Gemme in the role of God again / Worc. man denied LTC renewal

[clinotus]

This is what I found ( I'm not taking any side so please don't shoot me)

http://www.telegram.com/article/20080813/NEWS/808130683

“Additionally, any evidence which the officer seemed to indicate regarding the defendant’s sobriety seems to be completely contradicted by the fact that the petitioner passed a Breathalyzer and was not even charged with the crime,” Judge D’Angelo wrote.

The judge said Mr. Gallo had a license to carry firearms for 30 years and showed he never had a firearms violation. The judge also noted Mr. Gallo is an active member in the community and supports charitable organizations.

He continued that it has been 11 years since the 1997 incidents.

The chief believes his denial should have been upheld at the District Court level and the Superior Court will rule in his favor.

Gemme is such a tool. No charges = no charges, even the judge gets and states that.

Not sure if this is the 'mysterious' friend of a friend of a friend post though.

 

[securityboy]

This is what I found ( I'm not taking any side so please don't shoot me)

http://www.telegram.com/article/20080813/NEWS/808130683

Jeez if that is his "buddy" sounds like an awesome up standing guy...whats that 2 likely alcohol involved accidents with leaving the scene, and buying crack... I think even the "greenest" of chiefs might call that guy unsuitable...

 

[rchap36]

Gemme = a**h***

 

[clinotus]

Jeez if that is his "buddy" sounds like an awesome up standing guy...whats that 2 likely alcohol involved accidents with leaving the scene, and buying crack... I think even the "greenest" of chiefs might call that guy unsuitable...

Agreed.

Its a fine line some chiefs walk. This is one of those cases where the COP has a valid point and where the suitability clauses seem more than valid.

But this case sets up a situation where those clauses come into effect vs. the strict interpretation and framework of the law. As the basis for the permit to be granted was due to strict interpretation under the law, then so to should the case follow that strict interpretation of the law and the guy get his permit back.

If he really is that bad of a person, suspect, 'subject' then a stronger case would put him behind bars, or offer up a true disqualifier for his permit. So far the state has not met that burden.

 

[LoginName]

Jeez if that is his "buddy" sounds like an awesome up standing guy...whats that 2 likely alcohol involved accidents with leaving the scene, and buying crack... I think even the "greenest" of chiefs might call that guy unsuitable...

I don't give a flying f**k if the guy has drunk out of his skull a dozen times and had been pulled over for each one of them, or if he was dealing crack cocaine by the truckload.

Without any convictions, Gallos RKBA is being violated by that waste of skin Gemme.

 

[terraformer]

Agreed.

Its a fine line some chiefs walk. This is one of those cases where the COP has a valid point and where the suitability clauses seem more than valid.

But this case sets up a situation where those clauses come into effect vs. the strict interpretation and framework of the law. As the basis for the permit to be granted was due to strict interpretation under the law, then so to should the case follow that strict interpretation of the law and the guy get his permit back.

If he really is that bad of a person, suspect, 'subject' then a stronger case would put him behind bars, or offer up a true disqualifier for his permit. So far the state has not met that burden.

NO, NO, NO! This is a violation of due process. I don't care who he is, who the chief is, what charities the prick has given to. He was never convicted of a crime yet he is being DENIED access to a right. We fought a f-ing revolution to get this kind of crap to stop. What's next? Driving suitability tests? Oh, we have those. How about parenting suitability tests? Where does it stop?

I can see why goal wouldn't want to use this prick as the test case to the SCOTUS but you know what, we ain't gonna get better. Lets do this and get it over once and for all.

ETA: Short of having a CLEO hand us a denial of a muslim for fanaticism, this is going to be the best type of case you get on the issue. Yeah, the end result will be to further clamp down on the statutory requirements and that scares me as I can get taken up in that one. But hey, let them try and say that a traffic ticket precludes my rights. I will be at the courthouse door the following day. If it bankrupts me I will do it. I have had it up to here with this f'n state and the corrupt politicians here and elsewhere.

 

[clinotus]

NO, NO, NO! This is a violation of due process. I don't care who he is, who the chief is, what charities the prick has given to. He was never convicted of a crime yet he is being DENIED access to a right. We fought a f-ing revolution to get this kind of crap to stop. What's next? Driving suitability tests? Oh, we have those. How about parenting suitability tests? Where does it stop?

