Healey: state, not local police, should issue gun licenses

[LoginName]

Great news, unfortuantly the Dem legislature would never enact this legislation...

BOSTON --Kerry Healey said if she's elected governor she would move to strip local police chiefs of the right to issue gun licenses and instead transfer the authority to a statewide panel -- a proposal rejected by Democratic opponent Deval Patrick

Anyone who wants a license to carry or own a gun now has to approach their local police chief. Healey said that puts too much power in the hands of local officials at the expense of individuals seeking legal access to guns.

"My proposal would be to elevate that decision to a state body so that citizens of the commonwealth across the state could have the same standards applied to their applications to carry or possess a gun," Healey said.

Healey made the statement as the state's top gun rights advocacy group, the Gun Owners Action League, endorsed Healey in the governor's race, giving her a 95 percent rating. Patrick got no rating from the group because he did not return a questionnaire.

Gun rights groups have complained in the past that allowing individual police chiefs to approve gun licenses is unfair.

Healey said there needs to be a single statewide standard.

"At this moment right now your ability to get a gun permit completely is controlled by your local police chief," she said. "I think we need a standardized set of concerns and regulations that would either disqualify you or qualify you for gun ownership and that would be much better done at a state level not on a local level."

Asked whether individuals with police records should be allowed to carry a gun, Healey said that that kind of issue "should be teased out and settled at a state level."

In a letter to the gun owner's league, Healey said she comes "from a hunting and fishing family and as Gov. I will remain committed to maintaining that tradition and protecting the interests of sportsmen."

Patrick running mate Tim Murray took Healey to task for refusing to release the answers to her questionaire.

"This is an issue of life and death for the men and women who protect out streets each and every day," Murray said. "We saw last night in Manchester (N.H.) a police officer shot. We need to know whether she supports police chiefs having the right to license people in their communities."

Patrick campaign spokeswoman Libby DeVecchi said Patrick "strongly supports maintaining the authority of police chiefs to use their discretion to deny a handgun license to an applicant whom they consider a danger to the community."

She said Patrick also believes that law-abiding individuals who pass a background check and are a danger to neither themselves nor the community should be able to own firearms. He also supports the existing assault weapons ban and the latest ballistics technology, she said.

Healey made the comments in response to reporters' questions at a press conference she called to cast her Democratic opponent Deval Patrick as out of step on the issue of illegal immigration.


Standing on a blustery wharf in Charlestown, Healey said Massachusetts has always welcomed immigrants, but should draw the line at those who try to enter the country by breaking the law. She said the state should reject Patrick's proposal to allow illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses, which she said would open the door to fraud and terrorism.

"This is another bad idea that's supported by Deval Patrick and his running mate Tim Murray," Healey said standing beside a giant, mock drivers license for a "Joe Illegal" from "Anytown, MA."

"Massachusetts will become a haven for illegal immigrants and our taxpayers will have to absorb the cost," she said.

A spokeswoman for Patrick said Healey's own record on illegal immigration is spotty and blamed the administration for ignoring the problem of hiring practices in Massachusetts.

"The Romney Healey administration has given contracts to companies that hire undocumented workers. Kerry Healey is trying to talk tough on an issue, but it's the usual empty rhetoric," said DeVecchi.

Healey said Tuesday that if she's elected governor she would require all companies doing business with the state to provide proof that their workers are in the country legally.

Under questioning from reporters, Healey revised her own proposal on driver's licenses. Healey had said immigrants in the country legally should be able to get licenses, but she has also said voters should be required to produce driver's licenses before casting ballots.

On Tuesday Healey said she envisioned a new kind of driver's licenses which would indicate whether the holder is a citizen and able to vote, or is a legal immigrant.

The drivers' license issue may ultimately be a moot point for the next governor.

The federal Real ID Act of 2005, which grew out of a recommendation by the Sept. 11 commission, requires states by 2008 to verify documents such as birth certificates, Social Security cards and passports when people apply for driver's licenses.

 

[JonJ]

"This is an issue of life and death for the men and women who protect out streets each and every day," Murray said.

With all due respect Mr. Murray, YOU DO NOT speak for me. F OFF!

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

"Anyone who wants a license to carry or own a gun now has to approach their local police chief. Healey said that puts too much power in the hands of local officials at the expense of individuals seeking legal access to guns."

"My proposal would be to elevate that decision to a state body so that citizens of the commonwealth across the state could have the same standards applied to their applications to carry or possess a gun," Healey said.

"At this moment right now your ability to get a gun permit completely is controlled by your local police chief," she said. "I think we need a standardized set of concerns and regulations that would either disqualify you or qualify you for gun ownership and that would be much better done at a state level not on a local level."
---------------------------------------------------

I've said this my entire life.....finally someone in the top office gets it.

