Hopkinton chief pulls 3 officers' LTCs

falcon123

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
5,886
Likes
1,623
Location
Central Mass
Most accurate post in the thread. Much truth here.
I just can't fathom that this tactic is the best approach. If the officers are scamming the system, drag their asses into court and prove it. Then make them pay back every red cent, and fine them as well as punish them as allowed by law.
This action by the CoP appears petty and vengeful. The only reason I can think of to yank their LTC's is if they are making side money buying off list guns and selling them for a profit, exploiting their status as law enforcement.
And even if they were, no one individual should have the power to strip a citizen of their rights. That is tyranny. Just like when the Attn General suddenly decides she and she alone will reinterpret laws to suit her own political views. Straight up, unabashed tyranny.
Have you been following the State police overtime scandal? They got a slap on the wrist and a couple of them even got their jobs back due to some bullshit union excuse.
 

falcon123

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
5,886
Likes
1,623
Location
Central Mass
Personally, I don't have a problem with ANYONE buying or selling guns, but if they were actually buying and selling off list guns for profit, that would bring down a host of other charges.

What I keep thinking about is that all three individuals, who had been suffering PTSD for over a year, magically became unsuitable on the same day.
Wasn't there a locaql cop that went to prison for doing that recently?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
5,123
Likes
1,606
Chief is calling their bluff. If their PTSD is so severe that they have been unable to work for years, then clearly they are unsuitable to possess firearms. He wants to see them show up in court and contradict themselves as to the reasons they have been disabled for YEARS. Hopkinton makes it very easy to get an unrestricted LTC-A so this isn't the norm. This is a tough chief making these few individuals put their money where their mouth is so to speak.
So someone who is not a mental health professional should be able to decide someone’s PTSD diagnosis warrants invalidating their Constitutional rights? Just, f*** America, hand it all over to the government who knows better than us how to dispense small doses of liberty at their discretion?

Go back to Bernie, Communist scum.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,844
Likes
2,984
I just can't fathom that this tactic is the best approach. If the officers are scamming the system, drag their asses into court and prove it. Then make them pay back every red cent, and fine them as well as punish them as allowed by law.
People who actually play stupid games(*)
don't get to pick their stupid prizes.

Was it the best approach when the IRS went after (Al) Capone?

(*) I have no idea what the real story is with the Hopkinton Three.
But were multiple laws to be at issue,
there isn't necessarily a strict pecking order of which gets focus first.
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
96   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
14,222
Likes
4,255
"The cause of the officers’ injuries, which occurred on July 24, 2017, is not being released."

I don't know what these officers saw or did but it must have been horrific if all three are claiming PTSD and can no longer work.

Attorney Kathleen Reagan specializes in Second Amendment issues. Also a leading expert on horses if anyone is interested.

Kathleen Reagan, Esq. – Biography

The bar should be pretty high to have a person to lose their LTC if they have never been committed.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
15,406
Likes
8,543
Location
Southern NH
This whole thing is utterly ironic. If police didn't have this sort of discretion to issue and revoke LTC's, this wouldn't be an issue. But police want that discretion. And now that it's police themselves being adversely effected by this police discretion it's now a problem. Well, that's a shame.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,392
Likes
26,271
No surprise. Lawyers are paid by the hour so several postponements are typical. Each appearance usually burns up 3 or 4 billable hours.
A friend of mine had some issues recently and a minor criminal case took almost a year to resolve because of it, looking back I am thinking the opposition's attorney kept trying to stall everything to try to get my friend to roll, too bad his attorney was another friend of ours, so that "make the target broke" thing didn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,844
Likes
2,984
A friend of mine had some issues recently and a minor criminal case took almost a year to resolve because of it, looking back I am thinking the opposition's attorney kept trying to stall everything to try to get my friend to roll ...
Uh, would that be "a district attorney"?
Or was someone (illegally?) reenacting a Rumpole episode here?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,392
Likes
26,271
This whole thing is utterly ironic. If police didn't have this sort of discretion to issue and revoke LTC's, this wouldn't be an issue. But police want that discretion. And now that it's police themselves being adversely effected by this police discretion it's now a problem. Well, that's a shame.
In this case we should be specific, police chiefs want the discretion because of a bunch of tyrants on MCOPA. Rank and file cops on average probably don't give two shits about the licensing system one way or the other. A good third or more of the police chiefs in MA were never even real cops, just desk jockeys with a CJ degree and a bunch of fancy sounding public-health-policy like bullshit on their resume. A lot of the blow-ins in this state are disgusting. And those guys probably run MCOPA like a cabal of clem suspenders fudds ruining the local gun club. Same mentality/BS.

