View Single Post
Old 08-21-2012, 09:07 AM
Jeff1000 Jeff1000 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 63
Likes: 1
Liked 13 Times in 12 Posts

Originally Posted by Packard View Post
From the police chief's point of view, issuing a permit is a no-win action.

If you never cause any trouble with the gun, he gets no kudos. If you do cause trouble, "Why the hell did you ever issue a permit to that moron in the first place?!"

So it is safer for him to never issue a gun permit, or to issue one with restrictions so that if you do get in trouble it will probably be by ignoring the restrictions...that is, "not my fault". In other words it is not in his best interests to issue permits with no restrictions.

I think you have only two reliable options: First, get some high ranking official in your pocket and have him put pressure on the chief, explaining that it is in his best interests that you be issued a permit.. Or, black mail. Find out who the chief is/was having an affair with and advise him it is in his best interests to issue your permit.

The key here being "in his best interests".

Clearly he feels issuing permits are not in his best interests. You need to convince him otherwise. Is he an elected official? Maybe form a gun owners group that votes. (Or black mail.)
All good realistic points here. Thanks.

What I don't get is since when is the chief responsible for my actions? What if I just watched someone die and I didn't act because I wasn't armed, then it seems to me the chief should be held responsible for not issuing me a license, but both arguments are ludicrous. Bottom line, the chief is in no way responsible for my actions just as a gun is not responsible for a killing.

Also, it's probably not in the chief's best interest to continue to conduct business as usual since the crime statistics in the city of Worcester are deplorable.

Back to the real world of human nature, corruption, and politics: I believe you're absolutely correct.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post: