Dedham UPDATE!

[Scrivener]

Regular readers of this forum - and those who actually read their Outdoor Message - will recall the case of Joe Landers, the gentleman in Dedham who had his LTC revoked by then-chief Teehan because his coat blew open, partially exposing a gun. Appeals were taken and lost.

Teehan left in December; a new application was filed with the new chief this winter. Mr. Landers received his LTC-A today.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Outstanding!!!

I love when antigun cheifs leave office and someone with some sense takes over.

Wonder if the cop who started the whole mess will be looking over his shoulder now....for the new cheif....not Mr Landers.

 

[JonJ]

Good news for sure.

Outstanding!!!

I love when antigun cheifs leave office and someone with some sense takes over.

Wonder if the cop who started the whole mess will be looking over his shoulder now....for the new cheif....not Mr Landers.

Why should he? He didn't do anything wrong. The chief pulled Landers' license.

 

[Supermoto]

Good to hear, but why did it take until now for him to receive his permit if applied in the winter. Mine is due in Jan. I quess I better get moving on it

 

[JonJ]

Good to hear, but why did it take until now for him to receive his permit if applied in the winter. Mine is due in Jan. I quess I better get moving on it

It was part of the "deal" made. Read about it in this thread:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1251&highlight=landers

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Good news for sure.


Why should he? He didn't do anything wrong. The chief pulled Landers' license.

Yes, but the cop initiated the entire process and has as much or more to do with the entire mess than anyone involved. If he hadn't made the poor judgement decision that he did, nothing would have ever come of it. The chief had no choice by law but to pull the license and should have given it back to him before it went through the courts. He had the power to do so but I highly suspect he was being vindictive for Landers challenging his "authority".
Maybe.....just maybe the cop involved in the initiation of the case will smarten up and realize the mistake he made.

 

[Moderator]

Flippin sweet,

 

[JonJ]

If he hadn't made the poor judgement decision that he did, nothing would have ever come of it.
Maybe.....just maybe the cop involved in the initiation of the case will smarten up and realize the mistake he made.

I guess I must be missing something.
What poor judgment and what mistake was made?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I guess I must be missing something.
What poor judgment and what mistake was made?

10. In response to Petitioner’s application for a Class A License to Carry (“LTC”) restricted to Historical and Collecting purposes, Petitioner was sent a letter of denial signed by Respondent. See Denial Letter attached as Exhibit B herein.

11. In the letter of denial, dated April 12, 2005, Respondent explained that his denial of Petitioner’s application resulted from doubts raised as to Petitioner’s suitability “concerning an incident that occurred in Dedham on April 16, 1998…” See id.

12. On April 16, 1998, Petitioner approached a Dedham squad car to ask a police officer a question involving a historical matter. As Petitioner approached, his windbreaker was inadvertently brushed to the side by his movement and the officer observed that Petitioner was carrying a shoulder holster containing a handgun. The officer informed him that he should keep his handgun concealed and Petitioner departed. See Police Report attached as Exhibit C herein.
13. In a letter dated September 24, 2003, signed by Brian W. Riley, counsel representing respondent in Petitioner’s appeal from the Dedham District Court’s judgment affirming respondent’s denial of Petitioner’s application for a Class A LTC for All Lawful Purposes, Mr. Riley informed Petitioner’s former counsel that Respondent would agree to issue Petitioner a restricted Class A license “so that while Mr. Landers would not be licensed to carry concealed firearms, he would be able to lawfully retain possession of the large capacity firearms he already owns.” See Exhibit D attached herein.

14. In a post-trial memorandum filed by Respondent’s counsel following the conclusion of Petitioner’s appeal from the Dedham District Court’s judgment affirming Respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application for a Class A LTC, Respondent’s counsel concedes that “[t]he license to carry statute, G. L. c. 140 § 131, does not… expressly require that a handgun must be carried in a concealed manner. There is no criminal statute that provides a penalty for failing to conceal a licensed weapon.” See Post-Trial Memorandum attached as Exhibit E herein.
--------------------------------

See where the whole mess started? The cop should have shut his mouth and said nothing....that was his mistake and poor judgement.

 

[JonJ]

I've read the petition and still fail to see what the officer did wrong. The officer did not charge Mr. Landers with a crime.
I guess the question is, what do you think the officer did wrong?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I've read the petition and still fail to see what the officer did wrong. The officer did not charge Mr. Landers with a crime.
I guess the question is, what do you think the officer did wrong?

Come on JonJ, he generated a report of an incident that was used by the chief in his decision of unsuitability and subsequent denial.

The cop should never have said a word as he didn't know what he was talking about and the subsequent admission by the respondents lawyer proves it. Read the case. There's no law that says you have to conceal a licensed gun while carrying (although I do, just to eliminate the possibility of a confrontation like this).
He was commenting to the petitioner about something that was completely harmless and was not against the law. Then he writes it in a report. Duh? He should have quit while he was ahead and just shut up.

 

[JonJ]

I haven't read the police report as I do not have access to it but I'm sure it would shed more light in this discussion.
I don't know where you work but where I work I have to document almost every encounter that I make during a tour whether dispatch initiates it or I do.
We don't know but it is entirely possible that the officer in question radioed dispatch and requested an FID/LTC check on Mr. Landers which is not unreasonable. This action would raise eyebrows but doesn't show "poor judgment" or that the officer did something wrong.
The "problem" in this case isn't the officer's actions, it's the chief's actions.

The officer informed him that he should keep his handgun concealed and Petitioner departed.

