ware police department
Courtesy Ware PD
Previous Post
Next Post
The Ware Police Department would like to bring an important matter to your attention: the proposed anti-gun Bill currently under consideration (HD 4420, An Act Modernizing Firearms Laws). We understand that this state-level legislation has raised concerns among law-abiding citizens who value their Second Amendment rights.
We recognize that the right to bear arms is a fundamental aspect of our nation’s history and an essential component of personal and collective security. As members of the police force, we are committed to upholding the law and defending the rights of our community members.
A plethora of blatantly unconstitutional proposals litter this travesty of a Bill, too many to mention here; however, of particular egregiousness is the criminalization of carrying firearms in certain so-called “prohibited locations”, including businesses and private properties, EVEN WHILE HOLDING A VALID LICENSE TO CARRY. Not even off-duty police officers will be exempted from this appalling mandate.
Gun Free zones have been proven to have no effect on stopping crime, in fact they embolden criminals to seek out these areas as soft targets of opportunity, where their chances of meeting resistance will be minimal.
This Bill does not address criminals. Rather it focuses on making criminals out of law-abiding citizens and further hampers police agencies from combating true crime.
We believe that public input and engagement are crucial in shaping legislation that reflects the diverse perspectives and concerns of our citizens. Therefore, we encourage you, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who have a long and storied history of throwing off the chains of our oppressors (let not this tradition die in the hands of our generation), to actively participate in the democratic process by voicing your opinions and taking appropriate actions to safeguard your rights.
Here are a few ways you can make a difference:
1. Educate yourself: Familiarize yourself with the details of the proposed anti-gun Bill. Read the legislation, study its potential impact, and understand its implications for your rights as a responsible gun owner.
2. Communicate with your elected representatives: Reach out to your local, state, and federal representatives to express your concerns about the Bill. Write letters, and make phone calls to ensure your voice is heard.
3. Encourage open dialogue: Foster constructive conversations about gun ownership, emphasizing responsible practices and the importance of preserving individual liberties. Engage in respectful discussions with friends, family, and neighbors to promote understanding and awareness.
4. Stay informed and mobilize: Keep yourself updated on the progress of the bill and its potential impact on your rights. Stay connected with local gun rights organizations and be prepared to mobilize if necessary.
Remember, your involvement in shaping legislation that impacts your rights is vital. By actively participating and voicing your concerns, you contribute to the democratic process and help ensure that legislation is fair, balanced, and respects the rights of responsible citizens.
The Ware Police Department encourages respectful and law-abiding civic engagement on this matter. We are committed to maintaining the safety and security of our community while upholding the rights enshrined in our Constitution.
Thank you for your attention and active participation.
— Ware Police Department via Facebook

Previous Post
Next Post

66 COMMENTS

  1. {Whining and sniveling like Deb the Dingbat about a cop being inconvenienced}

    “…of particular egregiousness is the criminalization of carrying firearms in certain so-called “prohibited locations”, including businesses and private properties, EVEN WHILE HOLDING A VALID LICENSE TO CARRY. Not even off-duty police officers will be exempted from this appalling mandate.”

    So, they only have a problem because *they* will be inconvenienced?

    Cripes, that was nearly as tiresome as reading one of Deb the Dingbat’s screeds… 🙁

    • James Madison wrote the Constitution and in support of the Constitution he authored some of the Federalist Papers.
      ==
      In Federalist 49 Madison wrote, that the rights of the People would always be protected from government infringement in that, what was not enumerated to government action as a privilege, would be ABSOLUTELY DENIED TO GOVERNMENT.
      ==
      As “affirmative action” is not a privileged subject for government to act upon, the possession of firearms by the lawful, is so also prohibited to government infringements.
      ==
      …………………….. NOT ME SAYING THIS BUT PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON.

    • Remember, these cops see whats really going on in crime. They know the crazy that’s out there, and they know that to defend against that criminal violence when it becomes imminent that a gun is what gives the best chance and these cops have family members and friends that are not cops this would affect. So it might not be some self-centered reason, it just might be the reality and that their family and friends would be left defenseless.

