Police chiefs blast Healey on gun permits

[Admin]

the cops who are fighting to protect it are our enemies and the enemies of the constitution, as Derek so aptly put it. Screw them, the turds. I hope they all get flushed out of their cushy jobs.

Jim,

Remember it's only a percentage of LEO's and CLEO's that feel that way. Don't group all LEO's in to that category.

 

[JonJ]

Maybe Otis needs to be charged with something to get Otis to start doing something about his drunkenness. If his drunkenness is that far out of control, Otis needs help and LE is doing him, as well as society, absolutely no good in continuing with this "catch and release" policy.

I hope you're not suggesting that the police make up charges. Public Drunkenness as a crime was struck down in Massachusetts a long time ago.
Otis can be subject of MGL Chp123S35 but in the real world, the police very rarely use that. Mostly because for fear of lawsuits and liability, unfounded or not.
In most cases, the family will get a warrant under Section 35 and the person is usually released right away or voluntarily committed.

I've worked many years in substance abuse and found that, of those who do begin to strive for sobriety, it is because their problems have gotten so big they can no longer pretend the boozing is not an issue. Most often they begin to look at their drinking and drugging behavior because of a pending charge or a conviction.

God bless you for the work that you do. I couldn't do it.

The license application form considers cases of habitual drunkenness. Getting locked up 10 times due to drunkenness is a sure sign of habitual drunken behavior. Seems to me, the department locking Otis up that many times without some kind of referral is setting in motion a dangerous situation, not just for Otis, but for the next town he might move to.

The question on the application asks:

9. ARE YOU OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN UNDER TREATMENT FOR OR CONFINEMENT FOR DRUG ADDICTION OR HABITUAL
DRUNKENNESS? __________

PC doesn't apply here.

Now, what if Otis gets PCed 10 times for drunkenness in Brockton then moves to Pittsfield to apply for a firearms license? I suspect Otis' record will follow regardless of whether or not his reputation has preceded him. Why can't this happen at the state level?

Otis' PC record or non criminal record, if you will, will NOT follow him anywhere. People move to places unknown everyday. Pittsfield would have no idea that Otis had lived in Plymouth with just a PC "record".

 

[Admin]

Public Drunkenness as a crime was struck down in Massachusetts a long time ago.

WHY THE HELL DIDNT ANYONE TELL ME THAT WHEN I MOVED TO THIS STATE!?

I've been drinking at half power all this time? Let me guess Kennedy was the lead opponent of the public drunkenness bill?

 

[dwarven1]

Leicester Police Chief James J. Hurley and Hudson Police Chief Richard A. Braga said local police departments know their communities and residents and whether someone should be carrying a firearm.

Chief Braga is so full of BS that his eyes are brown. When I lived in Hudson the ONLY contact I EVER had with the HPD was when I went down to apply for my permit. He NEVER met with me, he didn't know me from Adam. In his eyes, only LEO's should be carrying a gun, that's it - plain & simple.

 

[JellyFish]

Time to hammer these puke police chiefs:

Gary J. Gemme - Chief Worcester
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (508) 799-8606
Fax: (508) 799-8680

Chief James J. Hurley
[email protected] <[email protected]>

Hudson Police Chief Richard A. Braga
[email protected]

 

[JellyFish]

I said only the ones fighting to protect their privileges not all LEOs. I respect the good ones and I hold the bad ones in deepest contempt.

Jim,

Remember it's only a percentage of LEO's and CLEO's that feel that way. Don't group all LEO's in to that category.

 

[Admin]

I said only the ones fighting to protect their privileges not all LEOs. I respect the good ones and I hold the bad ones in deepest contempt.

Roger that, just making sure.

 

[JellyFish]

Okay here's what I sent those three a**h***s.

Subject Header: Firearms Licensing: Arrogant Privilege and Police Chiefs

Message Text:

Chiefs Gemme, Hurley and Braga,

I was dismayed to see the comments made by the three of you in the
story published by the Telegram at
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061019/NEWS/610190783/1116.

What arrogance and hubris the three of you displayed in that article.
A statewide firearms licensing system would be FAR better than the
current one. Police chiefs like yourselves have clearly proven that
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Some of you have abused your power regarding firearms licensing time
and time again. You have demonized ordinary citizens and played
political games over and over again with licensing. The current
system is corrupt to the core and the fact that you are defending it
publicly underscores either your own corruption or your ignorance of
how it has been abused or both. So it's well past time for that power
to be taken away from you and given back to the state where it
belongs.

