Friday's my day!

[hogwylde]

I made my appt. to meet with the Police Chief on Friday morning for my LTC.

When I was talking to them on the phone they asked, "Have you ever had a permit before?" and when I said yes, they said, "Oh, well come on down first thing in the morning on Friday and we'll take care of it for you."

Well, it's at least looking promising!!

[Keykutter]

Good luck. You won't feel naked much longer:):)

KK

[Deserteagle]

You have to have a meeting???? What communist state are you in?

[S&W645]

Good luck but too bad you have to get police approval to carry.

[hogwylde]

You have to have a meeting???? What communist state are you in?

Yea. It's crazy here in Massachusetts. It's a PERSONAL decision the PD Chief makes.

[Deserteagle]

Yea. It's crazy here in Massachusetts. It's a PERSONAL decision the PD Chief makes.

I just read and replied to another similar thread that left me speechless. Since when do we have to convince another human being that we should be able to protect ourselves? What makes him any better than you? Last I checked, you are a human being and so is he. So why the hell does he have the power to decide if you can protect yourself while he violates the constitution at the same time. Get out of that state and stop giving them your tax money.

Hitler would be very proud of Massachusetts.

[xenaxdsc]

On the other hand, maybe people who don't have a criminal background and haven't been institutionalized but are absolutely loony tunes shouldn't really have a gun. And maybe a face to face discussion with the authority responsible for issuing the permit would ferret that out. There has to be some balance doesn't there? I carry and want to always be able to (I'm a liberal, I live in Kalifornia and I got a permit). But I don't mind if there are some limitations and controls in place to disallow freaks (like Jared Loughner who shot and killed people in Tucson for no good reason) from legally owning a firearm. Of course I realize there are many ways to illegally obtain a firearm. But this is my problem with having a one-sided view of things. Then there's the issue of the Constitution and states rights. Massachusetts is simply exercising its Constitutional right to do things the way it wants to. (Of course different rules in different states makes traveling and carrying very complicated).

I guess I just don't get inflamed like you do that there are some steps you have to go through to get the permit to carry a weapon. That's all.

[Deserteagle]

On the other hand, maybe people who don't have a criminal background and haven't been institutionalized but are absolutely loony tunes shouldn't really have a gun. And maybe a face to face discussion with the authority responsible for issuing the permit would ferret that out. There has to be some balance doesn't there? I carry and want to always be able to (I'm a liberal, I live in Kalifornia and I got a permit). But I don't mind if there are some limitations and controls in place to disallow freaks (like Jared Loughner who shot and killed people in Tucson for no good reason) from legally owning a firearm. Of course I realize there are many ways to illegally obtain a firearm. But this is my problem with having a one-sided view of things. Then there's the issue of the Constitution and states rights. Massachusetts is simply exercising its Constitutional right to do things the way it wants to. (Of course different rules in different states makes traveling and carrying very complicated).

I guess I just don't get inflamed like you do that there are some steps you have to go through to get the permit to carry a weapon. That's all.

I dont even know where to begin with this. The state is violating the country's constitution. The people who made this country did not say that we need to pass certain tests to be able to exercise the rights they guaranteed to US citizens.

Your opinion is that people should pass very subjective and inaccurate "tests" to use their 2nd amendment right.
If we go down this road, then my opinion is that we should make people pass tests and have an interview to use their 1st amendment right. How about any human that doesn't pass my interview is not allowed to protest or talk? Or how about, we regulate the right to remain silent so that you need to take a "test" and then prove you are deserving of the right to remain silent so you can get a permit to remain silent?

Coming from a BA in psychology and sociology, I can tell you that no psychological test is anywhere near 100% accurate. Nor do modern day tests predict future behavior. And having a human decide whether or not to issue permits is even more ludicrous. Did you know that many psychopaths, specifically child molesters typically score in the normal range on one of the most extensive and supported methods of psychological evaluation, the MMPI?

Whether you realize it or not, we are all humans. Nobody is more human than any other human, not even an authority figure. Even the president has emotions, has done stupid things, and will do stupid things in the future. Even sheriffs. The old sheriff of my neighboring county just got arrested for running a secret drugs for sex operation while in his position of power. And you think that this guy (a regular human) should be interviewing us to decide who is good and who is not?

[agrippakc]

Good luck and move to a free state ASAP.

[Caribou]

On the other hand, maybe people who don't have a criminal background and haven't been institutionalized but are absolutely loony tunes shouldn't really have a gun. And maybe a face to face discussion with the authority responsible for issuing the permit would ferret that out. There has to be some balance doesn't there? I carry and want to always be able to (I'm a liberal, I live in Kalifornia and I got a permit). But I don't mind if there are some limitations and controls in place to disallow freaks (like Jared Loughner who shot and killed people in Tucson for no good reason) from legally owning a firearm. Of course I realize there are many ways to illegally obtain a firearm. But this is my problem with having a one-sided view of things. Then there's the issue of the Constitution and states rights. Massachusetts is simply exercising its Constitutional right to do things the way it wants to. (Of course different rules in different states makes traveling and carrying very complicated).

I guess I just don't get inflamed like you do that there are some steps you have to go through to get the permit to carry a weapon. That's all.

I don't want the bad guys to have guns either. But if all it took to stop them was another law then we wouldn't need any prisons. Unfortunately the bad guys do have guns. Some they got legally some not. The only thing I see gun laws doing is to limit access to the good guy.

Can we count on a Police Chief to not have prejudice against guns? How much pressure might he be under by a mayor or council? When your rice bowl depends on politicians you play politics. Do we really want one person, or even a group, to control a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I am pleased that you are comfortable with the process you are going through. Luckily I don't have to go through the process here unless I want to carry in other States. We have Constitutional Carry and I don't fully understand anything else.

You are concerned about the law, I hope you get your permit. I also hope nothing happens to you before you do. We need more good guys that are willing to pack. I am uncomfortable with anything that slows this down.