      • Perhaps, but the police have a long history of not giving a damn about gun control as long as they get a carve out, so I think we’re justified in being suspicious.

        • well, yes being suspicious is justified. But when we look back and see the numerous times that ‘law enforcement organizations’ have come out against anti-gun laws when their own carry was not affected by those laws, we need to also consider that this departments own reason may not be all self-centered.

        • If this was strictly about trying to get a carve out, much of what was stated by the Ware PD could have been left unsaid. They made several statements that lead me to believe that the leadership of the Ware PD actually cares about the 2nd Amendment.

        • Varies by department and whether it is municipal vs elected for the leadership. Even here in NY more than a few departments couldn’t be bothered to look up new gun laws with the SAFE act let alone our newer abominations so long as you are not committing actual crimes.

        • Swarf, that may be the official policy of an agency, especially at the federal level, but in 25 years I never worked with an LEO that was anti 2A. If they were they stayed damn quite about it. Most of my best shooting buddies are LEO or retired. They like nothing more than assisting citizens exercise their 2A rights. Want a couple of examples? A good friend and retired LEO was at the gun show this weekend. He sold a pre-64 Winchester and a Randall knife. He didn’t find what he was looking for, but the hunt is half the fun. Another couple of retired LEO I know opened the finest LGS and range in the Big Bend. You’ve never seen a day when it wasn’t busy.

        • @GF

          Where is the range? Name?

          I’ll be visiting one of my children in the Port St. Joe area in late September. An hour or two at the range would be a nice break for me.

  2. “Read the legislation, study its potential impact, and understand its implications for your rights as a responsible gun owner.”

    Thinking the anti-gun legislators have a sensitive finger on the pulse of the public, and HD 4420 is the result. The cradle of freedom (New England) has gone full left, and despot. Contact from the anti-anti-gun voters is mainly a steam relief valve, designed to reduce pressure on the leftists.

  3. Here are a few ways you can make a difference:

    1. Educate yourself: Familiarize yourself with the details of the proposed anti-gun Bill. Read the legislation, study its potential impact, and understand its implications for your rights as a responsible gun owner.
    2. Communicate with your elected representatives: Reach out to your local, state, and federal representatives to express your concerns about the Bill. Write letters, and make phone calls to ensure your voice is heard.
    3. Encourage open dialogue: Foster constructive conversations about gun ownership, emphasizing responsible practices and the importance of preserving individual liberties. Engage in respectful discussions with friends, family, and neighbors to promote understanding and awareness.
    4. Stay informed and mobilize: Keep yourself updated on the progress of the bill and its potential impact on your rights. Stay connected with local gun rights organizations and be prepared to mobilize if necessary.
    5. https://youtube.com/watch?v=neLdsW7XZSM&feature=share

  4. From Bearing Arms:
    https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/07/15/massachusetts-police-chiefs-blast-proposed-gun-control-package-n72606

    Alfaro says there was also unanimous concern among both chiefs and rank-and-file officers to a section of HD 4420 that, according to law enforcement, “PROHIBITS legally licensed off-duty and Retired Police Officers, Corrections Officers, Court Personnel, Private Security Bodyguard Personnel, and other Federal and State personnel who carry a firearm for personal protection due to the nature of their profession and the associated risk and threat
    to their safety. This Bill, in effect, eliminates the nation-wide, ,time-tested common term and practice ‘OFF-DUTY Firearm.’”

    The problem here is the Ware, Mass police. How many of these people do you think voted for the very Democrats that gave them this?

    It would be nice if there were some kind of link in the article considering the request being made of readers rather than forcing readers to do the search.

    • ” “PROHIBITS legally licensed off-duty and Retired Police Officers, Corrections Officers, Court Personnel, Private Security Bodyguard Personnel, and other Federal and State personnel who carry a firearm for personal protection due to the nature of their profession and the associated risk and threat
      to their safety. ”

      Which is no different from ordinary citizens for they also have “associated risk and threat
      to their safety” by the existence of criminals.

      This is something that was addressed by SCOTUS in numerous cases over time over the last 100 years almost, including in Bruen more recently, that an ordinary citizen also has, to use the words in that by “according to law enforcement” in your comment, “associated risk and threat to their safety” by the existence of criminals.