At this point the right thing for the three of you to do is to resign
and find careers in some other field besides law enforcement since
equal justice under the law is clearly not what interests you. I hope
the citizens of your cities organize themselves and put political
pressure on their officials to fire all of you. The three of you are
stellar examples of why police chiefs cannot be trusted with firearms
licensing.

What disgraceful behaviour on your part. Shame on you.

 

[daceman63]

WHY THE HELL DIDNT ANYONE TELL ME THAT WHEN I MOVED TO THIS STATE!?

I've been drinking at half power all this time? Let me guess Kennedy was the lead opponent of the public drunkenness bill?

 

[JellyFish]

Okay, so I was a little nasty at the end. F*ck em'! I haven't had enough caffeine yet and they're corrupt a**h***s anyway.

 

[Admin]

The podunk CLEO's really crack me up.... What Tools.

Hudson and Leicester....

 

[JellyFish]

Hammer These Pukes! Let Them Know That They Are Full Of Shit!

 

[drgrant]

I'm surprised that it took the MCOPA this long to bitch!

Creating a new board to vote on EVERY LTC issuance will likely make the process take 6 months or more for everyone! NOT a good solution. Sounds like Healey's idea is half-baked at best! Doing what they already do for NR LTCs is the most sensible way to do it and it works. Input from chiefs should be the exception (if s/he KNOWS something significant about an applicant) to the process . . . just like the C&R FFL process.

IMO an improvement would be that in the case of an "unsuitable person"
denial, that there would have to be some sort of mandatory hearing or due
process to back up that assertion. Then the board/court or whoever it
is decides at that point wether the chief's gripe about the
applicant is legitimate or not. EG, if a chief wants to deny someone
for a frivolous reason, they will be forced to jump through a hoop in order
to do so. The decision of such a court will also be legally binding- eg, if
the board decides the chief must still issue the permit, then he must do
so, and if he fails to do so, then either (a- the chief will get punished
somehow or b- the state will act as the issuing authority instead, and issue
the guy a permit, and the chief will lose his ability directly to revoke/deny his
permit)

I could almost agree with them keeping this sort of discretionary power, with
the tradeoff being that a notional of a restricted license is eradicated, as well
as killing off the Class B. Restructured would be "License to Carry" and an
FID card. End. The state either trusts a person with a gun or they
don't.

I personally believe that any "gun license" should be shall issue... in
a perfect world, this is the case. MA is not a perfect world, it is
hell on earth. The only reason I bothered spelling things out the way I did, was
because leaving some sort of throwback in there would be the only way it would be
even remotely fathomable in this state given the political
conditions.

All the above being said... If I could believe that even the above could ever
happen here.... well, then people would be asking me what kind of drugs im
doing, and where to get some. As you mention later, the probability of any
changes happening are slim to none due to MCOPAs positioning with the
legislature. They have too much power, despite the fact that they're
blatantly violating peoples civil rights... the legislature will ignore that because
it's covered with a blanket reasoning of "public safety".

-Mike

 

[Admin]

Creating a new board to vote on EVERY LTC issuance will likely make the process take 6 months or more for everyone! NOT a good solution. Sounds like Healey's idea is half-baked at best!

Why do so many other states have ZERO problems doing it then?

 

[matt]

Notice the article totally skirts the issue of what uniformity of issuance really means. It is not this guy gets a permit and this one doesn't. It means this guy gets an ALP permit and this one doesn't.

They frame the article to sound like permits will be given to convicted bank robbers under Heally's plan.

Clearly what they fail to understand, or very likely obstinately refuse to recognize, is that very suitable people are denied the right to carry a firearm concealed while others are not.

Chief Gimme (spelling intentional because he sounds like a 4 year old) will not give a carry permit to anyone as far as I understand. Sure, he'll give you a class A, but restricted.

Matt

 

[Admin]

Chief Gimme (spelling intentional because he sounds like a 4 year old) will not give a carry permit to anyone as far as I understand. Sure, he'll give you a class A, but restricted.

Matt

This is correct. He went as far as saying in the past, and I'm paraphrasing here,

"Citizens don't need to carry guns, that's what the police are for."

 

[LoginName]

Chief Gimme (spelling intentional because he sounds like a 4 year old) will not give a carry permit to anyone as far as I understand. Sure, he'll give you a class A, but restricted.