The cop should never have said a word as he didn't know what he was talking about...

So I guess the lawyers and 99.9% of the other users of this board who advise to stay concealed don't know what they're talking about either.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I haven't read the police report as I do not have access to it but I'm sure it would shed more light in this discussion.
I don't know where you work but where I work I have to document almost every encounter that I make during a tour whether dispatch initiates it or I do.
We don't know but it is entirely possible that the officer in question radioed dispatch and requested an FID/LTC check on Mr. Landers which is not unreasonable. This action would raise eyebrows but doesn't show "poor judgment" or that the officer did something wrong.
The "problem" in this case isn't the officer's actions, it's the chief's actions.




So I guess the lawyers and 99.9% of the other users of this board who advise to stay concealed don't know what they're talking about either.

No I don't mean to convey that at all. I keep mine concealed also, just to avoid this type of hassle, and thats exactly what it was/is....a hassle.

I'm not trying to place all the blame for this on the cop alone, I realize that the chief is far more responsible for what went on but it started somewhere.

I just disagree with the necessity to form a paper trail for a non existant crime.

 

[Len-2A Training]

OK, let me throw my two cents in here, with a disclaimer:

Disclaimer: I worked PT for the PD from 1978 to 1996, so I've been out of circulation for 10 years now. Policies may well have changed and each department does their own thing. PDs definitely do more CYA these days than they did in earlier years, that's a fact of life in our litigous society.

Now with that said, my take on the original situation (putting myself in the initial officer's shoes), based ONLY on the story as posted above (which is different than what I had read a year or so ago):

• Joe (victim) allegedly walked over to the officer to ask a question about some historical issue. Thus, the officer didn't initiate a stop or query.
  
• Jacket blows open and officer sees the gun and comments to Joe about keeping it concealed.
  
  Now we're missing critical info at this point:
  
  * Did Joe apologize, agree with the officer and state that he'd take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again?
  
  * Did the officer ask to see his LTC? If so, and it was in order, I would not be inclined to report this non-event!

Now speaking as myself, I would have used "officer's discretion" and either not reported the contact at all, or just that Joe inquired about historical issue X. No need to mention anything about a legally carried gun on a non-officer initiated social contact.

I oftentimes go up to our officers when I see them and chew the fat with them. Sometimes it's about a gun club, sometimes it's about the politics in the town, sometimes it's about the PD, and other times it's just a personal discussion between friends. I'd hope that all that doesn't get into a report read by my chief for every "contact".

In the days I worked, I saw a lot of things that never got reported. Only dispatched calls, officer-initiated contacts, or something that looked significant ever made it into my reports . . . and I was a lot more detailed than most of the FT or PT officers on the force at that time.

 

[Scrivener]

It was part of the "deal" made. Read about it in this thread:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1251&highlight=landers

NO, it was not. You quoted a thread over a year old, involving a chief who left over 8 months ago and an attorney who was not handling the matter at the time of the application.

The application was actually filed in May. Four months total processing time, with no deal.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

OK, let me throw my two cents in here, with a disclaimer:

Disclaimer: I worked PT for the PD from 1978 to 1996, so I've been out of circulation for 10 years now. Policies may well have changed and each department does their own thing. PDs definitely do more CYA these days than they did in earlier years, that's a fact of life in our litigous society.

Now with that said, my take on the original situation (putting myself in the initial officer's shoes), based ONLY on the story as posted above (which is different than what I had read a year or so ago):

• Joe (victim) allegedly walked over to the officer to ask a question about some historical issue. Thus, the officer didn't initiate a stop or query.
  
• Jacket blows open and officer sees the gun and comments to Joe about keeping it concealed.
  
  Now we're missing critical info at this point:
  
  * Did Joe apologize, agree with the officer and state that he'd take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again?
  
  * Did the officer ask to see his LTC? If so, and it was in order, I would not be inclined to report this non-event!

Now speaking as myself, I would have used "officer's discretion" and either not reported the contact at all, or just that Joe inquired about historical issue X. No need to mention anything about a legally carried gun on a non-officer initiated social contact.
I oftentimes go up to our officers when I see them and chew the fat with them. Sometimes it's about a gun club, sometimes it's about the politics in the town, sometimes it's about the PD, and other times it's just a personal discussion between friends. I'd hope that all that doesn't get into a report read by my chief for every "contact".

In the days I worked, I saw a lot of things that never got reported. Only dispatched calls, officer-initiated contacts, or something that looked significant ever made it into my reports . . . and I was a lot more detailed than most of the FT or PT officers on the force at that time.

Amen. That is exactly how I would have handled it, even today. I highly suspect that there was some inate need or desire by the officer to make something out of nothing in this case and he felt compelled to start a paper trail over as you stated....a non event, other than some policy and that is what I consider poor judgement.
There was no need for anyone to apologize for anything....it was as you say a non event. Also, I dont think there is any "allegedly" about it...the guy walked up and asked for directions, according to both the petitioner and the officers report. The entire incident should have ended with a "have a nice day" and gone no further.
I'm glad that the petitioner had the persistance to follow it through and that he has been issued his license. However I'm not thrilled that there are many like the officer involved who would tend to over magnify a simple situation like this incident, or chiefs that would use such a foolish situation as an excuse, costing both munipalities and citizens time, money and denial of their licenses.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Earlier I had read that Joe came out of a pizza parlor holding a box of pizza and the jacket blew open with the officer on the other side of the street. So, I don't know what really happened here, but in either case if the facts are per either story the chief would have never heard about it from me and it would not have been written that way in any report that I wrote.