-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
How will the new gun laws effect LEO's if passed??
- Thread starter mtsfitness
- Start date
Blame our enemies at MCOPA, rumor (I read it somewhere) is that they are the ones who lobbied for that to be included in the law. And they botched that job too from what I've been told, it won't cover nearly as many LEOs as they had thought and the day you hand in your badge (retire), everyone (EOPS Legal) claims that they will become instant felons. So you can lobby your PD and DA to instantly arrest and prosecute them under 269-10 and send them away for 10 years.
This surprises you? You'd be amazed to see how many LEO's don't care about gun laws until it affects their protected class.
Someone gave me a +Rep point and finds my comment laughable that anyone in the LE community would jack up one of their own on this malum prohibitum crap. Let me tell you that at least one EOPS attorney has previously advocated doing just that and more than once if my memory is correct. Hopefully this attorney will be without a job when the new administration takes over, but there it is.
The Thin Blue Line indeed puts up a wall to the outside world (all that aren't LE) to protect their own. But you really don't ever want to see how ugly it gets within those 4 Blue Walls . . . they do eat their young!
Last edited:
mpd61
NES Member
Sounds like something that Ron Glidden would advocate for......Pretty sure that the specific term "Retired" is in the wording though.
hillman
NES Member
But then there is the question of what is a "retired" LEO, and it always seems to come down to getting a pension and what union your type of LEO belongs to. So that really good guy who worked as a part time officer for 20 years doesn't count. Screw him when the people he put in jail come looking, cause part time!
That was such a hot-spot with me when GCAB had their meeting discussing the LEOSA CMR. I was dueling with them during the entire meeting. Their position, as you state, is that retired LEOs that don't get a pension can NOT be trusted with guns and had no benefit of LEOSA. I used the PT COP of Rowe, MA as my example and got no sympathy. It was the one and only GCAB meeting that I've ever attended, and only because it started right after the public hearing on bonded warehouses and LEOSA took place, thus I was already at MSP HQ.
71montess
NES Member
What about us ? Why off duty can you have an extra Killy thingy?
Because their lobby is stronger than yours. Besides it only applies to a very select subset of LE.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2015
- Messages
- 82
- Likes
- 21
I am wondering how you came to your post relative retirees?
MGL Chapter 140, section 131M, has read:
"Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement."
It reads (to me) that retirees were already exempt from the AWB. Now in H4376:
"SECTION 65. Section 131M of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 12, the words “for purposes of law enforcement”."
Which appears to do the same for current LEOs.
Tom, it is a long story. I suggest contacting EOPS Legal office and I'm sure that they will explain their convoluted position on this. I'm not saying that I agree with the interpretation but I have discussed this face to face with one of the EOPS attorneys and have read other evidence of what and where they are coming from.
I do not think the section referencing retirees means that a retiree can generally possess an evil featured item. The original law created two groups of people that could possess them; LEO for the purpose of law enforcement and those retirees with conditions ("not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement"). Those are two separate groups. I wouldn't think that at the time that law was written that there was an purposeful decision to allow all retired LEOs to have those weapons that were not able to be legally possessed by active law enforcement. Also, the wording of the law could have been written simply as applying to legal possession by retired LEOs
Moving forward to the changed law, again we have two groups of people that can legally possess, essentially all active LEOs and the same subset of retirees that were mentioned in the original law. There isn't any change that incorporates retirees outside this small subset.
My 5 cents worth.
Dave
Moving forward to the changed law, again we have two groups of people that can legally possess, essentially all active LEOs and the same subset of retirees that were mentioned in the original law. There isn't any change that incorporates retirees outside this small subset.
My 5 cents worth.
Dave
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2015
- Messages
- 82
- Likes
- 21
I see. What is the commonly held belief regarding the retirees subset? Under what circumstances is a retired LEO not subject to the AWB? Also, any known case law on this particular section of the AWB (re: active or retired LEOs)?
edit: I agree I could call EOPS, but I need to educate myself first before that call happens (if it ever does).
edit: I agree I could call EOPS, but I need to educate myself first before that call happens (if it ever does).
Last edited:
Yes at least one active LEO was charged with possessing a new AW and new large cap mags previously. No idea of outcome.