I can see why goal wouldn't want to use this prick as the test case to the SCOTUS but you know what, we ain't gonna get better. Lets do this and get it over once and for all.

Please re-read what I wrote.

As the basis for the permit to be granted was due to strict interpretation under the law, then so to should the case follow that strict interpretation of the law and the guy get his permit back.

If he really is that bad of a person, suspect, 'subject' then a stronger case would put him behind bars, or offer up a true disqualifier for his permit. So far the state has not met that burden.

 

[securityboy]

If he really is that bad of a person, suspect, 'subject' then a stronger case would put him behind bars, or offer up a true disqualifier for his permit. So far the state has not met that burden.

I think one of the problems here is Massachusett's fine court system ie.he has at least 2 CWOF's...Wouldn't want to "burden" the courts (and maybe rightfully so) with hearing a possession of crack cocaine or DUI case, but instead of a "no contest" here in MA they end up with a CWOF (with maybe probation or "treatment") and it "goes away"...

 

[terraformer]

Please re-read what I wrote.

Sorry, it didn't read that way when I read it.

 

[clinotus]

I think one of the problems here is Massachusett's fine court system ie.he has at least 2 CWOF's...Wouldn't want to "burden" the courts (and maybe rightfully so) with hearing a possession of crack cocaine or DUI case, but instead of a "no contest" here in MA they end up with a CWOF (with maybe probation or "treatment") and it "goes away"...

CWOF's are deadly in this state, so too are 'sealed records', I put them in the same category as 209a's; the 'Screw your rights category'. The defendant is truly powerless with any of the three. Lots of people believe that they are following their best interests when they take a deal to bargain down a simple charge to a CWOF thinking that as long as they behave or meet the the conditions of the CWOF that all is fine and dandy. Unfortunately like the others in my screw your rights category, the fact that it exists stands as a disqualifier. Chances are you dont even know it until you go for a CORY check, a LTC check, or a Federal Firearms check. Walking 'almost criminals'.

Sorry, it didn't read that way when I read it.

NP. My agreeing with securityboy probably threw you off. I edited it twice to move that line down as well. I should have thrown a rimshot in there.

 

[securityboy]

...My agreeing with securityboy probably threw you off...

Am I that "disagreeable"???

 

[securityboy]

...I can see why goal wouldn't want to use this prick as the test case to the SCOTUS but you know what, we ain't gonna get better. Lets do this and get it over once and for all...

I would love MA to be a shall issue state, I do not support "restrictions" or "suitablity", but that is the current "system" we have for LTC's and like I said looking at this guys background I think MANY chief's would say he is "unsuitable"...

Now as for this being a test case...look at Miller vs US as opposed to Heller vs US, you can't just throw any case out there and "hope for the best" because its the best we can find right now...seriously do you really want to rest the validity of MA's "suitablity" clause on this guy???If anything this guy is easily made out to be the "poster child" of our opposition's reasoning behind "discretionary licensing"...

 

[terraformer]

I would love MA to be a shall issue state, I do not support "restrictions" or "suitablity", but that is the current "system" we have for LTC's and like I said looking at this guys background I think MANY chief's would say he is "unsuitable"...

Now as for this being a test case...look at Miller vs US as opposed to Heller vs US, you can't just throw any case out there and "hope for the best" because its the best we can find right now...seriously do you really want to rest the validity of MA's "suitablity" clause on this guy???If anything this guy is easily made out to be the "poster child" of our opposition's reasoning behind "discretionary licensing"...

Miller was a whole other type of cluster duck. Miller's lawyer had no money to go to DC so he basically was a no show. The justices should have never decided a precedent setting case in such a situation. I would hope they would find in favor by default and walk away from it today.

Beyond that... Hell, beyond that nothing. The state was basically able to spout all sorts of untruths and get away with it. It was a travesty of justice on the order of the hughes amendment. I don't even think the comparison to this case is even valid.

