Following up on this post
(and others) on the efforts of Brookline resident and US Army reservist, David Bardfield, to get a License to
Own a Firearm from the Brookline Police Department, I am pleased to post this bit of "good news" from the Brookline TAB
(sent to me by reader Ham Slam - thanks, man).
A Brookline Army reservist who was initially denied a gun license by Brookline Police can head to target practice after all.
Army Specialist David Bardfield received word last week that the police will issue him the target practice license he had applied for in January, his lawyer, Keith Langer, confirmed.
I guess the police decided all he needed a 200-day "cooling down" period (spit).
"Logic and fairness finally prevailed," Langer said.
"Logic and fairness"? With all due respect, Mr. Langer, I must disagree. The concepts of "logic" and "fairness" were flushed down the toilet in this state a long time ago when it comes to the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms.
Tell me, in what corner of Bizzaro World is it "fair" to make a law-abiding citizen wait six months for a gun license, and then only issue it to him after he hires a lawyer, at his own expense, to fight the corruption inherent in the system on his behalf?
Earlier this month, Brookline police told Bardfield's lawyer that "additional material" was necessary for the license. This week, Langer said it was later determined that that "material" was not necessary.
Translation: "We actually did inform him additional material was necessary, before we informed him it wasn't."
Christ, that sounds familiar. Senator Kerry, call your office.
Anyway, congratulations, David. Keep 'em in the x-ring.
And now, presenting the winner of the "Clueless Whiny Little Douchenut of the Year Award"
From the Letters to the Editor of the Brookline TAB. This one almost
qualifies as "Too dumb to fisk".
Zuckernik: Gun permit for Bardfield not necessary
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Of the many good things that can be said of Brookline, perhaps Keith Langer said it best. [Brookline Police] are known to be "somewhat obstructionist in their [gun] licensing practices."
Spoken like a truly tolerant "progressive". You see nothing wrong with the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, so long as the ideology of the minority in question runs contrary to the liberal elite holding the reins of legislative, executive, and judicial power in the community you live in.
Maybe this is the reason Brookline's rate of violence is as low as it is.
Yes, and it's obviously the same reason the state of Vermont, with no licensing requirements whatsoever, is such a blood-soaked warzone these days.
Guns can be stolen, sold, used purposefully, accidentally - they are not water bottles to be carried around indiscriminately.
Are you referring to the "indiscriminate" FBI background check that Mr. Bardfield and others in Massachusetts have to go through prior to be issued a gun permit? Or the "indiscriminate" filing of his fingerprints with the State Police? Or maybe you're talking about the additional "indiscriminate" criminal background check he'll have to undergo prior to purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer in the Commonwealth?
Tell you what, jackass, put a loaded handgun on the table next to a loaded water bottle and wait to see which one first leaps up from the table on its own accord and starts indiscriminately killing innocent people standing nearby.
I'd bet this numbnuts doesn't even own a hammer out of fear he'd start clubbing his neighbors at random.
They should be carried by law enforcement people and any others that the authorities think it is necessary for protection and security.
Like the spoiled, rich children
of Hall of Fame baseball players?
And why, pray tell, should the police in Brookline even carry guns in the first place? You just stated two paragraphs ago that Brookline is a veritable crime-free Utopia. Surely, you'd advocate for the disarming of the police as well. You know, for the children and all.
The United States Army allowed Army Specialist David Bardfield to carry a pistol only when he was on specific duties. If they thought he needed target practice, let us hope they would have demanded he spend time on the range.
God forbid an American citizen should choose to engage in legal activity without first being ordered by the government to do so. I thought you whiny liberal-types supported CHOICE?
Can't say I'm surprised to see this mentality emanating from the "progressive" town of Brookline where the people are more than happy to have the government dictate to them where and when they can park their cars
on public streets in front of their own homes, and how large and heavy their trash cans
are permitted to be before they risk being punished by their benevolent overlords.
Let him use his sister's license in Boston (Wonder why she needed one?) where the rate of licenses to people must be a lot higher and the number of shootings still higher.
It's evident to me now that I have engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. This is quite probably the dumbest, most ignorant piece of garbage I've ever read. "Let him use sister's license"? Gee, why didn't he think of that? Um...I dunno...maybe because it would be a FELONY to do so?
And damn all those licensed crackheads and gangbangers in Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan! Don't they realize they could have their gun permits revoked if they keep killing people?
Burton, wake up. You need help.
Yeah, you know something? On second thought, that was
too stupid to fisk. Oh well, what's done is done.