Chief pulls license of Marine

[Jose]

And I'm concerned that as firearm advocates, we are so far off in our beliefs on this.

I don't consider your position re licensing to be consistent with that of a Second Amendment advocate.

Those who wrote the Second Amendment (many of whom hail from your state) must be rolling over in their graves seeing what Massachussetts has become.

 

[Jaxon]

<SNIP>
Whatever the Miami County Sheriff will do if I say or do something legal that he doesn't like? He can't disarm me at will. Ohio must be such a dangerous place, where wife beaters who get off on a technicality (your scenario, remember?) just get to keep their guns. <SNIP>

Damn skippy. A lack of guns was never an issue out on the frontier.

Ohio recently enacted a "must-issue" CCW law handled by the County Sheriffs.

RJ

 

[Admin]

Ohio recently enacted a "must-issue" CCW law handled by the County Sheriffs.

RJ

Must be nice!

 

[Jaxon]

Must be nice!

So I hear. A quick and easy process unencumbered by 351 ways to obtain an LTC around these parts.

RJ

 

[Lugnut]

It is you who does gun owners no favors with your acceptance of your rights being turned into priviledges

I believe it's a right that can be revoked...albeit for what reasons is the real issue. I don't think many resonable gun owners will deny this. But I've been wrong before.

to be exercised only at the discretion of some un-elected, un-accountable bureaucrat.

I have told you many times I am not in favor of the current system we have in place. My ideal is somewhere between today's world and yours I guess. If that makes you horrified I'm sorry.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I believe it's a right that can be revoked...albeit for what reasons is the real issue.

So is driving (the difference between "privilege" and "right" is meaningless when the activity requires a state license), however, the registry and police chief cannot look at a non-guilty finding on a motor vehicle charge and decide you are "not suitable to drive a vehicle" and pull your license.

 

[Jose]

I believe it's a right that can be revoked...albeit for what reasons is the real issue. I don't think many resonable gun owners will deny this. But I've been wrong before.

In order for one to lose a right, due process must be afforded.

Some a**h*** with a badge deciding he doesn't like you, what you said, or what you did and using that as the basis for denying you a right is FAR from due process.

Can we agree on that?

 

[Jose]

Originally Posted by Jaxon
Ohio recently enacted a "must-issue" CCW law handled by the County Sheriffs.

RJ

Must be nice!

That's how the overwhelming majority of the states work.

Not as good a Vermont and Alaska (the right way), but miles better than the alternatives.

 

[Lugnut]

In order for one to lose a right, due process must be afforded.

Some a**h*** with a badge deciding he doesn't like you, what you said, or what you did and using that as the basis for denying you a right is FAR from due process.

Can we agree on that?

Yes sir. Absolutely.

 

[Lugnut]

So is driving (the difference between "privilege" and "right" is meaningless when the activity requires a state license), however, the registry and police chief cannot look at a non-guilty finding on a motor vehicle charge and decide you are "not suitable to drive a vehicle" and pull your license.

Driving is not a right protected by our constitution. I have a problem with the "suitability" issue just like everyone else. Should a mentally deranged person have his right revoked? Even if they have never committed a crime? Just asking the question, please don't imply what my answer is.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Driving is not a right protected by our Should a mentally deranged person have his right revoked?

In all areas that I know except for firearms issues, the loss of a right for "mental derangement" requires either a finding by a licensed medical professional or a court.

 

[stinx]

just beacuse a person is found not guilty, does not mean the person is in fact innocent

 

[Lugnut]

just beacuse a person is found not guilty, does not mean the person is in fact innocent

I guess there inlies the rub. The problem is no one (including myself) is willing to allow the PC to have full/sole discretion on these matters. So what is the best option? I honestly don't know. Is the conviction of a crime (any or all crimes?) the only ligitimate reason to strip one's right to bear arms? This is where the main issue lies- at least it seems this way based on my interpretation of comments on this thread.

