Author Topic: Boston blogger loses gun permit over blog (Read 5779 times)

gunsmith · « **on:** January 19, 2011, 06:12:35 PM »

bloggers are sometimes their own worse enemy

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/01/18/arlington-man-loses-gun-license-due-to-blog-about-tucson-shooting/

Declaration Day · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2011, 07:39:35 PM »

His comments were in poor taste and he's not very bright for posting them on a publicly viewable blog.

Credible threat though? I don't think so.

Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2011, 09:10:02 PM »

Stupid is supposed to hurt.

gunsmith · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2011, 09:12:08 PM »

his website for selling comics is called heavy link, I think once I have some money I'll buy some. He has Walking Dead for sale

Pharmacology · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2011, 10:15:38 PM »

Hrrmmm... The posts about targeting only politicians are certainly borderline.

Needs moar info

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2011, 11:37:30 PM »

Quote from: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on January 19, 2011, 09:10:02 PM

Stupid is supposed to hurt.

To the point of having constitutionally protected rights taken away?

Remember, this is Mass, you get your LTC pulled and you can not own ANY guns now, you can get a FID card which covers thing like pump actions shotguns and bolt rifles and such but no handguns.

They pulled his permit for "suitability" which in this case is about the equivalent of being stopped for driving while black, he said something they didn't like and they chose to hurt him for it.

Sorry if it seems like I'm attacking you, that's not my intent, I'm just a bit perturbed about this.

230RN · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2011, 01:59:08 AM »

Well, see now, there's your reasonable regulation. On both 1 and 2.

And probably a couple of others, too.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2011, 07:29:52 AM »

This is an event of Thought-Crime. That the man may be: insensitive, callous, tactless, or just a prick in general is beside the point. As others and the courts have shown us, vulgar, offensive and repulsive messages are still not illegal, Westboro comes to mind most particularly, especially since at the time I found myself on the other side of that argument I personally found them so repulsive. Until he actually takes the initiative to commit a physical criminal act, not simply to just spread a particular message or idea, he has done nothing illegal. Distasteful to some, but distasteful is an opinion based on personal mores, and opinion does not law make. Most poignantly is the admission that..

Quote

Corcoran, who has no criminal history, has not been arrested and does not face any charges.

All he has done is spread his own opinion that those in power (and obviously some here) dislike and have thus retributively denied this man: His personal property, through seizure of his firearms and ammunition, his Second amendment right, through the revocation of his 'license' and again the seizure of the former, and finally his First amendment right through the intimidation caused by the prior two factors.

As I've written elsewhere, whether someone's exercise of a right is viewed as being unwise, distasteful or wrong by others choosing not to exercise that same right in the same manner is irrelevant. As a right, other people's opinions have absolutely no bearing on whether or not it can be exercised or in the particular manner chosen.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2011, 09:45:02 AM »

He should have just talked about killing Bush, then they wouldn't care. But I guess that is just me being hateful and uncivil.

This is certainly overkill over someone just shooting their mouth off.

HankB · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2011, 01:42:52 PM »

Wish I had more info, but based on the story alone:

No charges were filed, nobody was arrested, and no mention was made of a warrant or court order.

Yet police simply came into his home and took his things.

How is this not armed robbery?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2011, 02:12:22 PM »

Do firearms ownership licenses violate the recent SC 2nd amendment cases? I don't remember hearing that addressed.

At the very least, the arbitrary denial of the license with no due process would seem to be a violations of something.

griz · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2011, 02:42:41 PM »

Guess I'll have to disagree with the crowd here. When somebody says “1 down and 534 to go” and "Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone", it sounds threatening to me. Those quotes are from the article. If you can show me that the context made these comments a joke or something I may change my mind. Until then, I'm surprised he wasn't charged with something.

makattak · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2011, 02:48:43 PM »

No, those are statements of approval. A threat would be stating or implying that HE would do something about it.

Saying, "A hunter shot a deer, only 9,000,000 to go" does not imply you are going to do anything about it, only that you approve. Saying, "Looks like Bob got a deer, now I'm going to go get me one" would be a threat to deer. (Yes, I specifically chose the most innocuous example I could as I don't want to be misconstrued as threatening.)

His second statement is much the same. A non-hunter could say "target only bucks and does but leave the poor little bunnies alone." It doesn't imply the speaker will do anything, only that he has less of a problem with deer being shot than with bunnies.

griz · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2011, 07:00:44 PM »

OK, maybe "threat" is grammatically incorrect. But it's more than a statement of approval. It's at least a call to action to target (his words) specific people. I do not know when it legally becomes a threat, but that's mighty close.