      • I’m saying they are worried about anyone but themselves. If it isn’t a direct threat to them then they wouldn’t care enough to say anything.

    • LEOSA would probably have something to say there. Setting up some interesting court battles and not sure I would want to see one of them addressed in this mess.

  5. Best solution to reduce “gun control” is to stop voting for Democrats. Democrats used to be patriots with a different viewpoint on many things unhealthy to freedom and safety , now they are full blown socialist and master manipulators of the weak minded.

      • Kinda sick of this nonsense, if I want to be censored for absolutely no f*king reason, I will post on Fakebook and Tweeter. You can only talk about 2nd amendment rights sometimes because your 1st amendment rights are squashed. America is not America any longer.

        • “You can only talk about 2nd amendment rights sometimes because your 1st amendment rights are squashed.”

          Here I go, riding backward on my warhorse…..

          There is no 1st right to free speech when engaged with private businesses. All the constitutionally protected rights are constraints against the federal government (and maybe some state governments).

          When you walk through the door of my business (or my house), I decide what you will be allowed to say, where someone can say it, and how loud they can express themselves. OBTW, I can insult customers, clients, casual visitors, to my heart’s content. (well….maybe except for that “hate speech” thing)

        • @ Sam This is a public forum. I’m not slandering anyone or yelling fire in a crowed theater. And BTW, no such thing as “hate speech” since hating is not a crime. The fact that you mention “hate speech” shows how f*ked up the country has become is that the goobermint says there is. Madison, and Jefferson spinning in their graves at this nonsense.

        • “There is no 1st right to free speech when engaged with private businesses.”

          Yeah, but…

          Whether the Leftist Scum ™ likes it or not, the internet is the modern form of the public square in ‘Ye Olde Times’.

          Since TTAG doesn’t even require signing up before posting comments, it literally is the public square.

          The internet should be held to that standard, and I hope the current bench of the SCotUS sees it that way as well, and grants cert. on such a case in the near future…

        • “The internet should be held to that standard…”

          I agree in part, and disagree in part. Think it through.

          The Internet, aka World Wide Web, or whatever other name you may have for this cyber place, can be analogous to the concept of a public square, and should not be regulated. This means that anybody ought to be able to have their own web site, and present whatever information they want on it, the same as with publishing books and movies, operating a radio station, etc. and with only those restrictions that apply to those forms of presenting information.

          However, this site, and many others on the Internet, are commercial ventures that are owned privately, and thus, can be controlled by the owners. I don’t want the gov’t to force a publisher to print books that the publisher does not want to publish, any more than I want the gov’t to force a bakery to make wedding cakes for homosexual couples, or force a website designer to create a NAMBLA page.

          One can walk down the Internet sidewalk, and window-shop or visit the various vendors freely. One can inhabit a storefront and set up one’s own shop. But, once one ventures into a vendor’s space, one becomes subject to the vendor’s rules. No shirt, no shoes, no service. If one wants to protest on the Internet sidewalk, and carry a sign that speaks one’s mind, then one must inhabit one’s own vendor space or find a willing host for one’s parasitic activities. One does not have the right to freely speak one’s mind on another’s dime without restriction, unless the other invites/allows you to do so. And even then, the other’s rules govern. The basic underpinning of the concept of private property is the right to exclude.

          BTW, TTAG does not allow unrestricted access. Haven’t there been a few posters that were banned?

    • Me too–on a very short message without anything that could be even remotely problematic.

    • I have noticed that I too have been tagged for increased moderation. Everything I post in TTAG now is sent to moderation jail. I can’t think of an example of anything I have posted that warrants censorship moderator review.

  6. We believe that public input and engagement are crucial in shaping legislation that reflects the diverse perspectives and concerns of our citizens.” — Ware, Massachusetts Police Department

    I just about spit out my beverage when I read that.

    That quaint idea may have been accurate 50 years ago. If you believe that is true today, you should consider the low-low-low price that I am asking for my ocean-front property for sale in Kansas.

    • “…the low-low-low price that I am asking for my ocean-front property for sale in Kansas.”