Uh, would that be "a district attorney"?
Or was someone (illegally?) reenacting a Rumpole episode here?
Well the ADA played games, but the broad bringing the accusation against him had her own attorney too, and those two basically were doing some kind of a circle jerk to try to
screw him by dragging it out. It was totally absurd. Judge must have continued it like 9000 times. "Oh this person isn't here, oh well, continued" blah blah, etc. What a
farce.

-Mike
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,844
Likes
2,984
Well the ADA played games, but the broad bringing the accusation against him had her own attorney too, and those two basically were doing some kind of a circle jerk to try to screw him by dragging it out. It was totally absurd. Judge must have continued it like 9000 times. "Oh this person isn't here, oh well, continued" blah blah, etc. What a farce.
(Just like a house buyer can theoretically
hire a buyer's real estate agent,
but precious few people ever do),
I can imagine a criminal complainant bringing
a lawyer into a case to look out for their interests
(and "advise" the DA; they must love that).

I wonder if that's rare enough that
it's nature's way of telling the defendant
that they're really getting scrod.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,392
Likes
26,271
(Just like a house buyer can theoretically
hire a buyer's real estate agent,
but precious few people ever do),
I can imagine a criminal complainant bringing
a lawyer into a case to look out for their interests
(and "advise" the DA; they must love that).

I wonder if that's rare enough that
it's nature's way of telling the defendant
that they're really getting scrod.
I think the broads attorney was an ambulance chaser and he was only there because he thought even a minor win for her would have set up a civil case for him.

-Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
5,599
Likes
4,080
Location
North of Boston
I haven't found anything from yesterday, yet.

The hearing is now scheduled for May 24 in Framingham District Court. It’s unknown why it got moved.
Did find this. No idea about who he or his channel are:

 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

MisterHappy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
20,944
Likes
5,724
Location
On the 16 yard line, shootin' for the Lewis!
Well the ADA played games, but the broad bringing the accusation against him had her own attorney too, and those two basically were doing some kind of a circle jerk to try to
screw him by dragging it out. It was totally absurd. Judge must have continued it like 9000 times. "Oh this person isn't here, oh well, continued" blah blah, etc. What a
farce.

-Mike
MsHappy was part of a criminal complaint years ago, when a guy pulled her, and three other ladies over, while impersonating a Police Officer.

At about the third continuance due to the defendant's council's request, the DA complained to the Judge, as three or 4 (depending on which time it was) prosecution witnesses had to take time off.

"What do they do?" said the Judge.

DA:"Engineer. Engineer. Nurse. Probation Officer."

Judge: "We got to trial. Now." [laugh]
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,175
Likes
3,398
The problem with this whole discussion is we don't have all the information, and we never will. There are medical reports that the Chief has seen (this was mentioned previously), and depending on what they say the Chief is either protecting the public or persecuting the officers.

One of the participants in the video SERE posted even mentioned that this determination should be based on an evaluation, none of the participants seen to know that those evaluation did exist, but of course we, and they, will never see them because of the private nature of the information, and rightly so.

So it ends up in court, and the judge will see the reports and hear the Chief's reasoning, and make a decision.