 

[jwilson]

just beacuse a person is found not guilty, does not mean the person is in fact innocent

I think he is Innocent!!! but I will alway give the Marine the benefit of the doubt!

 

[MarkM]

just beacuse a person is found not guilty, does not mean the person is in fact innocent

True, a jury of your peers doesn't always make the right decision, or someone may be found not guilty on a technicality, but that does not change the fact that letting a Police Chief arbitrarily take away someones right to bear arms is just plain wrong.

 

[KMaurer]

Well, if we want to be completely purist, the chief did nothing to take away any right. All he did was suspend a license. The right was infringed as soon as it became subject to getting the government's permission in the first place. The difference between New Hampshire and New York City is only one of the degree to which your rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment are violate. Vermont and Alaska are the only exceptions, in that you don't need anybody's permission (other than Big Brother in DC).

Ken

 

[Rob Boudrie]

just beacuse a person is found not guilty, does not mean the person is in fact innocent

There was a small town in Florida http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacienda_Village,_Florida which supported itself on traffic fines.

The police department had another tool - they would impound cars and charge a fee (beyond the towing and storage) for the owner to get them back. The amount of the fee depended on the value of the car, but was low enough to make the alternative of suing the department (while storage charges would continue to accure) impractical.

What was all-telling was the chief's comment about this practice "This is a way we have of penalizing offenders who happen to be found not guilty by the courts" (wording close; from memory). The chief understood that a "not guilty" finding did not mean "innocent"

 

[Lugnut]

I realize we're going way off topic now.. but it's clear there are 2 exteme views (meaning far apart) of our right to carry-

1) No restrictions, the 2nd ammendment under no circumstances should be infringed. Kind of like VT, but even their rights can be revoked although issuing isn't a problem.
2) Let the local PC make his/her call for whatever reason. "Suitability" is very subjective.

Personally I'm somewhere in the middle, more towards #1 (although others might disagree). As pointed out in many of the posts above, including the Florida town that screws people in other ways, the local PC can do strange things. Ultimate power in the hands of one person is not what this country is about and it's a clear abuse of power- a major problem.

On the other hand I'm not ok with option #1 above under all situations- some of which I've posted already. It seems clear that most people believe anything less than a conviction of a crime is not enough to revoke the right. I'm not so sure. I'm also not convinced if just ANY conviction should be reason to lose your right to carry.

Thoughts?

 

[drgrant]

I realize we're going way off topic now.. but it's clear there are 2 exteme views (meaning far apart) of our right to carry-

1) No restrictions, the 2nd ammendment under no circumstances should be infringed. Kind of like VT, but even their rights can be revoked although issuing isn't a problem.
2) Let the local PC make his/her call for whatever reason. "Suitability" is very subjective.

Personally I'm somewhere in the middle, more towards #1 (although others might disagree). As pointed out in many of the posts above, including the Florida town that screws people in other ways, the local PC can do strange things. Ultimate power in the hands of one person is not what this country is about and it's a clear abuse of power- a major problem.

On the other hand I'm not ok with option #1 above under all situations- some of which I've posted already. It seems clear that most people believe anything less than a conviction of a crime is not enough to revoke the right. I'm not so sure. I'm also not convinced if just ANY conviction should be reason to lose your right to carry.

Thoughts?

Frankly my opinion has alwasy been that if the "system" cannot
send someone to prison/looney bin, then the person should be considered
free men/women and allowed to own guns. (Maybe there are some
more marginal mental health problems that arent worth committing
someone for where gun ownership shouldnt be allowed, but I cant
think of any.... if the person is dangerous enough to others, why are
guns special? Who's to say that the same nutcase couldnt do something
bad with a knife or some other readily availiable weapon?)

We have a huge disparity in this country with regards to civil rights.