While she's at it, she should change the word "MAY" issue to SHALL issue too.

 

[Lynne]

With all due respect Mr. Murray, YOU DO NOT speak for me. F OFF!

When I read that, I was wondering if you'd chime in Jon.

 

[Admin]

With all due respect Mr. Murray, YOU DO NOT speak for me. F OFF!

Thank you Jon...

 

[JellyFish]

Healey positioned this very poorly. While I appreciate her sentiments and she is quite right...a better way to attack the current system would be to move against it based on safety. Since there is no uniform, statewide standard for gun licenses...public safety is clearly at risk.

Now I know you guys are rolling your eyes but that might be a better angle of attack given how nutty this state is.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

"This is an issue of life and death for the men and women who protect out streets each and every day," Murray said. "We saw last night in Manchester (N.H.) a police officer shot. We need to know whether she supports police chiefs having the right to license people in their communities."

What an absolute ass!

As if that subhuman piece of fecal amtter, and career violent criminal, could legally buy a gun anywhere. Or be dissuaded from committing violent crime with a one-gun-a-month law on the books.

And, this one...

Asked whether individuals with police records should be allowed to carry a gun...

Gee, could you be a little more specific? Charlie Manson has a "police record". As does a law-abiding citizen with but a 50-year-old drunk driving arrest on his record.

THERE IS A BIG f***ING DIFFERENCE! Unless, of course, you're a Massachusetts liberal, in which case reality isn't exactly your strong suit.

 

[kendall-op]

We will soon see this scum bag had a rap sheet as long as my arm and a bunch of firearm violations and still on the streets of Boston. a**h***s like Murray still dont understand its the criminal not law abiding gun owners that kill.

 

[JellyFish]

Boston will never change. The only option is to leave as so many have done. The scumbags own this town and will for the foreseeable future. They will NOT change.

 

[Weerd Beard]

What an absolute ass!

As if that subhuman piece of fecal amtter, and career violent criminal, could legally buy a gun anywhere. Or be dissuaded from committing violent crime with a one-gun-a-month law on the books.

Usally the scumbags who are causing all the problems in Boston (and frankly the rest of this country...maybe the world) commit thier first violent offence that would preclude them from gun ownership WELL BEFORE they could ever legally own a gun. And NOBODY would issue those jerks a permit, not Patrick, not Healy, not Bush, not Wayne LaPierre. Yet these kids are on the streets, and they appear to be be very well armed....

Obviously gun control is working so well, we need more of it

-Weer'd Beard

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Looks like gun owners in Mass. have got a great candidate for Governor. Taking the decision out of local chiefs hands would be a milestone. Hopefully, discretion will go south with stripping the chiefs of their power and "shall issue" will be on the horizen. Now, support her and get her elected.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This could be a mixed bag. Imagine a committee which meets in Boston, establihsed by the state legislator, making a uniform decision. Chances are they would seek expert input from Mumbles and his crew.

Maryland already has such a uniform system in place, and the standards are based on meeting one of two criteria: demonstrated specific need or having the right connnections. And no, a general fear of crime does not count and arguments pertaining to "equal treatment under the law" are specifically rejected by the licensing review board.

I just don't see the logical outcome of a state licensing board being "shall issue" across the state - it's more likely to convert the system to "persons of power and privilige only."

 

[Len-2A Training]

Rob, you are putting requirements in your hypothesis where there need not be any.

What "committee" or "board" reviews applicants for NR LTCs now?

NONE!

That process works and all that needs to be done is change a few words to make the Resident process do it the same way NR LTCs are done!

If so (speculation, I admit), the system would work fine. [If you meet the requirements in Ch. 140, a LTC-A/ALP is issued. If you don't meet the requirements NO LTC is issued.]

 

[daceman63]

She has a good idea but she could impose stricter regulations at the state level and fewer people could be eligible for licenses....just an alternate view...

If it's left up to the head of the state police he/she may be totally against arming citizens and now it's only one person's policy where as certain chiefs are in favor of law abiding citizens having firearms...

I need to think on this one a bit more....

 

[Len-2A Training]

She has a good idea but she could impose stricter regulations at the state level and fewer people could be eligible for licenses....just an alternate view...

I don't know where anyone gets this "the governor could impose" idea, but you need to read up a little from "Constitutional Law 101".

The governor does NOT MAKE LAW in any of the states.

The governor can suggest that the LEGISLATURE create a law to do "blah", but so can any registered voter. And in MA with a totally Dem controlled legislature, a "suggestion" by a Rep governor will be duly ignored, regardless of merit. Remember what it took for Romney to get permission to merge all those highway departments . . . it never happened! He ONLY got control of the Big Pig after a woman died and Romney shamed the legislature to do the right thing!

