Well, TJIC just got his Massachusetts Firearms ID (FID) restored, and applied for his License To Carry (LTC). And the Police showed right up and took care of him, good and hard:
Now the local po-po*** is surrounding his crib, wanting to inspect the premises. Without a warrant. In the suburbs of Boston. On Independence Day.Lots of information in the comments over there. And here.
My experience was nowhere near as bad as his, but there's not a day that goes by that I'm not glad I left the hellhole that is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The laws are oppressive, the laws are enforced at the whim of the public officials, and the police break the laws as they like. In short, it's the Obama Administration compressed into a State. Now consider the links posted here. You clicking on them leaves metadata bread crumbs for the NSA to hoover up. They know what you're reading. Now ask if that information would get shared with the Mass.Gov if they asked whether registered gun owners were reading Double Plus Ungood information.
First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment - check 'em at the Massachusetts border, folks. Oh, and the State can't be bothered to listen to the Russian Government who said that the Boston Marathon Bomber was going to Summer Camp at a Jihadi convention in Chechnya.
Anarcho-tyranny is the refusal of the Government to enforce laws that will protect the population (that's the "anarcho" art) while simultaneously enforcing draconian laws aimed at the law abiding (that's the, well, you get it). About sums up the Commonwealth.
TJIC, come on down to Atlanta - the weather's fine, in-town living is pretty cool, and there's a ton of high tech. And if you have an electric bill with your new Georgia address, you can buy a gun with your Massachusetts Driver's License as the Government-issued photo ID.
10 comments:
However while the South maybe better than the North it still has it's issues with government ignoring the law and more than it's share of police criminality.
This needs national attention -- it is unlikely the Boston Globe would champion his rights.
How do you get this to Drudge, for example?
As someone used to say all the time, "FLEE MASSACHUSETTS!".
Yep, at least YOU moved to America...
First, I have absolutely no problem with the concept that the restrictions of, and the rights enumerated within, the federal Constitution be established and enforced in each of the 50 states and the District.
Second, within the constraints established by the federal Constitution, I also have no problem with any of the several states establishing laws, regulations and procedures which best fit their particular situation and needs. I would expect that such unique laws, regulations and procedures which can be proved to not conflict with the federal Constitution be of a fairly small number.
And, within those constraints, establishment and operation of a publicly-funded organization, of limited authority, to preserve the public peace and ensure said constraints are not willfully violated or abused by any party seems reasonable.
When, however, such organizations cease to serve such aims they risk no longer being servants of the public and become, instead, agents of an enemy power.
Are those individuals charged with the operation of Massachusetts government cognizant of the true meaning of that?
NH and VT are the last two New England states with reasonable gun ownership laws. We are surrounded - LITERALLY - by oppressive regimes that believe in state control of EVERYTHING.
Luckily, I found a job in NH a few years ago, so I no longer have any reason to go to the PRM.
(I work for L3 Warrior Systems - the group that makes the GPNVG... the 4-optic night vision system you may have seen in Zero Dark Thirty. As well as other things. 'Course, if I tell you about them... etc...)
> not a day that goes by that I'm not glad I left the hellhole that is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
I've spent the last few hours combing real estate listings. We've contacted an agent. We're leaving the state as soon as we can negotiate a house, get a mortgage and pack.
@TJIC:
[stands]
[clap] [clap] [clap] [clap]
The constitution is in shambles. You mention the first, second, fourth and fourteenth amendments. Does this constitute an attack on the third?
Summary: police want to occupy someone's home to get a tactical advantage on a neighbor, so they conspire to break down the uninvolved third party's door, guns drawn, and shoot him because he doesn't want to give up his house to police use? The only remotely positive thing is they shot him and his dog with pepper balls, not live ammo.
"Does this constitute an attack on the third?"
As the police are not military (despite what many police officers think and the way many behave), I do not believe that this could be successfully spun as a violation of the third amendment ("No Soldier shall- etc).
Of course if it were successful, that opens up interesting questions regarding the Posse Comitatus Act.
Post a Comment