according to authorities.
The 21-year-old suffered critical injuries but is expected to survive, and the 50-year-old man also suffered non-life-threatening injuries.
Distefano is not facing charges related to the shooting but will be arraigned Monday for unlawful possession of a firearm within in his home because he used a deceased relative's handgun, officials said.
Those don’t look like houses, they look like barns. Cookie-cutter barns. Reminds me of the song, “Little Boxes” by Malvina Reynolds the theme song to the t.v. show “Weeds”.
The fee to apply (and probably get turned down) is $150 in massachusetts.
When universal background checks loom on the horizon, it’s time to write up bills of sale to your heirs.
Well, he’s alive....
The left doesn’t want honest, non-violent citizens to be able to defend themselves.
At the same time, they deliberately and intentionally leave guns in the hands of violent criminals.
Typical Liberal.
After behaving badly at someone else’s home he is told to leave.
The miscreant goes home and tells his dad (21 years old and not yet grown up).
The dad not believing that his angelic son could have done any wrong takes up his son’s cause to avenge the wrong done to his son returns to afore mentioned home to hurl rocks at the evil doers.
Whatever happened to responsible parenting? What happened to wringing the truth out of your kid and forcing him to take responsibility for his actions? Not only did this fool not correct his son he joined in the foolish behavior.
Personal responsibility is a thing of the past for Libs.
I would have told my son that he needed to personally apologize to the home owner for his bad behavior.
“Once it is clear that ownership is contingent on government approval, then the restrictions on approval can gradually be increased to reduce the number of firearm owners. This is already underway in Massachusetts.”
Not true. The Massachusetts-based Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) recently secured a substantial gain in the legislature, as politicans bowed to the weight of public opinion among an increased number of firearms owners.
This language was removed from the bill at the eleventh hour, and a great many very positive changes were incorporated into the final bill to make life much easier for Massachusetts gun owners.
In fact, due to heroic efforts on the part of the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) what started out as an anti-gun bill was gradually altered to make it a pro-gun bill.
Now, if any Chief of Police anywhere in Massachusetts denies a permit for a long gun to anyone in the Commonwealth for any reason whatsoever, he has to go to court and prove why it’s necessary. This is virtually a “shall issue” policy.
Who gets to chose the judge?
You need to have a permit to posess a handgun. There is also an FID card if you wish to own a long rifle. The handgun permit allows both.
Issuance of a permit is on a “May issue” from the chief of police. That permit may include restrictions such as not being able to carry concealed.
I know...it’s BS. But it’s Mass.
I see your point, but most Chiefs of Police will be deterred by the knowledge they may actually get a fair-minded judge who’ll decide against them - and they’ll be very reluctant to deny an FID to anyone, simply to spend all that time and energy for nothing.
That right there is an oxymoron - when the issue is the right to keep and bear arms. The courts are generally hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Chiefs of police have only a slim risk of being overturned.
I can see you’re an optimist.
There are, actually, a great many judges who take their job seriously.
Yeah, I think they take their job seriously. But they are hostile to the right to keep and bear arms, by and large.
Massachusetts rescinded the "issued for life" status of ownership permits too. I don't think the fallout from that is complete, just yet.
You’re right - Massachusetts is far from a gun owner’s paradise.
Everyone knows it, and no sane person would argue the contrary.
However, the bill passed this summer was a net gain, no question - and that’s a considerable triumph for GOAL considering that the bill started life as a gun owner’s nightmare.
I don’t dispute the conclusion that the legislation was improved. My point was that faith in the judiciary to support the RKBA is misplaced. The legislature, judiciary and executive (governor/police, etc.) swap places as to which will play the heavy against the RKBA. Getting a “gain” from one branch is illusory success.
I don’t disagree with you.
I’m just saying that there are still judges who will listen to a case on its merits without prejudice for or against.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.