Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

JBupp OP t1_j28d22k wrote

>Lorenzo Beechman, 36, of Hyde Park, was held without bail, charged with his third offense of carrying a loaded firearm without a license, illegal possession of a firearm without a license with a prior violent offense, illegal possession of ammunition and airport security violations.

66

Chappy_Sinclair_ t1_j28gg2w wrote

Lorenzo is a big fan of bad choices.

62

[deleted] t1_j28l38j wrote

[removed]

−35

Oiggamed t1_j28lo3u wrote

Please explain

4

noodle-face t1_j28te38 wrote

Gun laws at work

−1

BOSBoatMan t1_j28z7zs wrote

I hope you are being sarcastic. Dude is not licensed nor will he ever be especially after his first offense of possessing without a license.

8

noodle-face t1_j28zd9z wrote

I know, just saying criminals don't care about gun laws

1

cbg13 t1_j298qli wrote

>Gun laws at work

"Murder shouldn't be illegal because people still get murdered all the time"

1

Unfair_Isopod534 t1_j28xd7c wrote

So what's going to happen to him? Clearly the dude feel the need for a gun so either he is paranoid, a killer, or someone is actually threatening him.

−4

SomeSortofDisaster t1_j2914vr wrote

>So what's going to happen to him?

The DA will drop the most serious gun charges to secure a win/plea deal and the cycle will repeat itself in six months.

20

DatSlammedMX5 t1_j2a8b13 wrote

knowing MA, more gun laws to stop everyone else from doing what criminals do

5

RevengencerAlf t1_j298ahs wrote

The headline is technically accurate but also a bit misleading misleading. Bringing the gun to the airport isn't really what's getting him in trouble. The TSA confiscates weapons all the time to the point that their cringy social media presence memes about it trying to make themselves look like they're actually effective.

For a loaded gun you might still catch charges for it the real point here is that he's a multiple offender and didn't have a license for t he gun in the first place.

27

-_Stove_- t1_j29nw7e wrote

i think you are mistaking "Having a loaded weapon in the airport" vs "Bringing a gun to the airport". By bringing a firearm to Logan, he had to be in Mass, which requires an FID, and why he caught a few new charges. The title isn't misleading, it's quite accurate.

2

RevengencerAlf t1_j29prql wrote

No I'm not mistaking anything. And you're just semantically restating the same thing.

As I said....

>the real point here is that he's a multiple offender and didn't have a license for the gun in the first place.

He's not really getting charged with "bringing a loaded gun into an airport" vs being charged for getting caught illegally possessing a firearm. It's not where he had it. It's that he had at all when he wasn't supposed to. If a person who is properly credentialed to carry a firearm walks into logan with it and casually puts it through security like did they're most likely just going to have it confiscated.

5

thspimpolds t1_j29pzk7 wrote

Actually caring a loaded firearm at Logan at all is illegal since 9/11.

3

Sloth_are_great t1_j291u9k wrote

Third times a charm. Maybe this time he’ll learn his lesson.

10

spg1611 t1_j29zp7k wrote

He won’t, because our judges wont hold anyone accountable.

2

BostonGuy84 t1_j2a1as0 wrote

They should have a law for that….

4

DatSlammedMX5 t1_j2a8fbh wrote

i think if they add another law it will work this time /s

2

ReeceysRun t1_j29xyu0 wrote

“It’s my God given right!”

-this guy, probably

2

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j28x10r wrote

So what was his crime?

−27

SomeSortofDisaster t1_j28ygzm wrote

>third offense of carrying a loaded firearm without a license, illegal possession of a firearm without a license with a prior violent offense, illegal possession of ammunition and airport security violations

Carrying a firearm without a license (again), possession of a firearm without a license (again), illegal possession of ammunition, and various Logan or TSA-related rules around firearms and ammunition.

15

itallendsintears t1_j2905he wrote

Damn. THIRD offense? That’s like five piece easy. Hey whist is fun hope he likes cards

5

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j2a5zye wrote

Most of the shooters in our city are on their 3rd or 4th offense. Some of them are wearing ankle monitors when they do it!

Maybe violent people and people carrying tools of violence without the legal ability to do so should be held? Just a thought.

3

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j28ynlm wrote

Like I said, so what were his crimes? All I see are victimless policy violations. 🤷

−43

discoslimjim t1_j297e34 wrote

Shut up dude. You wanna sit next to a felon with a loaded gun on a plane?

14

BOSBoatMan t1_j299pjz wrote

I’m with you. Some people on here think this guy is the victim. I’d like to see his record I’m sure it is quite marvelous

8

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j297tkj wrote

Sure. Why wouldn't I? I'd have one too.

−22

discoslimjim t1_j29afoc wrote

Oh cool. And if he drew the gun on you?

6

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29byln wrote

Haha, and why would he? Dude is just trying to go on a trip. Don't live your life afraid of the world. Draw on me. Hahahahaha. On a plane. Amazon.

−12

discoslimjim t1_j29dvl0 wrote

Well he’s an unlicensed felon with a gun. Not the most predictable folks. Amazon.

9

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29e8w2 wrote

Again, he is unlicensed because of bullshit laws that shouldn't exist. Same reason he is a felon. Get rid of bogus anti gun laws and he is seemingly no more a criminal than you or I. Also, you don't think felons go on vacation? What's his plan in this scenario, stick up the plan passengers who he is stuck on the plane with for several more hours. 🙄

−4

5teerPike t1_j29hm0e wrote

Why do felons need guns on vacation?

7

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29hqxv wrote

Same reason as everyone else I'd imagine.

0

5teerPike t1_j29i90s wrote

Everyone else isn't a repeat offending criminal.