 

[K1MIZ/USMC0311]

A co-worker who lives in Middleton, MA told me of a similar situation that happened to his neighbor. The guy went to the transfer station to dump his trash (apparently, they don't have curbside pickup there). Some shabbily-dressed character told him to come back later, the place wasn't open, etc. The neighbor told this character that he was on time, pointing to his watch and the business hours that were clearly posted on the sign at the entrance. He then asked the character if he worked there. The character grew angry, asked the neighbor if he had "a problem" and then pulled a badge and threatened to arrest him for disobeying an officer. Turns out he was an off-duty Middleton cop who was just hanging out with a friend at the transfer station. The neighbor did nothing wrong, legally. A few days later, the revocation letter arrived in the mail, declaring the neighbor "not a suitable person" to hold a LTC. From what I understand, he was able to get the guns into a relative's home in NH just before the police showed up with a confiscation order hours later.

Sounds to me like this cop was up to no good himself. Why is it ok for him to be at the transfer station off duty along w his friend and nobody else can be.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

CWOF's are deadly in this state, so too are 'sealed records', I put them in the same category as 209a's; the 'Screw your rights category'. The defendant is truly powerless with any of the three. Lots of people believe that they are following their best interests when they take a deal to bargain down a simple charge to a CWOF thinking that as long as they behave or meet the the conditions of the CWOF that all is fine and dandy. Unfortunately like the others in my screw your rights category, the fact that it exists stands as a disqualifier. Chances are you dont even know it until you go for a CORY check, a LTC check, or a Federal Firearms check. Walking 'almost criminals'.

I thought CWOF wasn't a conviction, ad thus only played to suitability, not statutory disqualifier.....

 

[BillB]

Wait Wait Wait!!! (mods feel free to lecture me, wrist slap whatever for this next statement, BUT) ARE YOU A f***ING RETARD? (again sorry bout that mods, it needed to be said) Seriously you come on with this sob story about a "buddy" wrongly accused of DUI and how the system wrongly pulled his permit...then what 4 pages into this you give the "oh he might have been charged with resisting arrest too" WTF??? just a long shot here but I bet 99% people with a resisting arrest (or A&B on PO) will be deemed unsuitable by thier chief...BS like this takes away from the countless people who have had thier licenses wrongfully revoked, etc.

One More thing:

Not only does this contradict your later recollection of the resisting arrest charge, but being arrested for something and not convicted of it can indicate a lot of things but not often does the lack of conviction mean it was a "false arrest"...

Yes, you would need to be "F-ING RETARDED" not to notice that all charges were dropped.

And no, he is not a "buddy", just someone I happen to know.

And from what I remember, because of the previous court decision, the ONLY thing brought up in Superior Court was the DUI. (he may have even blown a zero on the breathalyser)

 

[securityboy]

Yes, you would need to be "f***ING RETARDED" not to notice that all charges were dropped...

#1 the point I was making is A DUI with a resisting arrest is ALOT different than someone wrongfully stopped for DUI, as it relates to "suitablitly" as I stated in what you quote...(your initial ommission of the resisting arrest is like saying "my friend had a minor fenderbender but the RMV took his license for no reason, without you mentioning the fenderbender was his driving down the sidewalk taking out a pedestrian or two...)

#2 If "your guy" and the guy in the article are the same guy, there is a bit of a difference between a CWOF and just having all charges dropped from day one...

 

[BillB]

I am simply recollecting from memory of several articles on this matter....
A MA police Chief used a DUI arrest of a person that later passed a breath test as a 'reason' to deny a LTC....and a SCJ went along with it (even reversing a lower courts finding).
In other words, simple being arrested for something can be used against you....even if you win your case, or even if you are let go!

But then again, the Communist Commonwealth hates the Constitution.

 

[tele_mark]

http://telegram.com/article/20091110/NEWS/911100379/1101

WORCESTER — A Superior Court judge vacated a district court judge’s decision to reinstate Gerald F. Gallo’s license to carry a firearm and sent the case back to the lower court judge for further consideration.

In a decision filed last week, Superior Court Judge Mitchell H. Kaplan ruled that the wrong section of state laws was applied when Central District Court Judge Andrew M. D’Angelo decided Police Chief Gary J. Gemme was arbitrary and capricious in denying Mr. Gallo’s application for a firearms license renewal.