So Healey can be trusted to "suggest" a change. The legislature can be counted on to summarily ignore the suggestion, as the MCOPA threaten key legislators with lack of campaign support for their next election. That's how it really works on Bacon Hill!

 

[jhrosier]

She has a good idea but she could impose stricter regulations at the state level and fewer people could be eligible for licenses....just an alternate view...

If it's left up to the head of the state police he/she may be totally against arming citizens and now it's only one person's policy where as certain chiefs are in favor of law abiding citizens having firearms...

I need to think on this one a bit more....

Coming from a town where ALP is the norm, I'd agree that this could be a change for the worst, for some of us. If it was implimented as "shall issue", that would be an improvement. Seems unlikely but possible.

 

[daceman63]

I don't know where anyone gets this "the governor could impose" idea, but you need to read up a little from "Constitutional Law 101".

The governor does NOT MAKE LAW in any of the states.

The governor can suggest that the LEGISLATURE create a law to do "blah", but so can any registered voter. And in MA with a totally Dem controlled legislature, a "suggestion" by a Rep governor will be duly ignored, regardless of merit. Remember what it took for Romney to get permission to merge all those highway departments . . . it never happened! He ONLY got control of the Big Pig after a woman died and Romney shamed the legislature to do the right thing!

So Healey can be trusted to "suggest" a change. The legislature can be counted on to summarily ignore the suggestion, as the MCOPA threaten key legislators with lack of campaign support for their next election. That's how it really works on Bacon Hill!

She meaning they......I like her less anti-gun views but at the end of the day they're all politicians. It could have a negative affect poeple who live in towns with more realistic chiefs....

When I lived in Maynard I never had a problem renewing and my buddy who lives in Pembroke had to jump through hoops to get his ALP renewed. One guy, one anti opinion or view ruins it for everyone. Of course it could go the other way and it could be one pro view and it's good for everyone.....but at some point the guy/gal in charge moves on and retires and you get a whole new single view...could be good....could be bad....

the way it is now if a chief leaves he/she may change policy but only for that town....not the state.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My concern is this:

Let's assume the governor gets "standard issuance" in place, but it still allows a board to impose restrictions or determine suitability.

Do you really think the legislature will sit idly by while the Globe and Meninostan predict doom and gloom as ordinary Bosotn residents are allowed to carry? Or, is it more likley to see a MD or NJ style "objective statewide system"?

Now add in testimony form the Boston Police Comissioner asking the legislator or the new gun license committee for "help in keeping guns out of the hands just anyone on the street."

Pushing for objective standards at the town level would be a better approach, since it would not be placing a mechanism in place which could be used against us.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Rob, it already is used against us!

Ask Scrivener in particular (as he's the most vocal of the attorneys on this forum), Darius or Jesse! There is ONE SET OF RULES, it is the MGLs and the FA25/26 (IIRC) form. Chiefs are NOT supposed to substitute their own forms, requirements, etc. . . . but they currently do with impunity.

Sorry, "objective standards" at the city/town level, even if legislated by the state, are meaningless . . . the locals can and do what they want to whomever they please!

A state system would have to put into place specific criteria (I'm all for the MGL/form as used for NRs) and play by that one set of rules across 351 cities/towns evenly.

 

[SiameseRat]

I echo the sentiments of everyone else. Statewide procedures and norms should be in place, however, only if the statewide norm is "Shall Issue: No Restrictions."

 

[daceman63]

I echo the sentiments of everyone else. Statewide procedures and norms should be in place, however, only if the statewide norm is "Shall Issue: No Restrictions."

Agreed..."SHall Issue: No restrictions"!!!!!!

FID and Class B is crap...let the gun owner decide what type of gun they want to buy and how they want to transport it.

 

[SiameseRat]

Agreed..."SHall Issue: No restrictions"!!!!!!

FID and Class B is crap...let the gun owner decide what type of gun they want to buy and how they want to transport it.

While I agree that Class B is crap, I think FID should still be around.

At this point an 18 year old can get an FID so that s/he can hunt or drive themself to the rifle range. You can't get an LTC until you're 21.

Either keep the FID so that the 18-21 crowd can have some independence or lower the LTC age to 18.

Honestly, knowing what a piss poor job some parents do and what a big difference 3 years can make at that age (and I'm not saying ALL, and I know there are plenty of 18 year olds in Iraq right now. I'm not talking about THEM, it's the ones with their pants down to their knees who listen to gangsta rap and don't have jobs that I'm worried about) I don't think lowering the age to 18 is a really good idea.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

My concern is this:

Let's assume the governor gets "standard issuance" in place, but it still allows a board to impose restrictions or determine suitability.

Do you really think the legislature will sit idly by while the Globe and Meninostan predict doom and gloom as ordinary Bosotn residents are allowed to carry? Or, is it more likley to see a MD or NJ style "objective statewide system"?