Matt

Here's more...

(I wonder if Gemme still uses "no job" as a reason for not issuing a license?)


Gemme gets Tough on Guns: Rules for Licensing Made More Stringent
by Milton J. Valencia
Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Category: News Center
January 10, 2005



WORCESTER - Revisions that Police Chief Gary J. Gemme has made to the Police Department's gun-licensing policy have made it one of the most stringent in the state, the chief said, calling it an effort to limit who is eligible to obtain a gun license in Worcester.

The chief said he was motivated by recent instances in which people with clean records were able to obtain a gun but then were seen with known gang leaders, leaving police to wonder who is in control of the weapon and the reason for which it is being used.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives has said it has seen more cases of such "straw" people obtaining a gun to provide it to someone who is precluded, for various reasons, from having a license. Chief Gemme has said his policy, released last week, redefines a "suitable" person, one of the criteria state law leaves to local licensing authorities to define.

The policy could trigger opposition from gun-rights advocates. At least one group tried unsuccessfully to meet with the chief after hearing of his plans to revise the Police Department's policy. The group's leader said last week that the chief's policy interferes with the public's rights.

"What we have is a heck of a constitutional crisis on our hands," said James Wallace, executive director of the Northboro-based Gun Owners Action League.

State gun laws already restrict who is eligible to have a gun, barring convicted felons, people convicted of violent crimes, or people convicted of misdemeanors for which they could have received a two-year prison sentence. There are other restrictions, such as an age minimum of 21.

Still, local licensing authorities, typically police chiefs, can use their discretion in defining a suitable person. Municipalities throughout the state have different policies, but must follow state laws on the issue. Anyone can appeal a local licensing authority's decision, but then must prove why he or she is eligible for a gun.

Chief Gemme said his new policy narrows the definition of a "suitable" person.

Under his plan, an applicant can be disqualified if he or she:

Has been arrested for a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years;

Has been arrested for any felony or any incident involving physical violence or threats to commit physical violence;

Has been involved in a domestic violence incident that results in the issuance of a temporary or permanent restraining order against him or her;

Has had any drug arrest, including marijuana;

Does not have a job;

Has been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or has multiple minor alcohol-related arrests;

Has had any past or present affiliation, association or cohabitation with any person or group with a known criminal history.

Moreover, the chief said he will ask applicants their intended use of the weapon, rather than allowing them to check off a box saying it's for "all lawful purposes."

Under the chief's plan, the only allowed purposes will be:

Sporting, for which the gun can be used only at shooting and target clubs;

Target practice, for which it can be used only at a shooting club or facility;

Hunting, for which a license will only be issued for a large- capacity rifle and a shotgun;

Personal protection, in which case the applicant must specify the reason he fears injury to himself or his property.

The chief also listed criteria an applicant must follow under the personal protection category: If a license is issued for work or employment, the weapon may only be used while acting within the scope of employment, such as transporting money to and from a place of employment or depository. If it's for a business, the weapon may only be kept at the business, or may be carried within a set time frame. If the weapon is used for protection at home, the license holder may not remove the weapon from the home. Anyone violating the terms of the license could see the license revoked.

Under the chief's plan, only active and retired law enforcement holders may say the weapon will be used for "all lawful purposes."

The policy applies to first-time applicants and applicants for license renewals.

Mr. Wallace of the Gun Owner's Action League blasted the plan, saying it bans people who were arrested but found not guilty. "Get arrested by the chief's police officer and you'll lose your Second Amendment rights. That's great," Mr. Wallace said.

He also questioned the police chief's limit of lawful purposes. Mr. Wallace said a person has the right to defend himself and said if the police chief believes a person doesn't need a gun for personal protection then police would have no reason to carry guns themselves.

"We run into the same people on the streets," he said. He even questioned why the chief would need a gun if he doesn't arrest violent criminals.

Mr. Wallace said state law gives licensing authorities the right to examine an applicant, but said the discretion comes with responsibility. He used as an example of a wise decision a case in which an applicant was disqualified because of a mental illness. But he said the chief crossed a line across constitutional rights by setting such strict standards for the general public.

"Criminals don't carry what the police chief says; criminals don't care what policies say," he said. "They do what they want to do." He argued the public needs to protect itself. He cited statistics that he said showed gun-related assaults and accidental shootings have increased even though tougher gun laws have been passed. "They're going after the wrong people," Mr. Wallace said.