Judge Kaplan said the section of the law that refers to revocation of a current license was applied in Judge D’Angelo’s decision. Instead, the section on the suitability of a person applying for the renewal of a license should have been used.

“With respect to a renewal, the licensing authority is presumably entitled to take a fresh look at suitability — whether or not the person responsible for deciding licensure has changed,” Judge Kaplan wrote. “Stated differently, the licensing authority could, in theory, refuse to renew, even if it had previously granted a license without knowledge of the facts that now causes it to conclude that the applicant for renewal is unsuitable.”

Mr. Gallo’s lawyer, James J. Gribouski, said yesterday his client must now wait for a clarification from the Central District Court.

Chief Gemme had filed a civil action last year in Superior Court, asking a judge to overturn the district court judge’s decision to reinstate Mr. Gallo’s license to carry a firearm.

According to court filings, Chief Gemme denied Mr. Gallo’s request to renew his license to carry Dec. 19, 2007. The chief, who is the city’s licensing authority, cited three Worcester Police Department incidents involving Mr. Gallo from 1994 to 1997 as reasons to deny the renewal. Mr. Gallo appealed the chief’s denial; on May 23, 2008, Judge D’Angelo reversed the denial.

Through city lawyers, Chief Gemme argued the judge did not apply the proper state laws in making his decision. In previous interviews, Chief Gemme said his decision to deny the license renewal was not arbitrary and capricious.

The chief said in November 1994, Mr. Gallo was involved in a car accident that resulted in someone being injured. Mr. Gallo passed a Breathalyzer test in that accident and was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and being a disorderly person. Mr. Gallo was found not guilty of both charges.

In 1997, Mr. Gallo was arrested on drug charges in Worcester. The case was continued without a finding and subsequently dismissed. Also in 1997, Mr. Gallo was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol during a motorcycle accident. That case was continued without a finding and dismissed as well.

Mr. Gallo’s license to carry was renewed in 1998 and 2003. Chief Gemme took over as the licensing authority in late 2004.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The chief said in November 1994, Mr. Gallo was involved in a car accident that resulted in someone being injured. Mr. Gallo passed a Breathalyzer test in that accident and was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and being a disorderly person. Mr. Gallo was found not guilty of both charges.

In 1997, Mr. Gallo was arrested on drug charges in Worcester. The case was continued without a finding and subsequently dismissed. Also in 1997, Mr. Gallo was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol during a motorcycle accident. That case was continued without a finding and dismissed as well.

While I do not defend penalizing people who have not been convicted of a crime, this is a substantially different scenario than one in which the individual is brought to the station, BAC tested, found to be under the limit and released without charge.

 

[appraiser]

this is why you never CWOF, or let your lawyer negotiate a CWOF.

IMHO a CWOF on your record is the same as a guilty in the eyes of a Judge or LEO that reads it. In the case of a DWI, a CWOF is considered a admission of guilt, you have to do the same programs and pay the same fees as a person convicted of the same offense. Plus it plays right into suitability.

I'm assuming Mr. Gallo has the resources to take this to the SJC, and on one hand, unless the cops abused their powers and fabricated evidence on three separate occasions to frame Mr. Gallo, I think Mr. Gallo by his actions, and admissions has put himself in the position of someone who probably should not be issued a LTC A no restrictions.

On the other hand he has not been convicted of a disqualifying crime. Chances are unless he has seen the light he will at some point and it might involve a forearm. What C.O.P. wants Fox25 sitting outside his station doing a live shot asking why given the mans history, why he was issued a LTC.

We don't seem to have these problems in NH.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

this is why you never CWOF, or let your lawyer negotiate a CWOF.

This is good advice for someone who is not guilty; is confident (s)he can prevail at trial; and has the funds to mount a decent defense. If the state has sufficient evidence that conviction is all but assured, following this advice may result in a lifetime disqualifier rather than something many, but not all, chiefs will use to reject on suitability.

Mr. Gallo

Kind of an interesting name for a OUI charge

 

[Half Cocked]

Mr Gallo's situation is exactly the reason why the "suitability" clause exists.