Now add in testimony form the Boston Police Comissioner asking the legislator or the new gun license committee for "help in keeping guns out of the hands just anyone on the street."

Pushing for objective standards at the town level would be a better approach, since it would not be placing a mechanism in place which could be used against us.

You can take that to the bank. The net result would be additional restrictions on gun owners in the state. Menino woud like nothing better than to load the "panel" with his anti-gun cronies to impose Meningrad-style licensing standards on the rest of the Commonwealth.

All in all, I've found Healey's responses on this issue lacking.

BUT...

Considering the alternative...

 

[Coyote33]

...Asked whether individuals with police records should be allowed to carry a gun, Healey said that that kind of issue "should be teased out and settled at a state level."...

Is that a waffle? I feel pessimistic on that one.

...In a letter to the gun owner's league, Healey said she comes "from a hunting and fishing family and as Gov. I will remain committed to maintaining that tradition and protecting the interests of sportsmen."...

Oh, so this is for the hunters and fishermen?

"Anyone who wants a license to carry or own a gun now has to approach their local police chief. Healey said that puts too much power in the hands of local officials at the expense of individuals seeking legal access to guns."

"My proposal would be to elevate that decision to a state body so that citizens of the commonwealth across the state could have the same standards applied to their applications to carry or possess a gun," Healey said.

"At this moment right now your ability to get a gun permit completely is controlled by your local police chief," she said. "I think we need a standardized set of concerns and regulations that would either disqualify you or qualify you for gun ownership and that would be much better done at a state level not on a local level."
---------------------------------------------------

I've said this my entire life.....finally someone in the top office gets it.

While she's at it, she should change the word "MAY" issue to SHALL issue too.

This is all well and good. But what if the pendulum swings back the other way? Does everyone lose their license in one shot? Be careful here.

I don't know where anyone gets this "the governor could impose" idea, but you need to read up a little from "Constitutional Law 101".

The governor does NOT MAKE LAW in any of the states.
...

Does the AG? Do they affect anything regarding this? How is this different?

My concern is this:

Let's assume the governor gets "standard issuance" in place, but it still allows a board to impose restrictions or determine suitability.

Do you really think the legislature will sit idly by while the Globe and Meninostan predict doom and gloom as ordinary Bosotn residents are allowed to carry? Or, is it more likley to see a MD or NJ style "objective statewide system"?

Now add in testimony form the Boston Police...

That's the problem, the "outer" towns are more free, and the state is run from the "inner circle" (inside route 128) mindset. This could end up hurting more than helping.

 

[daceman63]

While I agree that Class B is crap, I think FID should still be around.

At this point an 18 year old can get an FID so that s/he can hunt or drive themself to the rifle range. You can't get an LTC until you're 21.

Either keep the FID so that the 18-21 crowd can have some independence or lower the LTC age to 18.

Honestly, knowing what a piss poor job some parents do and what a big difference 3 years can make at that age (and I'm not saying ALL, and I know there are plenty of 18 year olds in Iraq right now. I'm not talking about THEM, it's the ones with their pants down to their knees who listen to gangsta rap and don't have jobs that I'm worried about) I don't think lowering the age to 18 is a really good idea.

Good point on the 18 to 21 age group. I retract my statement about the FID.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Actually the AG can make Administrative Law (as we've seen!).

The Gov can not do this in the same manner, but has power to issue EOs . . . not sure what restrictions there may be on EOs wrt this.

 

[matt1956]

Either way... we need Healey and Frisoli.

Patrick and Coakley would be like Hitler and Rommel... [sad2]

 

[LoginName]

Either way... we need Healey and Frisoli.

Patrick and Coakley would be like Hitler and Rommel... [sad2]

That's an unfair comparison.

Hitler was a mass murdering psychopath and Rommel wasn't an evil guy... just a soldier doing his job.

I'd say Goering and Goebbels would be more like it.

 

[Mike508]

Interesting that Healey has even become involved in the topic. Though it may have been unavoidable for her, it seems that, unless you're yelling for gun control to end all the gun violence, something the libtards gobble up, you're best off saying nothing about firearms during your campaign. So, my hat's off to her for speaking what she has said. That aside, we are still no less than two degrees separation from seeing any positive changes in the MA laws: Step 1, elect Healey; Step 2, support Healey's attempt to get the legislature to move on her proposals. As such, we're a long distance from seeing any form of licensure stripped from the issuing authorities I'm sad to say.

 

[matt1956]

you are probalbly right... but at least we can feel comfort that if Healey and Frisoli get in... things wont get any worse and that someone may be making an effot to make them better.

Personally... I think Healey should have been pushing for this all along if she truely believed it. She could have tried and get backing from Romney and get this in place before we are up the creek...