Framingham Police Officer’s past affects gun license

[jar]

The more records unsealed and the more guns taken from inappropriate licensees -- especially ones unqualified to police the rest of us -- the happier I will be. Yeah, I love my 2A rights, but if I ever f*ck up like Harry Wareham and an obvious number of people who post here, then I'd kiss those rights goodbye.

We don't know what Wareham did or didn't do. I'm open to argument on violent offenses. However, there are plenty of disqualifying offenses that are quite minor that I find ridiculous applied to adults recently convicted, let alone children who committed the offense decades ago.

Also, there's the ex post facto issues for people who took plea bargains to avoid a trial before these prohibitions were in place. They thought they were getting away with a minor punishment only to have their gun rights taken away later. Pleading guilty to something you didn't do is perfectly rational when the consequences are less than those of going to trial. Coming back and changing the deal later is unfair.


Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

 

[Jared]

There is a lot of misinformation here. LEOSA can be found in 18 USC 926 (b) and (c).

If the cop is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm on duty, then he is covered by subsection b when he is off duty per LEOSA, even if he doesn't have an LTC. He can carry any non-NFA firearm concealed according to the act.

Someone should point out to him that even if he carries off duty per LEOSA, he would need at least an FID Card or an LTC to carry within a thousand feet of a school per the federal gun free school zones act.

So if he carries off duty, even under LEOSA, and he does not have at least an FID card, he is guilty of a federal felony if he is within 1000 feet of a public or private K-12 school

 

[OfficerObie59]

Right you are, Glock. If yellow dog were paying attention in school, he would know that at common law a complete defense due to incapacity existed only for children under the age of seven. Children between seven and 14 were rebuttably presumed to lack criminal capacity and children over the age of 14, i.e., children like Harry P. Wareham was at the time when he committed his crimes, were held responsible as adults.

I don't ever remember saying otherwise. Though in your mind, making stuff up seems to be par for the course.

Alhough your point does lack some important details and one glaring error. But you seem to enjoy the bliss of ignorance, so don't let me hold you up.

I fully applaud the unsealing of all juvie records and, in a perfect world, ALL criminal records would be available for anyone to see. If you can't do the time or don't want to suffer the consequences, then don't do the crime.

It's about time.

 

[jar]

So if he carries off duty, even under LEOSA, and he does not have at least an FID card, he is guilty of a federal felony if he is within 1000 feet of a public or private K-12
school

If you show me an otherwise clean LEO charged under GFSZA, I'll eat my hat.

 

[Jared]

If you show me an otherwise clean LEO charged under GFSZA, I'll eat my hat.

It's always been used as an add-on charge from what I've seen. Besides, state LEO's can't enforce federal law in general; however, most PD's will fire someone for lack of candor style charges. I would assume that knowingly committing a federal felony would qualify for that.

 

[Blitz1]

No law abiding person should be denied the right to protect themselves.

If you've proved yourself a dangerous person (psychopath, sociopath, etc.) then you should be dead or behind bars for life.

 

[Blitz1]

A Lot of cops do not want to see citizens armed.

They don't post here.

 

[drgrant]

It's always been used as an add-on charge from what I've seen. Besides, state LEO's can't enforce federal law in general; however, most PD's will fire someone for lack of candor style charges. I would assume that knowingly committing a federal felony would qualify for that.

GFSZ is rarely prosecuted to begin with. I think there are less than 5 GFSZ cases ever brought to federal court, and only a couple after US v Lopez. In order for it to happen in the US at all a local DA would have to try to bump it up to a Fed. USA/AUSA and see if they'll even take it. My guess is most of the time "no".

-Mike

 

[economist]

No law abiding person should be denied the right to protect themselves.

If you've proved yourself a dangerous person (psychopath, sociopath, etc.) then you should be dead or behind bars for life.

Exactly. This business of denying rights classes of people just ends up screwing all of us.

 

[Jared]

GFSZ is rarely prosecuted to begin with. I think there are less than 5 GFSZ cases ever brought to federal court, and only a couple after US v Lopez. In order for it to happen in the US at all a local DA would have to try to bump it up to a Fed. USA/AUSA and see if they'll even take it. My guess is most of the time "no".

-Mike

All true; however, it's a serious federal felony. Just because it's "never used" or "rarely used" should never be comfort for someone when comitting a felony.

To the other post about cops not being charged, talk to Evan Nappen in New Hampshire. He's represented plenty of people in NJ for gun crimes. One was a Louisiana cop who was carrying in NJ (pre-LEOSA). There also were NJ cops who possessed "assault weapons" and had the book thrown at them.

Over in California, a few cops have met their demise under Roberti-Roos.

So be aware that it does happen.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

All true; however, it's a serious federal felony. Just because it's "never used" or "rarely used" should never be comfort for someone when comitting a felony.

The real issue with these "rarely used" felonies is they can be used to compel a guilty plea for something else.

If you are charged with a felony that carries prison time under the federal guidelines, and there is solid proof you are guilty, you WILL almost certainly take any no jail time plea bargain offered - and the prosecution knows it.

 

[Jared]

The real issue with these "rarely used" felonies is they can be used to compel a guilty plea for something else.

If you are charged with a felony that carries prison time under the federal guidelines, and there is solid proof you are guilty, you WILL almost certainly take any no jail time plea bargain offered - and the prosecution knows it.

Exactly. The federal prosecution ring is a racket. That is the problem with elected prosecutors and with prosecutors that sit at the pleasure of the president. A good counter measure would be if they can only "serve" for 1 term of 7 or 10 years.

A great book on federal corruption in the prosecution racket is a book called 3 Felonies A Day. In fact, the book is Mass centric and is filled with examples from Mass... Scary stuff.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

In an ironic twist to this story, the police lieutenant who, was a MA prohibited person as of 2012, now heads of Framingham's licensing unit. Perhaps he was able to clear his record or perhaps the town continue to not care.


http://www.framinghamma.gov/755/Licensing-Bureau

 

[milktree]

In an ironic twist to this story, the police lieutenant who, was a MA prohibited person as of 2012, now heads of Framingham's licensing unit. Perhaps he was able to clear his record or perhaps the town continue to not care.


http://www.framinghamma.gov/755/Licensing-Bureau

So... if the licensing officer never actually has to touch a gun to do his job.....


Wouldn't the ATF be interested in such a situation where a PP was regularly handling guns?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So... if the licensing officer never actually has to touch a gun to do his job.....


Wouldn't the ATF be interested in such a situation where a PP was regularly handling guns?

No, he's not federally prohibited. This is strictly a Massachusetts problem and irrelevant to his job status. Also, if I had to guess, I'd guess that he's solved the problem by now. There are a couple of ways around the juvenile problem that sometimes work.