-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Yeah, just like with Obamacare. Once the R's could actually do something about it, they didn't (get the votes, FU McCain).
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsSzZLzYetA
It was the hey day of corruption before the internet. The old MDC, before it was absorbed into the Staties, was just as corrupt.
Clemente, Three Others Get Prison Terms In Examscam Case
BOSTON (AP) _ A former police captain was sentenced Friday to 15 years in prison for orchestrating a scheme to steal, sell and alter police promotional tests.
apnews.com
BOSTON (AP) _ A former police captain was sentenced Friday to 15 years in prison for orchestrating a scheme to steal, sell and alter police promotional tests.
Former Metropolitan District Commission Capt. Gerald W. Clemente, who became the government’s star witness against exam cheaters, got a stinging reprimand from U.S. District Judge William G. Young, along with the sentence.
″You are one of the most amoral, arrogant and manipulative individual to ever appear before the court,″ Young said.
Three other former police officers also were given prison sentences Friday, joining five other defendants who were given prison terms last week.
Young termed ″absurd″ the defense contention that Clemente had ″rendered a magnificent public service″ by testifying.
″You have done nothing of the kind,″ said Young, who told Clemente he had affected scores of officers who took promotional exams without the benefit of advance copies and damaged the integrity of honest police officers.
″Mr. Clemente is indeed the architect of the exam-scam scheme,″ Assistant U.S. Attorney John Pappalardo told Young prior to the sentencing. ″The scheme could not have existed without Mr. Clemente.″
Clemente, who also was fined the maximum $25,000 for his convictions on racketeering, conspiracy and other charges, will begin his federal sentence after completing a 30- to 40-year sentence he received for his part in the 1980 bank burglary at Depositor’s Trust in Medford.
Also sentenced Friday were former Revere Police Chief John DeLeire, who was convicted at the four-month trial, and two men who were government witnesses as part of plea bargains, former Capitol Police Officer Richard Madden and retired MDC police Sgt. Frank Ray.
DeLeire, who received a stolen copy of the test he took to be promoted from lieutenant to chief, received four years for his conspiracy conviction.
Madden, who admitted giving Clemente access to the tests at the state office building he was assigned to guard for the Capitol Police, received a two-year sentence and was ordered to undergo alcohol counseling. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy.
Ray, who admitted accepting a stolen exam and giving it to his son-in-law, received a one-year sentence, but Young suspended all but three months. Ray pleaded guilty to conspiracy and perjury.
Clemente was returned to prison after the sentencing. DeLeire was released on bail pending appeal and Madden and Ray were released until July 13, when they were ordered to report to prison. All declined comment.
Clemente’s sentence was five years shorter than the one given a week ago to former Medford Police Lt. Thomas Doherty, who was sentenced to the maximum 20 years in prison in addition to the up to 20 years he is serving for the bank burglary and attempted murder of a MDC police captain.
Doherty was Clemente’s partner in the scheme to steal, sell and alter scores of police exams between 1976 and 1984.
Also among those convicted was Clemente’s brother, former MDC Lt. Robert Clemente Sr., who received a four-year sentence.
Prosecutors and Gerald Clemente’s attorney said Clemente, as part of his plea agreement, would cooperate in the continuing investigation.
Officials have said the careers of more than 100 officers may have been stalled because of promotions given to officers who cheated on their exams. About 75 officers from several departments plan to file a class-action suit seeking promotions and back pay, according to an attorney preparing the suit.
Last edited:
Anybody heard anything from Watertown? Last I heard they were still restricting new applicants...
pastera
NES Member
Would take a lot longer to reformat the cards
Think of it as a 'we won, f you' every time they have to look at a card.
pastera
NES Member
They simply can't - FRB already announced they will not print a card with restrictions and will kick it back to the PD to fix
So they are either issuing unrestricted or they are not processing applications
I'm more worried they will try to revive it.
...why?
They can't. Bruen says so. If they're doing away with the restrictions even without a lawsuit, why would they reimpose them when they know the suits would come right away?
Plus, if they were to try to revive it, the format of the card would be something they could overcome easily.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Could be that. I expect it was simpler.
Atty. Guida probably made it crystal clear that he has already written the core of his case, and is looking for a chief to sit on the other side. While Sacco might have stepped up (especially towards the end of his career) Buckley probably doesn't want to risk it. That kind of loss would severely limit his ability to move on to bigger and better.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
Watertown hasn't updated the instructions for the LTC:
3. Applicants must submit a letter to the Chief of Police detailing all the particulars for wanting to carry a firearm.
Also requiring 2 letters of reference.
I noticed Waltham updated the PD website, removing similar language as 3 above, but those ass clowns still require THREE letters of reference.
3. Applicants must submit a letter to the Chief of Police detailing all the particulars for wanting to carry a firearm.
Also requiring 2 letters of reference.
I noticed Waltham updated the PD website, removing similar language as 3 above, but those ass clowns still require THREE letters of reference.
I don't think the AG's enforcement notice told CoPs they had to stop requesting letters of reference?
However, if those letters were to be used to support a license denial, and there was any degree of discretion used by a public employee, the letters would be useless in court. The statute is pretty clear on what disqualifies applicants, and as long as the applicants meet those statutory standards, the letters don't really matter.
They're annoying. But I doubt they're illegal.
However, if those letters were to be used to support a license denial, and there was any degree of discretion used by a public employee, the letters would be useless in court. The statute is pretty clear on what disqualifies applicants, and as long as the applicants meet those statutory standards, the letters don't really matter.
They're annoying. But I doubt they're illegal.
Lank
NES Member
I would be all over the mayor's office as wellMy guess is stall as long as possible, emailed BPD two weeks ago, one week ago, left a voicemail this week… emailed GOAL…
It was the MDC police. They were special.
See my post above. Both were represented. More at the link:
Five Men Arrested In Connection With 1980 Bank Robbery
MEDFORD, Mass. (AP) _ Five men, including three former police officers, were arrested today on charges stemming from the 1980 theft of an estimated $10 million in cash and valuables from more than 700 bank safety deposit boxes, authorities said.
apnews.com
Five Men Arrested In Connection With 1980 Bank Robbery
December 9, 1985MEDFORD, Mass. (AP) _ Five men, including three former police officers, were arrested today on charges stemming from the 1980 theft of an estimated $10 million in cash and valuables from more than 700 bank safety deposit boxes, authorities said.
Paul Richardson, spokesman for Middlesex County District Attorney Scott Harshbarger, said more arrests were expected in the robbery at the Depositors Trust Co. Authorities said at the time it appeared to be the largest bank robbery in Massachusetts history.
Richardson identified the men arrested today as Gerald Clemente, 52, a former captain for the Metropolitan District Commission Police; Kenneth Holmes, 33, of Watertown; Francis X. O’Leary, 42; Richard Madden, 53, a former Capitol police officer; and Thomas Doherty, 45, a former Medford police lieutenant.
![[offtopic]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/038.gif "Off Topic [offtopic]")
As you may know, the MDC cops were merged into the State Police. A friend of mine was an ICE detention and deportation agent. He told me about a time when they were transporting prisoners on the PIke when one of the prisoners became ill. They were on the side of the highway with the local FD treating the prisoner and were coordinating which hospital they were going to take the prisoner too. A fat Statie got in his face insisting that they take the prisoner to the nearest federal prison instead. Now this was a federal prisoner being transported by federal agents, so the Statie had no standing, but nevertheless he got irate and started making threats.
Eventually the ICE agent got angry and yelled at the Statie: “you flipping MDC cop, go do your job and direct traffic.” The issue was settled when the FD lieutenant said “he’s my patient and we’re transporting him to the hospital“. By that time there were a couple young Staties who had also arrived and were watching the “my badge is better than your badge” show. After the older Statie stomped off, one of the younger troopers asked the ICE agent: “so how did you know he’d been an MDC cop?”
Eventually the ICE agent got angry and yelled at the Statie: “you flipping MDC cop, go do your job and direct traffic.” The issue was settled when the FD lieutenant said “he’s my patient and we’re transporting him to the hospital“. By that time there were a couple young Staties who had also arrived and were watching the “my badge is better than your badge” show. After the older Statie stomped off, one of the younger troopers asked the ICE agent: “so how did you know he’d been an MDC cop?”
I think the format of the cards is set by state regulation so the field has to be there by the CMRs even if it is no longer used until the CMRs are revised, which typically doesn't happen until there's a change to the authorizing MGLs. The last change to LTC cards was the 2014 addition of the suicide hotline phone # on the back.
Interesting. Did not know this.
Is there a bill to change the cards in the works?
I know there is at least one new bill on the way because of this court case. Not entirely sure what is in it.
Pre-ruling
I should have been more clear... Have they addressed existing restrictions since they were giving them to all new applicants?
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Bastards
pastera
NES Member
Jason might just might find a victim for his case if Watertown plays the fool...
Mesatchornug
NES Member
I almost hope they will. I know it's not how it really works, but in my head I picture Jason, Neil, et al. creating MadLib (oooh! pardon the unintended pun) style case briefs. I then imagine them sharing them in their inner circle fit when they need to relax by imagining dragging Brookline/Watertown through the system...
Additional commentary on GOA lawsuit and request for injunction re: NY state revised licensing standards
View: https://youtu.be/y4_BOdBGVhU
View: https://youtu.be/y4_BOdBGVhU
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
What is a women?
What is an Assault Weapon?
View: https://twitter.com/asholiver/status/1547763201718116355?t=6BIAK8z_b5V9kIPaVmkkrA&s=19
What is an Assault Weapon?
View: https://twitter.com/asholiver/status/1547763201718116355?t=6BIAK8z_b5V9kIPaVmkkrA&s=19
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
No f***ing way would I write a letter.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
The most important footnote in the Bruen decision, footnote 9, spells out the constitutionality of objective licensing requirements. Subjectivity is NOT allowed. Letters of reference are used to determine suitability and good moral character, therefore, they are unconstitutional be definition:
9
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
The text above is ironclad. Only narrow and objective and definite standards may be applied, PERIOD.
So no letters of recommendation, no suitability hurdles, and no good moral character assessments are allowed.
This is the law of the land!
9
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
The text above is ironclad. Only narrow and objective and definite standards may be applied, PERIOD.
So no letters of recommendation, no suitability hurdles, and no good moral character assessments are allowed.
This is the law of the land!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
The most important footnote in the Bruen decision, footnote 9, spells out the constitutionality of objective licensing requirements. Subjectivity is NOT allowed. Letters of reference are used to determine suitability and good moral character, both non-obective factors, therefore, they are unconstitutional by definition:
9
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
The text above is ironclad. Only narrow and objective and definite standards may be applied, PERIOD.
So no letters of recommendation, no suitability hurdles, and no good moral character assessments are allowed.
If you are not a federally prohibited person, then you have already met the definition of a "law-abiding, responsible citizen", both in spirit and in fact.
This is the law of the land!
9
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
The text above is ironclad. Only narrow and objective and definite standards may be applied, PERIOD.
So no letters of recommendation, no suitability hurdles, and no good moral character assessments are allowed.
If you are not a federally prohibited person, then you have already met the definition of a "law-abiding, responsible citizen", both in spirit and in fact.
This is the law of the land!