Here's EOPS take on the situation.
- Law says possess NOT buy/sell/obtain. Thus one "may" be legal to possess but has no way to obtain or get rid of it legally.
- Retirees can ONLY possess that which was OWNED by their department and GIFTED to them upon retirement, nothing more. Well, in the old days it was common to gift a retiring officer his/her gun, etc. Nowadays the Ethics Commission has ruled receiving gifts to be illegal. Plus it would have to be put out to bid to the highest bidder (public) if a gov't agency was disposing of something of value. Thus, EOPS says this is a no-go.
As someone obligated to go thru biennial training in the MA Ethics Laws/Regs, I understand the second part issue (gifting). Due to my multiple roles in town gov't I have had extensive dealings with the lawyers at the Ethics Commission.
This law needs to be changed in order to be workable. No idea if that will happen, but it would have to come from the MCOPA as GOAL isn't about to champion a law change to only affect a privileged class.
Here's EOPS take on the situation.
- Law says possess NOT buy/sell/obtain. Thus one "may" be legal to possess but has no way to obtain or get rid of it legally.
- Retirees can ONLY possess that which was OWNED by their department and GIFTED to them upon retirement, nothing more. Well, in the old days it was common to gift a retiring officer his/her gun, etc. Nowadays the Ethics Commission has ruled receiving gifts to be illegal. Plus it would have to be put out to bid to the highest bidder (public) if a gov't agency was disposing of something of value. Thus, EOPS says this is a no-go.
As someone obligated to go thru biennial training in the MA Ethics Laws/Regs, I understand the second part issue (gifting). Due to my multiple roles in town gov't I have had extensive dealings with the lawyers at the Ethics Commission.
This law needs to be changed in order to be workable. No idea if that will happen, but it would have to come from the MCOPA as GOAL isn't about to champion a law change to only affect a privileged class.
"As someone obligated to go thru biennial training in the MA Ethics Laws/Regs,"
considering the last 3 ma. speakers of the house were convicted felons, this must be the shortest book ever written.![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
. . . until someone calls for an investigation.
Those of privilege don't believe it applies to them. Once someone rats them out, you get the result you mention.
I'd be surprised if jail time, fines, or loss of license resulted from this.
Of course, if they declare it to have no value, that would be one "work around" (kind of like selective enforcement). That, and through actual selective enforcement, who would fight them on this?
I'd also bet no jail time, but if his admin didn't like him or the ADA, they would stick it to him to lose his job!
All it takes is one Email/phone call/letter to the media or the Ethics Commission and the gig is up. Nobody is going to buy an allegation that a gun is worth "no value"!
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
All exemptions for police (and maybe the military) should be completely removed. If the weapons are not safe for law abiding civilians to own then how are they safe for the police? See how fast the police unions will work against anti gun laws then
Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
All exemptions for police (and maybe the military) should be completely removed. If the weapons are not safe for law abiding civilians to own then how are they safe for the police? See how fast the police unions will work against anti gun laws then
Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
Sir Robert Peel the inventor of modern policing principles for whom the British nickname of policeman as "Bobbies" came from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Peel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
"To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
Police are not military, they are civilians and should, by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 Title of Nobility Clause of the Constitution, not be granted any special treatment compared to the general public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Peel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
"To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
Police are not military, they are civilians and should, by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 Title of Nobility Clause of the Constitution, not be granted any special treatment compared to the general public.
Source/link?
Sorry no can do.
I can say that it was specifically mentioned in the Firearms Law Update last May by the speaker.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2015
- Messages
- 82
- Likes
- 21
No idea. Other then a couple things about the arrest, there isn't a single mention of what happened afterwards anywhere. Charges dropped, plea deal, found not guilty, guilty, nothing. No follow-up.
Not the case I was referring to, so that makes two that I know of.
Usually there is no way to figure out what happened unless you are willing to go to the Court Clerk's Office at the District Court where it was heard and pull the Docket Sheet.
I never know of the dispositions either and I hate walking into a courthouse, royal PITA disarming and the amount of time I waste locking the gun up there and getting it back usually exceeds the amount of time I'm in the building for business.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 443
- Likes
- 49
The opinion of EOPS will not hold up against what is written in the law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