Gun ownership is constitutionally protected, but in reality your rights
are really privledges, as they can be taken away by a commission of a
felony (or a "felony equivalent"), a domestic violece conviction (even a
misdemeanor, a guy threw his keys at his wife, caused no injury, and lost his
ownership rights!) in some states, EG, MA, ownership rights can be lost through
lesser offenses. In many states rights are temporarily suspended or lost as
the result of restraining orders, where no violence actually occured. (Evil ex
files an RO, gets away with it, rights lost untilfalse/fraudulent RO is vacated,
which can take awhile, filer is never punished, ding fries are done).

Let's compare that to a Drivers license.... and watch the disparity.

-Mutiple DUI a**h***s still have their licenses, meanwhile some
guy lost his LTC cause his jacket blew open. How is that fair?

-Someone can accidentally kill someone else with a car in MA, and
probably still have a DL. Do that with a gun here, and you'll probably
never see a gun again. Somehow negligence with a motor vehicle
is more acceptable to society?

-L3 sex offenders, DUI convicts, and other ex cons guilty of felonies
can still drive motor vehicles. WTF?

Why is this true? Because society's view of gun owners is
screwed in the head. It's OKAY to take away gun rights, something
thats CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, but on the other hand it's okay
to provide facilities to allow people to drive, under virtually any
circumstances. (Keeping in mind, both can be deadly weapons, if
misused, but the sheeple see guns as "more evil" somehow)

I think the local PD should have ZERO authority about gun
licensing, period. Additionally, any gun licensing needs to be
STATUTORY, in nature, if it is allowed to exist at all. Thus meaning, if
a person is not statutorily disqualified, they MUST be issued a
permit. "the chief thinks that so and so is a bad guy" is not a good
enough reason to deny a permit, period. If the person is so bad,
put them in prison!

I guess the root of the matter is being able to overcome the
logical fallacy that is gun laws- they don't really accomplish
much of anything. People are too deply rooted in the gun control
fairytale land because such restrictions sound reasonable in theory- eg,
preventing nutcases and ex felons from trying to buy guns; in reality what is
seen is something different- which is those very same "prhohibited persons"
committing crimes with guns, and no amount of regulation thus far has done
anything to stop those people.

Every year the DOJ cranks out some number of NICS
denials, usually some low 6 digit number. The antis and gun control lovers
are quick to parrot that this number is the number of crimes prevented
by gun control.

Unfortunately, this number doesnt account for-

-The number of people who thereafter go out on the street to get
a gun.... after being denied.

-NICS denials more than likely drive increased gun thefts.

-The number of people that were denied due to bad identity of the
system, and those denials were not challenged by the person. You'd
be surprised at how many people would just give up.

-The number of people denied by minor statutory infringements or changes
in their state laws. (like the example shown in the PDO thread). People
have gone to court for many things, not served a DAY of jail time and have
become prohibited persons. If the state can't even come up with a good
reason to throw someone in jail, then why should they lose rights?

-The number of "prohibited persons" that were trying to buy guns but
had no intention of committing a crime with them. (For as much contempt
as I have for criminals, believe it or not, there probably are many that carry
soley for their safety/defense, as opposed to a criminal who acquires a gun
for the purpouse of carrying out a violent crime with it.)

-The number of people who resorted to other means to perpetrate
violence. A drug dealer who cannot legally buy a gun may just instead
decide to stab his enemy instead, with an "unregulated" knife, or to use
another weapon.

I guess I just get pissed at the inconsistency in our laws and
punishment systems. If we really think certain people are dangerous enough
to not be allowed to own guns, then frankly those people should
still be in jail. Why should they be trusted to roam freely among
us, if they are so dangerous? And if we DON'T think that they are
that dangerous, why don't we treat them as free people? Functionally
speaking, in the US, an ex felon who has served time, is, well, still
imprisoned, for the rest of his or her life.... unless they get a pardon or
some other expungement. If they are worthy of such punishment,
we should have just kept them behind bars, instead of "pretending"
to release them. The logic behind saying "You're free, go ahead and sin
no more" and continuing to apply punishment via subterfuge afterwards,
simply evades me.

-Mike

 

[Lugnut]

Mike- those are some really excellent, excellent points.... good for thought. I have many times thought about the DUI and driving situation you mentioned as well.

I want to also include what I see as something that needs to be fixed- if someone commits a crime then they should do the time. Especially multiple offenders! If they are guilty then no free rides... like multiple DUIs, etc, etc. That makes me crazy. I like your analogy of the DUI offender vs the guy that has wind blowing open his shirt to reveal a firearm.... that is gross abuse IMO.

 

[rclarkston]

I realize we're going way off topic now.. but it's clear there are 2 exteme views (meaning far apart) of our right to carry-

1) No restrictions, the 2nd ammendment under no circumstances should be infringed. Kind of like VT, but even their rights can be revoked although issuing isn't a problem.
2) Let the local PC make his/her call for whatever reason. "Suitability" is very subjective.

Personally I'm somewhere in the middle, more towards #1 (although others might disagree). As pointed out in many of the posts above, including the Florida town that screws people in other ways, the local PC can do strange things. Ultimate power in the hands of one person is not what this country is about and it's a clear abuse of power- a major problem.

On the other hand I'm not ok with option #1 above under all situations- some of which I've posted already. It seems clear that most people believe anything less than a conviction of a crime is not enough to revoke the right. I'm not so sure. I'm also not convinced if just ANY conviction should be reason to lose your right to carry.

Thoughts?

Lugnut, someone needs to stick up for you here. I don't disagree with your position. The 1st amendment has restrictions placed on it, (ie. libel, and slander come to mind--also, utter the wrong words while in a fight and you can be charged with a hate crime) so why shouldn't the 2nd amendment have some restrictions as well? The problem with our fair state is that many of the restrictions are subjective in nature. A subjective application of the licensing procedure allows chiefs the discretion that is so well abused. Restrictions or disqualifiers should be objective, and should have evidence to support the conclusion that a person possessing those disqualifiers makes for an unsafe and undesireable gun owner. For instance, banning all redheads from owning guns would be based on an objective criteria, ie red hair, but tat criteria has, at least as I am aware, no bearing on whether someone would be a responsible gun owner. Not licensing someone with a previous conviction for armed robbery would be a reasonable restriction. Under our current wacked system, the chief could decide, in theory, that no people with red hair should receive any LTC and get away with it.

 

[Mike508]

Nice presentation drgrant. One thing crossed my mind while reading that post, a first-time "found guilty" DUI/OUI offender, because the potential jail sentence for that individual qualifies under current law, makes him/her ineligible for a firearms license in MA. However, unless said individual refuses a breath/blood test, s/he will qualify to have their DL returned after only a short time. (Refusing a breath test adds another 180 days to license suspension, IIRC.)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

However, unless said individual refuses a breath/blood test, s/he will qualify to have their DL returned after only a short time. (Refusing a breath test adds another 180 days to license suspension, IIRC.)

With competent legal counsel, the drunk refusing the breath test has an pretty good chance of a not guilty finding, since the MA rules prohibit the jury from knowing the reason for the absence of the breath test. Although the jury will be told to draw no inference either way from the absence of such a test, unless there is a juror who knows this tidbit, they will probably wonder why the police didn't administer such a test.

Refusal of the breath test does not preclude prosecution or conviction but, in the case of the truly guilty, makes it much easier to a lawyer to create reasonable doubt.

 

[Mike508]

With competent legal counsel, the drunk refusing the breath test has an pretty good chance of a not guilty finding, since the MA rules prohibit the jury from knowing the reason for the absence of the breath test. Although the jury will be told to draw no inference either way from the absence of such a test, unless there is a juror who knows this tidbit, they will probably wonder why the police didn't administer such a test.

Refusal of the breath test does not preclude prosecution or conviction but, in the case of the truly guilty, makes it much easier to a lawyer to create reasonable doubt.