He really is the poster boy for it.

 

[securityboy]

Mr Gallo's situation is exactly the reason why the "suitability" clause exists.

He really is the poster boy for it.

I don't care for "restrictions" on LTC's or discretionary licensing...

But in this case whether the chief invovled is a "rabid anti-gunner" or absolutely pro-gun really doesn't seem to matter, this guy really is the poster child for a chief having discretion in issuing licenses or not issuing licenses...

 

[appraiser]

Mr Gallo's situation is exactly the reason why the "suitability" clause exists.

He really is the poster boy for it.

That's the slippery slope, without a doubt he appears to be the poster boy, but he has not been convicted of a crime.

Innocent until proven guilty, and I know with a CWOF you have to admit in open court that the facts the prosecutor presents, which are enough to result in a guilty finding are true. You have to admit guilt to get the CWOF, unlike a Nolo plea where you neither admit nor dispute the charge. You admit to sufficient facts, but don't admit your guilt.

Again I agree he is the poster child, but what about the thousands of other people who have had their 2A rights ( I know technically we have no 2A rights in MA) denied on questionable, if not plain outright arbitrary and capricious decisions by licensing authorities. Are the "rights" of those people worth trampling for the Commonwealth to say no to Mr. Gallo.

I feel the same way about Lautenberg. The 2A rights of many people, who have never been convicted of a domestic violence charge, nor have they been afforded a chance to defend themselves against the allegations in front of a jury of their peers, are stripped away, even in "must issue" states.

How many, and I hate to use a cliche , "fine upstanding law abiding citizens" have been stripped of their God given right to protect themselves with a firearm because of the actions of a minuscule percentage of people who misuse a firearm.

There isn't one of us who is not guilty of a violation of law, be it Jaywalking, speeding, not having our dogs leashed. What happens when those are used as grounds for denial and the populace is effectively disarmed.

 

[MassMark]

Mr Gallo's situation is exactly the reason why the "suitability" clause exists.

He really is the poster boy for it.

I don't care for "restrictions" on LTC's or discretionary licensing...

But in this case whether the chief invovled is a "rabid anti-gunner" or absolutely pro-gun really doesn't seem to matter, this guy really is the poster child for a chief having discretion in issuing licenses or not issuing licenses...

These statements are amazing to me. It's a good thing our founding fathers did not feel the need to judge who was or was not "suitable" to carry a firearm. Folks like Paul Revere and scores of others would have been deemed "unsuitable"....It's disconcerting the depths to which some mirror the sheep who seek to eliminate our rights altogether... Massachusetts - the birthplace of revolution, freedom from tyranny and standing up for liberty is lost...

 

[jobowker]

At least a cwof or nolo doesn't statutorily prevent you from an LTC, correct?

 

[appraiser]

At least a cwof or nolo doesn't statutorily prevent you from an LTC, correct?

IANAL, but IMHO no, but suitability certainly comes into play.

 

[securityboy]

These statements are amazing to me. It's a good thing our founding fathers did not feel the need to judge who was or was not "suitable" to carry a firearm. Folks like Paul Revere and scores of others would have been deemed "unsuitable"....It's disconcerting the depths to which some mirror the sheep who seek to eliminate our rights altogether... Massachusetts - the birthplace of revolution, freedom from tyranny and standing up for liberty is lost...

I will only speak for myself, but I think you are reading way too much into what I said...
Try it this way...Like it or not MA has a "suitablitly" clause in its licensing, I don't think it is a stretch than most chiefs (be they pro or anti gun) may think that someone with a CWOF for OUI, CWOF for possession of Crack, and arrests hit and run, another OUI, and resisting arrest might possibly not be "suitable"...

 

[atmay]

I will only speak for myself, but I think you are reading way too much into what I said...
Try it this way...Like it or not MA has a "suitablitly" clause in its licensing, I don't think it is a stretch than most chiefs (be they pro or anti gun) may think that someone with a CWOF for OUI, CWOF for possession of Crack, and arrests hit and run, another OUI, and resisting arrest might possibly not be "suitable"...

The Right of The People (except those who have been arrested a few times, but never convicted of any crimes) to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed?