Would you like to join my mailing list? Just enter your email below to sign up!

Concealed Carry

Archive for January, 2011

     I knew I would not be disappointed by the ‘left’  in the wake of the shootings by Jared Loughner in Arizona. Politicians are starting to have ‘brain storms’ as to how they will stop this from ever happening again. They see this as the perfect opportunity to go after our guns, instead of recognizing a glaring fact, that you simply cannot legislate away bad intentions.

     One of these ‘brain storms’ would be a law that would make it illegal to come within 1000 feet of any public official/representative with a gun. Do these law makers really believe THAT would have stopped Jared Loughner from committing his demented crime in Arizona?! I suppose these law makers think that if the 1000 foot law had already been on the books, the crime would never have been committed!  That Loughner would have successfully been ‘thwarted’ by this law and would have had to ‘rethink’ his strategy. How naive. That makes law makers proposing this to look as unstable as Loughner! How many laws are on the books already against committing murder? Has that stopped murder? Lets have a few more laws making murder illegal, that should stop murder from happening! Right….

     There are so many public officials/representatives running around, how would you know, at any given time, if you were within 1000 feet from one of them in the first place?! I guess that means we should all turn in our guns, just to be on the ‘safe’ side of that law. And that is the point of these stupid laws in the first place, control over us peasant’s. The ‘left’ will never stop trying to politicize these kinds of tragedy’s, the ‘left’ will never stop trying to disarm honest people.  Which by the way, the ‘left’ will never stop the Jared Loughner’s of the world no matter how many laws they dream/scheme up. If a bad person wants you, he will get you, regardless of laws, or whether you have an ‘important title’ or not.

  NOTE:   Has anyone else noticed that Loughner looks like uncle Fester of the Adam’s Family?  His Lawyer probably told him to shave his head and look as crazy as possible in order to claim the ‘insanity’ defense.  After all, its not a matter of  ‘if’ he did it, it is a question of  ‘why’.

    As far as ‘progresive’ law makers wanting to impact the entire populations right to keep and bear arms,  how about this novel idea; Hold individuals accountable for their individual actions, leave everyone else alone…..!

    And now a word from one of America’s Greatest Founders, in my view, and our first President.   (“It will be an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.”)  George Washington

Mark Shean, submitted 1-12-2011

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Reviews  Towns Served


   As of 2005; an FID card or LTC no longer allows you to purchase a hunting license,  but,  if you happen to have a previous hunting license dated from 2007 or older, that would suffice for you to obtain a new hunting license without your having to go through the hunter safety course. For more information call the Ma. Wildlife Department at 978-772-0693 for upcoming classes, or call Bass Pro Shops in Foxboro at 508-216-2000, as they sometimes host the Hunter Safety classes in their store.

Also a Mr. Michael J. Pierdinock  a Massachusetts Certified Master Basic Hunter Education Instructor will teach two classes per year at Old Colony Sportsman’s Club in Pembroke.  His email address is:  for more information.

Topics covered during the Basic Hunter Education course include: safe handling of hunting arms and ammunition, hunting laws and ethics, wildlife identification, wildlife management, care and handling of game, basic survival skills, and first aid. The course also allows students 15 years or older to apply for a firearms license, (FID) at their local police departments. These Certificates of Completion are also recognized in all the United States, (to bad our gun licenses are not…) Canada, and Mexico for the purchase of a hunting or sporting license. The state requires this to be a 12 hour course.

Basic Hunter Education courses  are posted at other useful links are as follows: for schedule of classes,  also to submit an online form:

You can sign up to be notified by MA F&W when  the course becomes available.  This is done by going to their  website:
On the left click: Education & Events
Under ” Outdoor Skills & Safety click: Hunter  Education
Under Quick Links click: Hunter Education Course  Schedules
On the next page click: Basic Education
In the middle of the page click: Request to be notified of upcoming  courses.
On the next page is the request form.  Fill this form out and  submit.
   This will allow you to be notified when the course is available for  registration.  ANY QUESTIONS MUST BE DIRECTED TO MA F&W.

Previous graduates who have lost their certificates may obtain a duplicate by calling 978-772-0693 or filling out a form requesting a duplicate on the website at

New Electronic Licensing Website started in 2011. Inquiries regarding purchases of electronic licenses and permits from MassFishHunt should be directed to ActiveOutdoors by calling toll free 888-773-8450 or emailing:  License buyers will still be able to purchase the traditional paper hunting, trapping and freshwater fishing licenses and stamps at license vendors throughout the state until the switch is made to an entirely electronic system. For a list of current hunting, trapping, and freshwater fishing license vendors:

You can subscribe to be notified when a Massachusetts Trapper Education course is available. The Trapper Education course listed below is now open for enrollment. Or contact:  “Education, Hunter (FWE)”

If you are interested in the course, please call 508-389-7830  classes are filled first-come, first-served, and enrollment cannot be processed via email.

Also, please be advised, that if you are taking the course as mandated for first-time trappers and Problem Animal Control (PAC) Agents in order to apply for a Massachusetts trap registration number, a state issued certificate from any US state is accepted to meet this requirement.

Thank you for your interest in the Mass Wildlife Hunter Education Program.

NOTE:  Age 15 up to 18, The fee for FID is $25, as stated in the MA General Law (Chapter 140, section 129B)

(9C) Except as provided in clause (9B), the fee for an application for a firearm identification card for any person under the age of 18 shall be $25, which shall be payable to the licensing authority and shall not be prorated or refunded in the case of revocation or denial. The licensing authority shall retain 50 per cent of the fee and the remaining portion shall be deposited into the General Fund. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, licensing authorities shall deposit quarterly that portion of the firearm identification card application fee which is to be deposited into the General Fund, not later than January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of each year.

Mark Shean,   About Me

Gun Sense #44, KSG 12ga. Shotgun Demonstration

submitted 1-5-2011,

For Ma. Firearm Transaction List;  to choose the option you need.

Reviews  Towns Served  FLORIDA CCW Info.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (3 votes cast)


     Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding. Jury nullification can only be applied in criminal cases.

   The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a ‘general verdict’ in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendments ‘Double Jeopardy’ clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return. A jury can nullify a law due to disagreements with the justice of the law, jury nullification can sometimes take the form of a jury convicting the defendant of lesser charges than what the prosecutor sought.

    Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their legal nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts, and the law]”.

    In the 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S., Justice John M. Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of their legal right to nullify laws. It was upheld by a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court. In a 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit any instruction to the jury to this effect. In part, the decision reads: ” If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision”.  Once a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty”, that verdict cannot be questioned by any court.  NOTE: (But, the court now has no obligation to inform the jury of this nullification right, the jury has to figure this out for themselves somehow! MS)

    Judges seem less likely today to favor jury nullification, or to willingly instruct a jury about their power of nullification as they were in the past. Judges are unable to take away the power of nullification, but have done much to prevent its use by not mentioning it as an option to juries, {that through no fault of their own, know nothing of the choice as it becomes more obscured by the courts.} Lawyers have even gone so far as asking potential jurors if they knew of jury nullification, then excused them from the jury pool if they did! The ‘fix’ is ‘in’ apparently.

    If  jurors have the power to nullify bad laws, shouldn’t they be told so? The omission by judges to give instruction on nullification is an extreme lack of ‘candor’, and, [I believe] in violation of our rights under the Constitution. Jury nullification can be used to  provide the People an important mechanism for ‘feedback’.  For example,  jurors have sometimes used nullification to send clear messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities, or what juries see as harassing or abusive prosecutions, (*a case is cited below). Jury nullification can be a tool to prevent our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid, or keep bad judges in check,  it provides some ‘leeway’ in the ‘joints’ for justice, if jurors use this power wisely. But first they need to be educated about this right, something the courts shy away from, as noted above in: Sparf v. U.S. and: U.S. v. Moylan.

    For example, this is a case in point; *In a recent 2010 case, a jury was never informed about their right to nullify by an activist, anti Second Amendment judge in New Jersey. The judge refused to allow evidence that was relevant to ‘exceptions’ in the vague gun laws of N.J..  Had the jury heard these exceptions that were requested from Brian Aitken’s attorney and even the jury itself, they would have rendered a ‘not guilty’ verdict based on the barred exceptions, but because of the instructions from the judge to only render verdict on evidence ‘allowed’, the jury was ignorantly forced into a ‘box’ and only had one choice, to render a “Guilty” verdict. This was a combination of a judge manipulating the verdict, and the jury not knowing their rights. Brian Aiken was subsequently, (wrongly) sentenced to 7 years in prison for crimes he never committed. (He served 5 months before sentence was commuted, 5 months of which he was brutalized in prison and will not discuss…, according to his father).

     In a letter to the governor supporting Aiken’s clemency request, pro-gun Assemblyman Michael P. Carrol rightly noted that even if Aiken had committed “wholly technical violations [of] wholly problematic laws,” “not every violation of the law warrants an indictment, let alone incarceration.”

     The Governor, Chris Christie, has since reviewed the case and has commuted the sentence, a sentence that should never have happened in the first place had it not been for a politically appointed thug in black robes with an anti gun agenda, returning political favors to the anti gun ‘progressives’ that appointed him and were his ‘masters’.  The judge was removed from the bench after an investigation undeniably showed his bias. Other cases he presided over are under review. Now Chris Christy can go one step further, post haste, and give a complete PARDON to wipe the felony that ‘never was’ off  Brian Aiken’s record once and for all. (Please finish the job Gov. Christy).  

     Now, I know this would be labeled under ‘wishful thinking’,  but, let the crooked judge finish the 7 year jail sentence, maybe he should be ‘brutilized’.  Now, wouldn’t that send a message to all the judges that actually believe their job is to legislate from the bench.

    There are many cases where judges are driven by ideology rather than unbiased interpretation of the law/Constitution. One need only look at: D.C. v. Heller 6-26-2008, or: McDonald v. Chicago 6-28-2010, where both decisions were 5-4,  barely in favor of  our Second Amendment. Had these decisions been based only on honest interpretation of  the Constitution and the preponderance of evidence surrounding the actual meaning of the Founders, the decisions would have had to be unanimous, and not along party lines. This points to how  taunt a string our Second Amendment rights are balanced upon and how crucial  judicial appointments are.

    The Founders well understood history and that even a small amount of unchecked power corrupts otherwise good men over a sustained period of time,  this is why they wisely built in ‘checks and balances’ to dilute and curtail this power. For the People, jury nullification is one way, the Second Amendment is another. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are three more, each presumably keeping the others  in ‘check’. The voting booth is yet another, let us not lose sight of this by allowing candidates into public office that view the Constitution as a ‘roadblock ‘ in the way of their socialist/progressive ‘agendas’. You can tell this by what they have done, not by what they say.

Mark Shean, submitted 1-4-2011

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)