"Criminals are laughing at (police)," he said. "They're saying, `Go ahead, disarm the public. It will make our jobs that much easier.'"

Mr. Wallace said his group has been lobbying to have new laws passed creating a statewide definition of a suitable person. That way, he said, there would be no difference applying for a gun from one town to another.

"If chiefs like this one in Worcester really want to go through with this, then they're abusing their power," he said. "We need a statewide system anyone can follow."

Until then, he said, his group will reach out to legislators to object to the chief's plans.

The chief has said that state law does not cover every angle needed to examine a gun applicant. He has questioned if a suitable person is someone who, though he has a clean record, "takes his firearm, concealed, toward a nightclub at 2 in the morning." He has said the new policy was meant to limit the scope of people who qualify to hold a gun and will assure they're using a gun for proper purposes.

"We're going to go from being one of the more liberal (departments) in the state to one of the more restrictive," Chief Gemme said.

http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=6655

 

[rclarkston]

I don't understand why some chiefs aren't able to see this as a public safety issue.

Just because one chief has tough licensing criteria in his/her city/town does not mean they have any semblance of control over, or knowledge of who is carrying concealed in their jurisdiction. I would thing some chiefs, especially ones with tough licensing standards would be ripping mad over the fact that persons licensed in jurisdictions with much easier licesning standards are free to walk around their streets carrying a concealed weapon.

Do these chiefs realize that ALP is valid anywhere in the state and not just in the issuing jurisdiction? If the primary concern for the "COPs" was public safety, I would think they would be beating down the doors of the legislature to get uniform licensing standards to prevent some "undesireable", licensed in another community from walking around their community packing heat. Other than accepting the "COPs" stance as being about power and ego, I can find no other rationalization.

Sure, C&R FFL-like input from the "COPs" would provide some benefit, but I would think that state-wide licensing criteria would make the state "safer for all of us">

 

[JonJ]

I don't understand why some chiefs aren't able to see this as a public safety issue.

POLITICS!

 

[Admin]

POLITICS!

BINGO!

 

[drgrant]

Why do so many other states have ZERO problems doing it then?

Derek,

What states would those be? In most shall issue states (which is like 75% of the US now)
there is no "board". If the background checks for statutory disqualifiers come up blank,
than the person usually gets a license. There likely isnt a board at all... more like a
person who runs a computer and an official who signs off on them when they're done.

-Mike

 

[Mike508]

I hope you're not suggesting that the police make up charges. Public Drunkenness as a crime was struck down in Massachusetts a long time ago.
Otis can be subject of MGL Chp123S35 but in the real world, the police very rarely use that. Mostly because for fear of lawsuits and liability, unfounded or not.
In most cases, the family will get a warrant under Section 35 and the person is usually released right away or voluntarily committed

Absolutely not, that would run counter to the spirit of everything I've said thus far.

The question on the application asks: 9. ARE YOU OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN UNDER TREATMENT FOR OR CONFINEMENT FOR DRUG ADDICTION OR HABITUAL
DRUNKENNESS? __________

PC doesn't apply here.

Legally, no. However, in reality, as things currently are wrt to firearms licensing, it seems to apply in some towns.

Now I don't know whether one's PC record should become part of the licensing process, that's a matter to be taken up further down a road this state will likely not go. Regardless, one's PC record, if it can make it's way to the individual's town database, could find it's way to the state level if it was determined that an individual's PC record was needed wrt to firearms licensing.

God bless you for the work that you do. I couldn't do it.

Thanks, it can be brain-damaging work. Let it be said though, I've not worked in the field for a few years.

Otis' PC record or non criminal record, if you will, will NOT follow him anywhere. People move to places unknown everyday. Pittsfield would have no idea that Otis had lived in Plymouth with just a PC "record".

I believe that is the crux of the problem: Otis is unsuitable in Plymouth, yet he's fine for licensing in Pittsfield. Thus, the so-called reason for leaving firearms licensing in the hands of local PDs is sufficiently undermined leaving the whole concept to fall flat on it's face.

Ultimately, though, I don't see things changing; the issuance of LTCs and FIDs will be handled at the local level for some time to come. As for Shall Issue LTCs in MA, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Originally Posted by LenS
Creating a new board to vote on EVERY LTC issuance will likely make the process take 6 months or more for everyone! NOT a good solution. Sounds like Healey's idea is half-baked at best!

Why do so many other states have ZERO problems doing it then?