That's true in a % of cases (don't know how many); there are other ways to get a conviction, though. I used to conduct 1st offender DUI classes and I'd get a few in every class who had refused the test but ended up with a guilty finding anyway. Regardless, what I was saying was in support of drgrant's post: A found guilty 1st offender DUI will lose his/her license for a period of time and then qualify to begin the DL reinstatement process; however, said individual is now disqualified from getting a firearms license if the OUI/DUI occurred post-1994.

 

[Lugnut]

A found guilty 1st offender DUI will lose his/her license for a period of time and then qualify to begin the DL reinstatement process; however, said individual is now disqualified from getting a firearms license if the OUI/DUI occurred post-1994.

This is what is completely baffling! You are guilty for DUI and lose your license at least for a time (makes sense so far). But you can get it back after a period of time (makes sense providing you don't make a habit of DUI). But unrelated to any firearm abuse/risks you lose your firearm license forever!! This makes me crazy as it's completely illogical... I have a hard time dealing with the fact that it falls under the punishable by up to 2 years clause and why the hell do we let them drive again???

 

[drgrant]

Here is another REALLY GOOD example of why I don't like "scarlet
letter" prohibitions.

http://www.gunowners.org/a072406.htm

Even at the federal level, things like the Lautenberg Amendment deprive
people of COMPLETE due process. Additionally, it creates scenarios where
the local courts unknowingly inflict "sledgehammer to swat a fly" type
punishments. It basically deprives the courts of the flexibility to dispense
(or not dispense) a given amount of punishment. A weak DV conviction
with a small fine can trigger lautenberg! Things which are the equivalent
of getting wacked with a paddle once in local court, are acting as a
sledgehammer in ther terms of the way the feds see it.

-Mike

 

[Nickle]

Well, here's what I think of the original incident.

The (ex) Marine used poor judgement, IMNSHO.

However, the court did NOT find him guilty of any wrong doing.

Therefore, the Chief abused his authority IMNSHO, by pulling said license.

I'm just glad I don't live a bit further South, with you folks, and have to put up with this BS.

 

[greycar]

Marine transfers gun ownership to his wife

"LAWRENCE - While Daniel Cotnoir no longer has a license to carry a firearm, his wife Mary Kate does.

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/local_story_208064403

 

[Lynne]

I haven't read this whole thread (I'm still trying to rebuild my home and haven't been online - in case you haven't noticed. ) However, this happened right next door to us. Ed and I teach students that live in Lawrence and the chief is one of the ones that requires a letter from your doctor stating you're capable of being a gun owner. The chief cringes everytime a Class A is given out, and it's not done willingly.

I know what the MGL's say. However, what drove this poor guy to firing the gun was the fact that the Lawrence PD DID NOT RESPOND to his multiple phone calls for help. He tried to do it the right way and got crap for a response. He did not aim at anyone, and IMHO, he showed a hell of a lot more restraint than most of us could. For those who think the chief had no choice - think again. He did and he chose to "punish" the victim yet again. I know the area - I know it well. I was born in Lawrence and lived not far from there. I would NOT want to live where he was living, and I'm not so sure I would not have done the same thing, given all the same circumstance.

Rant over....back to painting.

 

[Len-2A Training]

"LAWRENCE - While Daniel Cotnoir no longer has a license to carry a firearm, his wife Mary Kate does.

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/local_story_208064403

That must have really irked the chief. In retribution, he releases to the media exactly what guns she now owns . . . I'm surprised that he didn't supply S/Ns to the media too! Wow, she owns an M16! That tells you that dip-shit police chief gave out the info . . . clueless I'm sure.

I love the Marine's comment that the PD won't protect them in the future. I only disagree to the point that now they will respond if they think they'll be able to get HER LTC revoked too, so that the chief can leave them defenseless!

I hope they get out and quickly before more trouble occurs.