Bigjake · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2011, 07:57:02 PM »

Quote from: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on January 19, 2011, 09:10:02 PM

Stupid is supposed to hurt.

So we're okay with the government raping the guy because they didn't like what he had to say?

So only well thought out, non-inflammatory speech is protected by the First Amendment now?

Fred Phelps is tolerated, but one of our own inserts foot in mouth, and he deserves whatever the Government sticks him with?

Niemoller was right.

gunsmith · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2011, 11:12:24 PM »

if they cant arrest him how can they confiscate his guns? Mass is weird.

I went to his comic book site http://heavyink.com/
& as soon as I can I plan to get me some of those Walking Dead comics from him.

He made a mistake but I think he's a good guy.

Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2011, 11:54:09 PM »

Quote from: Bigjake on January 20, 2011, 07:57:02 PM

So we're okay with the government raping the guy because they didn't like what he had to say?

So only well thought out, non-inflammatory speech is protected by the First Amendment now?

Fred Phelps is tolerated, but one of our own inserts foot in mouth, and he deserves whatever the Government sticks him with?

Niemoller was right.

One of our own sticks his foot in his mouth and he's stupid, regardless of .gov actions. I would say the same about a 13-year-old kid that posts "We ought to kill Obama!11!!" on his Facebook then has every door in his house kicked down by a SWAT team. Excessive and unnecessary reaction, sure. It doesn't absolve him from being an idiot. If they had decided to hit his house with a tactical nuke, he would still be an idiot.
Was the government stupid? It's MA, what would you expect? They've actually been much more reasonable (no jailtime yet) than I would've figured.
Do stupid things, win stupid prizes. The Constitutionality of the prizes is the issue everybody else seems to be addressing.

seeker_two · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2011, 06:16:39 AM »

This sort of thing just makes PVC tubes and a large backyard more appealing....

....not to mention that, in almost every case, when the state takes away a person's access to the soap box and the ballot box, the next box the person "speaks from" is the ammo box....not a good trend....

MechAg94 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2011, 09:13:47 AM »

Quote from: griz on January 20, 2011, 07:00:44 PM

OK, maybe "threat" is grammatically incorrect. But it's more than a statement of approval. It's at least a call to action to target (his words) specific people. I do not know when it legally becomes a threat, but that's mighty close.

Bigjake called it inflammatory speech which seems closer to the mark. Sure it was stupid. No doubt about that. However, being stupid, yet legal, should not be a reason the cops can come in confiscate his property.

IMO, the precedent set over the last 10 years says this is not something you get prosecuted for or even questioned.

Ryan in Maine · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:39:33 PM »

This reminds me of a topic awhile back regarding gov crackdowns on grassroots activity including blogging. Not surprised to see Mass rolling out the test cases.

Bigjake · « **Reply #20 on:** January 21, 2011, 04:36:45 PM »

Quote from: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on January 20, 2011, 11:54:09 PM

One of our own sticks his foot in his mouth and he's stupid, regardless of .gov actions. I would say the same about a 13-year-old kid that posts "We ought to kill Obama!11!!" on his Facebook then has every door in his house kicked down by a SWAT team. Excessive and unnecessary reaction, sure. It doesn't absolve him from being an idiot. If they had decided to hit his house with a tactical nuke, he would still be an idiot.
Was the government stupid? It's MA, what would you expect? They've actually been much more reasonable (no jailtime yet) than I would've figured.
Do stupid things, win stupid prizes. The Constitutionality of the prizes is the issue everybody else seems to be addressing.

They guy being "an idiot" (in your opinion), has jack to do with anything. The world is full of idiots, You're okay with the Government confiscating their property in retaliation for exercising an enumerated right?

*Threatening the President isn't covered under the 1st Amendment and you know it.

sanglant · « **Reply #21 on:** January 21, 2011, 09:24:26 PM »

when maher is in jail, i will be willing to accept that.

stevelyn · « **Reply #22 on:** January 21, 2011, 09:35:06 PM »

Quote from: Bigjake on January 21, 2011, 04:36:45 PM

They guy being "an idiot" (in your opinion), has jack to do with anything. The world is full of idiots, You're okay with the Government confiscating their property in retaliation for exercising an enumerated right?

*Threatening the President isn't covered under the 1st Amendment and you know it.

Most folks down that way are so enslaved they don't have a clue and will go along with just about anything.

News:

Author Topic: Boston blogger loses gun permit over blog (Read 5779 times)