Are you forgetting? This is Mass!

If they had a "hearing" on each applicant from every city/town, it would take forever plus a century to issue a LTC!

You only need a committee/board WHEN a chief raises an argument against issuance, that's when you hold the hearings. They will be darn few of these, because unless it is egregious, the chief will never want to defend his own personal prejudices in front of others.

 

[Admin]

Are you forgetting? This is Mass!

If they had a "hearing" on each applicant from every city/town, it would take forever plus a century to issue a LTC!

You only need a committee/board WHEN a chief raises an argument against issuance, that's when you hold the hearings. They will be darn few of these, because unless it is egregious, the chief will never want to defend his own personal prejudices in front of others.

If the chiefs are going to fight all the LTC's in their towns then that could pose a problem.

 

[Admin]

Derek,

What states would those be? In most shall issue states (which is like 75% of the US now) there is no "board". If the background checks for statutory disqualifiers come up blank, than the person usually gets a license. There likely isnt a board at all... more like a person who runs a computer and an official who signs off on them when they're done.

-Mike

With Healey's proposal it's supposed to work the way you just listed unless a Chief raises a concern then the "panel" will review the issuance...

 

[Len-2A Training]

If the chiefs are going to fight all the LTC's in their towns then that could pose a problem.

The chiefs aren't dumb. No way that they would "expose themselves" that way by declaring to any committee/board that nobody (or no women, no blacks, no Hispanics, etc.) should have a LTC. It sets them up with "witnesses" and potential legal repercussions.

They can safely do this things when they are "king of their own hill" and nobody sees them do it, but they can't afford the risk of going public with it.

 

[KMaurer]

I understand both sides of this situation

Sorry, Len, but there is no valid other side to this one. Right now, if the MSP or CHSB have information that would impact on a chief's decision to issue an LTC, the have a fixed period of time in which to provide that information for the chief to take in into consideration. If the local PD has any information (as opposed to simple personal prejudices) about any applicant, they can proovide that information for the MSP or CHSB to take into considation in issuing the license. The only reason they're whining about this because such a policy precents them from imposing blanket policies based solely on their personal prejudices, or infringes their current ability to discriminate based on irrational or illegal factors.

Ken

 

[Len-2A Training]

Ken, re-read what I wrote! We both agree.

I never said that the troublesome chiefs had a valid issue, just that I understand both sides of this.

I think that my idea (the C&R FFL technique) would work well for everyone (rules are strictly what's in the law, nothing more, but allows chief to object for articulable reasons).

 

[USMA-82]

I'm afraid the chiefs are too far gone - but I did send an email to the reporter:

Mr. Croteau:

Thank you for bringing this issue to light. You may want to look a little deeper, however, to see what lawful, responsible gun owners think about Chief Gemme's policies. For example, one of his criteria for issuance of a firearms license in Worcester is employment. By his standards (published last year in the T&G) if I was a resident who applied for license renewal and was suddenly laid off from work, I could be ineligible for renewal. Then, my collection of valuable and historically-significant firearms would have to be transferred to a storage facility, as it would then be illegal for me to keep them in my home - even if locked up in a gun safe.

The Chief also feels he can determine someone is an "unsuitable person" if they are arrested for certain crimes - even if never convicted. So if there is a misunderstanding, a case of mistaken identity, or other extenuating circumstances that are later resolved - too bad. Under the state guidelines, conviction of the crime is required before it can be applied to consideration for licensing. This exact situation (the firearms license was pulled from a man who was accused but not convicted of domestic abuse) just occured recently in the Worcester area.

While I applaud any attempt to reduce gang-related violence and criminal access to guns, the solution is not to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain a firearms license. The solution is rigorous enforcement of existing laws, control of plea bargains in the courts, and minimum sentences for gun crimes. The problem now is that we have 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, and 351 versions of what is required for licensing. What if every police chief in the state could determine his own requirements for a driver's license in his town? I imagine the outrage might make for several weeks worth of front page news!

Thanks for your time -

 

[Coyote33]

I hope you're not suggesting that the police make up charges. Public Drunkenness as a crime was struck down in Massachusetts a long time ago....

Disorderly conduct. Disturbing the peace. Urinating in public. There are a lot of things someone can be caught on, no?


As for the "FID" part way back up there, wasn't it LenS or someone who questioned that in another post? Here it pops up again. I think the press calls gun licenses (LTC's?) FID's most of the time.