That's not an answer.

6

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29ifpt wrote

Again his crime is victimless. Keep kneeling to the state. Daddy will keep on spanking you if you are a good boy.

0

5teerPike t1_j29ikn3 wrote

I don't need a gun to walk through life lol

3

5teerPike t1_j29ishk wrote

As per the article

"charged with his third offense of carrying a loaded firearm without a license, illegal possession of a firearm without a license with a prior violent offense"

It's not a victimless crime if it's a gun being carried by a person with a history of criminal violence.

His previous offense was not a victimless crime and it's why he's not allowed to have a gun.

3

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29kjry wrote

So, tell me, who exactly was the victim in this current arrest. I'll send them a card. And again "his third offense" doesn't mean anything when the law is immoral and spurious. 🤷.

0

5teerPike t1_j29ky9f wrote

Everyone who has a right to safety and to not sit next to an armed criminal with a history of violence.

But if you need a gun all the time is that what you're preparing for? Because then that would just be two criminals on a plane with guns.

3

BlaineTog t1_j29qho2 wrote

Once you've outted yourself as a violent asshole why won't follow the rules, it's reasonable to presume that you might get violent in the future. This warrants restrictions that wouldn't be in place for other people precisely to prevent future victims.

You're moving the goalposts on us here. Laws don't require a victim to be valid. Restraining orders, for example, could be argued as not technically having a victim since their aim is to prevent future crimes that haven't happened yet rather than punish past crimes. You're trying to pretend that that very simple and obvious type of legal restriction doesn't exist, while in fact it does.

2

ManWithTheCats t1_j29rrvj wrote

Ah, so I only need to follow laws that I agree with. Good to know 🙄

2

5teerPike t1_j29hj0m wrote

>don't live your life afraid of the world

So why do you need to have a gun with you on a plane if you're not?

6

5teerPike t1_j29hfwe wrote

See how far you'll get through an airport with one then.

3

iamspartacus5339 t1_j292vd9 wrote

Policy violation=crime when the policy is the federal government

10

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j2930x2 wrote

That's a terrible way to go through life. Free men and all that.

−10

SugarSecure655 t1_j298gl8 wrote

What is wrong with following the law dude?

7

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j298nxy wrote

Nothing, as long as it's a moral and valid law. Requiring an LTC isn't either of those things.

−2

5teerPike t1_j29huhi wrote

It's perfectly moral not to let former criminals who are repeat offenders to have the means to kill people efficiently.

7

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29i7v7 wrote

Hahahahaah. So now he is a murderer. Keep making those giant leaps Superman. Fear is a choice my dude.

−1

5teerPike t1_j29igfl wrote

Fear is a choice? So why do you need a gun if you're not afraid?

4

[deleted] t1_j29ixl5 wrote

[removed]

−1

5teerPike t1_j29j9pz wrote

He was previously convicted for a violent crime.

Why do you need a gun if you're not afraid ? Seems like you're avoiding the question because I hit a nerve on that point.

3

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29k9c4 wrote

Hahaha. Hit what nerve? You asked a silly question thinking it's some kind of "gotcha" when it wasn't. Carrying a gun isn't about fear. It's about preparedness, same as a seat belt, and a fire extinguisher or smoke alarms in your house. I don't expect anyone to carry a gun that doesn't want to, it's weird you'd expect someone else not to. Let people be.

0

5teerPike t1_j29kqr4 wrote

I don't expect people with violent criminal records to be allowed to have guns. What are you preparing for that you need a gun all the time? Still sounds fearful to me.

What was he preparing for, The felon with the history of criminal violence?

2

[deleted] t1_j29luew wrote

[removed]

0

5teerPike t1_j29m273 wrote

What I'm doing is free speech right now. You're just mad nobody who is reasonable agrees with you.

He literally has a history of criminal violence, did you even read the article?

Why do you need a gun if you're not afraid

3

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29otwy wrote

I'm not mad at all. I'm having a conversation. The worst thing about the internet is everyone thinks everyone else is mad because of opposing views. You are a complete stranger. You have no ability to make me mad. I don't care if he is a violent criminal , if he is out of prison, he gets full access to his rights. That's how a free society should work. If he is too dangerous to have his rights, then they shouldn't have let him out. Now back to your repeated fake gotcha question , I already told you, same reason you'd use a seatbelt or fire extinguisher, just in case. Your working theory seems to be that just because I'm not walking around afraid, like you, then I am not aware that bad things can happen. And that's silly.

0

5teerPike t1_j29pl47 wrote

Lmfao you don't like it when I say you're, obviously, mad but you get to say I'm afraid. That's rich! I dont need a gun like you, so what are you preparing for that has you so afraid that you need a gun?

My working theory is that you're projecting. People with violent criminal histories don't get to have guns, why that bothers you is incredibly suspect.

I dont have a history of criminal violence, so if I want a gun I can have one. Sorry! You don't get to if you've been a violent piece of shit to people!

That you're more concerned with their "right" to have the means to kill people rather than the right to vote once they get out says a lot too!

3

SugarSecure655 t1_j29kcwc wrote

Well apparently the majority of people voted for it which as least makes it a valid law. I have no idea why you think it's immoral to obey the law just because you don't agree with it.

2

PsychologicalAgent64 t1_j29p37l wrote

You think that there was a public vote on licenses to carry? I didn't say obeying the law is immoral. I said the law itself is immortal because it takes away ones rights.

2

SomeSortofDisaster t1_j290tu3 wrote

Victimless policy violation or not, he's been convicted of the same thing multiple times and knows what he's not allowed to do.

7