      You couldn’t trick the Possum into buying it? 🙂

      • Geoff PR,

        Nope–Possum did not want to buy it because there is never any roadkill on the beach. And dead whales only wash up on shore about once every 50 years.

    • Blow your “diverse perspectives” out your prog ….. ear. The US Constitution/2nd trump your silly “diverse perspective”.

  7. “Not even off-duty police officers will be exempted from this appalling mandate.”

    Yes, we now see why you are so concerned.

    • I Haz A Question,

      What I don’t understand is why that police department would care because LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act–federal law applicable to all states and territories) preempts this Massachusetts bill if it becomes law. For the unaware, LEOSA legalizes off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to be armed in public as they go about their daily lives. The only detail that I am unsure about is whether or not LEOSA preempts local/state “gun-free zones”.

      • LEOSA does exactly nothing to this “preempt” this bill if it becomes law.

        Yes, LEOSA gives off-duty and retired police officers the equivalent of a concealed carry permit, but it does NOT exempt them from any limitations that a state imposes on licensees.

        This isn’t the first time we have seen police crying about limitations on THEIR right to carry. Some of us still remember the NYPD screaming when New Jersey passed their magazine capacity limit and their ban on hollow points — both of which apply to everyone including off-duty and retired police.

        • TomC based on your responses here, one has to wonder about your support for police.

  8. Areas/states in our nation have gone so far down the drain that I have to wonder at this point whether this plea is simply a ruse to identify Democrat Party political enemies–so that the Democrat Party knows who to silence, punish, and/or eliminate first.

    • @sense:
      In that light, I cannot help but repeat my thesis. One or more of those who troll this site are simply committees. Posing as agitators who are simply gathering responses to show the anti-freedom crowd how “unhinged” they can make us look. And don’t expect fair treatment from them!
      I put forth as evidence “Letters From Laszlo” penned by comedian Don Novello. He even conned Richard Nixon into writing to him.
      I wouldn’t bet that they don’t include our real names, addresses and cell phone numbers. Fits their cowardly pattern.

      • 05Banana,

        The same thought has crossed my mind.

        And while I don’t want to sound like a defeatist or make things easy for the enemies of honor and liberty, I have come to conclude that it does not really matter if one or more of the trolls are are doing exactly what you said. Why doesn’t it matter? Simple answer: the enemies of honor and liberty will fabricate “supportive” material if necessary.

        In other words the enemies of honor and liberty will smear us no matter what messaging we generate. That being the case, we might as well tell it like we see it.

        Important Warning: we are on the cusp of a new time in human history where crafty people can generate “deep fake” material which appears to be real (even with somewhat careful inspection) to the masses. If that is not already upon us, it will be shortly and the enemies of honor and liberty will generate deep fake material that paints us in a VERY bad light.

      • “One or more of those who troll this site are simply committees”

        And we all know how effective committees are…

        • MINOR Miner49er, and we all really know how ineffective your “gun control laws” are.

  9. “Not even off-duty police officers will be exempted from this appalling mandate.”

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! S@ck it, ladies.

  10. Also from the Ware, Massachusetts Police Department:

    Gun Free zones have been proven to have no effect on stopping crime, in fact they embolden criminals to seek out these areas as soft targets of opportunity …

    This Bill does not address criminals. Rather it focuses on making criminals out of law-abiding citizens …

    As people often say, those are features, not bugs.

    Those two obvious facts support my recent assertion: one of the preeminent goals of many/most members of the Ruling Class is to humiliate the masses. Telling the masses that

    — they must be proverbial cannon-fodder in so-called “gun-free zones”
    OR
    — they face imprisonment if they refuse to be proverbial cannon-fodder

    are two blatant ways of humiliating the masses.

    Decent people don’t get-off on humiliating other people. What does that tell you about many/most of the Ruling Class?

  11. They’re pissed they don’t get special exemption and are stoking the citizenry to fight their battle for them.

    With few exceptions cops exist to protect the state and their retire after 20 years pension padded with OT hours added to average salary benefit calculations not me or you.

