I read about this on Weer'd Beard's site yesterday. He's asked me not to link to him, so you'll have to find him yourself if you want to. I left a comment there which I don't know if he published. He may have adopted a commenting policy similar to mine which allows the deletion of comments containing personal attacks and name calling.In what was seen by some as a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the state’s highest court ruled that the Second Amendment does not restrict the right of Massachusetts to impose its own rules on gun ownership.
“We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in [state law] is not unconstitutional,’’ Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.
The gunlock case involved Richard Runyan, a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock. Police in 2007 discovered the firearm as they investigated complaints that Runyan’s then-18-year-old developmentally disabled son was shooting a BB gun at a neighbor’s house.
My comment basically questioned whether Weer'd had always been in compliance with this law which was "upheld," indicating that it's been on the books already. I suggested that in the privacy of his own home with no children around and believing that it's an unjust law anyway, he's been in violation of it all along. This, combined with his several assertions that he's never broken the slightest law, would make him a liar.
I don't mind people breaking minor laws in the privacy of their own homes, but what I do mind very much is when those people proclaim to never have done so and all the while point fingers at others making unfounded accusations.
What's your opinion? Is this an unjust law in Massachusetts? Do you think most "lawful" gun owners break laws like this one? Do you think it's possible for someone to break a law like this one and still be a "law-abiding gun owner?"
Please leave a comment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey, Andy can take care of himself.
ReplyDeleteI'd find him a bit more credible if he left Wakefield and moved to someplace like Alabama or Mississippi.
Heh, Laci has stooped to personal attacks AND outing.
ReplyDeleteHow pathetic and sad. And you willfully support such people MikeB. Oh well, birds of a feather and all....
Mike W. says:
ReplyDeleteHeh, Laci has stooped to personal attacks AND outing.
Well, outers can become the outees.
That's quite an outfit Mr. Bannerman.
I'm glad you like it.
ReplyDeleteAndy has posted my resume. So, you can see that I do have experience in firearms law. And a fairly good reputation at it as well.
And make quite a good living at it. So much so, that Jon Mirowitz is known to ask me for advice. If you want to drop names.
What is a Jon Mirowitz? Is that impressive or something?
ReplyDeleteMikeB: What's your opinion? Is this an unjust law in Massachusetts? Do you think most "lawful" gun owners break laws like this one? Do you think it's possible for someone to break a law like this one and still be a "law-abiding gun owner?"
ReplyDeleteThis gets a little gray. What we mean by “law abiding” are the people who do not use their firearms to commit acts of crime and violence. I have a big problem with gun control laws that turn good people into “law breakers”. There are plenty of gun owners who aren’t active by keeping up with every new law. I am sure there a lot of shotguns that have been leaning up against closet walls in Massachusetts for the past 20 years that turned their law abiding owners into “criminals” with the trigger lock law. I think that is part of the agenda of the gun control movement to reduce ownership.
-TS
I think Andy would know the proper meaning of outing.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that he doesn't exactly grasp the concept of my having his IP address and time of his post.
I KNOW his full name and home address. If he wishes to play games, I will be very happy to post them.
FWM, look it up if you're so smart.
BTW, Zerro, why doncha introduce yourself. It isn't really polite to go around talking about people and saying stuff without introducing yourself.
"FWM, look it up if you're so smart."
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to 'name drop', it should probably be a name that people have heard of.
Mr. Bannerman says:
ReplyDeleteBTW, Zerro, why doncha introduce yourself. It isn't really polite to go around talking about people and saying stuff without introducing yourself.
Why, certainly. My full name is Don Diego de la Vega, and I was born in Las Californias in 1782. I'm remarkably healthy for a man of 228 years, although swordsmanship is a bit strenuous for me (understandably, I would hope), so I tend to rely more on firearms--which have, by the way, come rather a long way since my first experience with them.
Anything else you'd like to know?
RuffRidr asked, "Is this a news story that you truly want an opinion on, or is it a thinly veiled shot at Weer'd Beard?"
ReplyDeleteListen, you've been around here enough to know that it's Weer'd and a couple others who take shots at me. Usually I ignore, sometimes I engage, but my blog and theirs are full of examples of their personal attacks. So your question is silly, also because this trigger-lock law and it's probable non-compliance is a great topic to discuss. Don't you think?
TS said, "What we mean by “law abiding” are the people who do not use their firearms to commit acts of crime and violence."
ReplyDeleteI go for that. What I don't go for is the pro gunner who claims it's black and white and either you're a criminal or law-abiding. The fact it there's a big gray area.
As to the idea of laws making otherwise law abiding citizens criminals, I don't accept that. People are responsible for their own actions and cannot blame the laws if they choose not to comply. Shared responsibility does not enter into this. But neither does that all-or-nothing thinking that divides people into two distinct categories.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “I go for that. What I don't go for is the pro gunner who claims it's black and white and either you're a criminal or law-abiding. The fact it there's a big gray area.”
ReplyDeleteAnd that gray area is there because some lawmakers don’t respect the second amendment. Where it is more black and white are crimes of morality- stealing, hurting, murdering. Most people know the difference between right and wrong.
-TS
TS said, "And that gray area is there because some lawmakers don’t respect the second amendment."
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think that's why. With this you're blaming the laws again. The reason for the gray area is because we're dealing with people, human beings who do not neatly categorize themselves into one type or another.
RuffRidr, Allow me one further clarification on the Weer'd / Bob S. business. You said, "Weer'd hasn't posted on here in quite some time. If you don't like them taking shots at you, then why do you insist on poking them with sticks?"
ReplyDeleteIn the time since those two have stopped commenting here, you can find, I'm just guessing, 10 or 20 references to me on their sites, some of them entire posts.
So, I'm not poking anyone with a stick, I'm reacting to being continually poked by them.
You seem to be trying to spin it in their favor, but it doesn't fly.
If a law passed making all gun ownership illegal (I’m not saying that’s what you are asking for), then you would cease to have any “law abiding gun owners”. Some people would turn their guns in, others wouldn’t. What it doesn’t do is change the character of those people. I am not arguing that there is a clear line between good and evil, I am saying there is a difference between oppressive gun laws turning people into criminals and real criminals. People who do real acts of crime as opposed to not having a trigger lock installed, or having a flash suppressor at the end of a barrel, or possessing 4.6 ounces of pot.
ReplyDelete-TS