  12. Well color me unimpressed. the ONLY reason these clowns are against this bill is that it impacts them as much as it does “us.”

    MAYBE I’m wrong, but the last 11.5 years have basically assassinated my inner optimist.

  13. Massachusetts, hmmmmm… I might be misremembering history but isn’t that where our thing actually started with the founding of “The Sons of Liberty” in Boston and some kind of “tea party” or something like that…

  14. LOL, like most of the commenters here, I suspect the *only* reason this MA PD is raising a stink about this particular MA gun control bill is because there are no LEO exemptions included in it. They’re just using the 2A stuff as a pretense for complaining about not getting the special privileges they typically get with such laws. Revealing yet unsurprising, TBH.

  15. I was born in Boston, and lived in MA until 1995, when we packed up our belongings and moved to southern AZ, a whole different world. During my tenure in MA, I was acquainted with a large number of police officers who shared my interest in guns and shooting, and were quite vocal in their support of the Second Amendment. Ditto my experiences here in AZ. For that reason, I tend to take the Ware police chief’s statement at face value.

  16. “Even gunm bearing off duty officers.”
    Oh the travesty.
    Welcome to our world Mortals.

  17. Gun Free Zone= Target rich environment.
    Restrictions on concealed carry=criminals can have firearms, but hones citizens can’t.
    permit and licensing. see above.
    Permit fees =taxation of an enumerated right. We all know no politician imagined a tax they didn’t want to impose.

  18. This is an excellent and very well-written letter. Much better than 99% of the things written by the pro-gun faction.

    On the other hand I can’t help thinking that the Ware PD is opposing this bill for just one reason — that was clearly mentioned in the letter: “Not even off-duty police officers will be exempted from this appalling mandate.” I wonder if the department would be actively opposing this “blatantly unconstitutional” bill if police had gotten their usual free pass.

    • TomC, For your edification, there are some people in the world who think of others as well as themselves. This proposed law in good ole People’s Demoncrat Republic of Mass, is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
      You can wonder to your heart’s content, but your wonder is what we might term “speculation.”

  19. @MB (the real MB) and Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR

    Just pointing out that the 1st Amendment constrains government, not private property. “The town square” exists on public, or private property. The width of the audience is not a consideration; i.e. “the Internet” is not the publicly owned town square, any more than the NYT is “the town square”. On public property, the 1st can be applied to prevent govt from controlling what is spoken/published. On private property, we have no natural, civil, or human right to speak. Simply clarifying that it is a mistake to put 1st Amendment alongside a private/commercial venue.

    Side Note: calling “Fire” in a crowded theater is not restricted by the Constitution, and is legitimate speech under the 1st Amendment. Damages caused by shouting “Fire!” may fall under criminal/civil law.

  20. Once again I find it quite glaringly obvious how the gun control numb nuts completely ignore the human worms who use firearms to ply their trades compliments of the disarmed public they’re creating. Every law to “control gun violence” arms the criminal element while giving the animals more victims to prey on. With all the study groups and polls and commissions and hearings, they have not, nor will they ever, produce one criminal who was so scared of gun control laws that he obeyed them and disarmed himself.
    You folks in Mass. need to remove those Communist representatives you have or
    run yourselves and clean up that shining light on the hill of totalitarian tyranny.

  21. Once again I find it quite glaringly obvious how the gun control numb nuts completely ignore the human worms who use firearms to ply their trades compliments of the disarmed public they’re creating. Every law to “control gun violence” arms the criminal element while giving the animals more victims to prey on. With all the study groups and polls and commissions and hearings, they have not, nor will they ever, produce one criminal who was so scared of gun control laws that he obeyed them and disarmed himself. If firearms were the monsters that the party of slavery claims they are every gun store would be hubs of murder and slaughter. When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting at a gun store?
    You folks in Mass. need to remove those Communist representatives you have or
    run yourselves and clean up that shining light on the hill of totalitarian tyranny.

  22. Show me a “well-regulated militia” as required by the Second, and there you will find your right to keep and bear arms. Stop cherry-picking the US Constitution and abide by its regulation. If you do not want a well-regulated militia, amend the amendment.

Comments are closed.