I think the courts make lots of bad decisions but I really don't see a better way of handling this given the need to protect privacy. As Chief, what would you do if you were handed an evaluation that said guns in their hands represents a significant danger (that's basically the Chief's position)? Someone who has access to the reports needs to either overrule the Chief, or not.

And I know it's difficult, but this isn't about PTSD yes or no. It's about those 3 specific officers and the reports that have been done. Like most of life PTSD isn't a yes/no, black/white, 0/1 thing. There are a range of reactions, some little more than an annoyance, and others life destroying.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,844
Likes
2,984
Very frustrating how most of the video participants on the Hopkinton topic
don't reason about the situation using rules that would apply the same to non-police.

One guy is all, "after the end of last week's episode
and we finished discussing how to red flag people
and confiscate their guns, I suddenly realized -
'what if someone red flags a cop?'".

Oh really.

And "Cody Ann" takes it as a given that
of course no one should lose gun rights
absent a diagnosis by a medical professional -
even though the Brady Act can create an FPP
by the mere existence of a record of involuntary confinement -
not necessarily because they've got a professional diagnosis.

The problem with this whole discussion is we don't have all the information, and we never will. There are medical reports that the Chief has seen (this was mentioned previously), and depending on what they say the Chief is either protecting the public or persecuting the officers.

One of the participants in the video SERE posted even mentioned that this determination should be based on an evaluation, none of the participants seen to know that those evaluation did exist, but of course we, and they, will never see them because of the private nature of the information, and rightly so.
A maddening fundamental gap in the narrative is whether
the three cops are Hopkinton residents with vanilla Hopkinton LTC's issued at the Chief's sole discretion;
or were "carrying on the badge" (I forget - where is that in MGL - if it really does exist?);
or have other town's LTCs and the Chief has chosen to pull the Prohibited Person Insanity alarm.

Because if (if) the cops' LTCs are contingent on the Chief's ongoing feelz that they are "suitable",
then why all the concern that they get to mount a complex argument about their mental health?

How many NESers think they're going to follow precisely the same "LTC appeals process"
open to all Mass. licensees?

The risk isn't that we won't know the evidence and arguments because of HIPAA confidentiality.

The risk is that tangential concerns like HIPAA and employee/employer privacy
will be used as an excuse to conduct the hearings
in a manner unavailable to The Little People.

Because no matter who wins, and even if no rulings have precedential weight,
no one involved on either side will want regular people making the same arguments.


Well, in theory.
I wonder if the defendants have been smart enough to hire any of NES's
celebrated firearms attorneys to assist...
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
6,175
Likes
3,398
A maddening fundamental gap in the narrative is whether
the three cops are Hopkinton residents with vanilla Hopkinton LTC's issued at the Chief's sole discretion;
or were "carrying on the badge" (I forget - where is that in MGL - if it really does exist?);
or have other town's LTCs and the Chief has chosen to pull the Prohibited Person Insanity alarm.
No real gap here. An LTC can be issued where you live or work, either way the issuing Chief can revoke for suitability. And while technically it's not just "sole discretion", by statute it public safety, the courts enforce broad discretion, either way if it's challenged the chief will have to give some kind of excuse.

Carrying on the badge is a perversion of a vague statute that deals with issuing equipment, it does not get you an LTC. It's basically a wink and a nod kind of thing.

Because if (if) the cops' LTCs are contingent on the Chief's ongoing feelz that they are "suitable", then why all the concern that they get to mount a complex argument about their mental health?
I think it was said (not sure) that it was the medical reports on which the chief based his determination, so that's what they will argue against.

How many NESers think they're going to follow precisely the same "LTC appeals process"
open to all Mass. licensees?
Of course they will get special treatment, but they will try to make it look normal.

The risk isn't that we won't know the evidence and arguments because of HIPAA confidentiality.

The risk is that tangential concerns like HIPAA and employee/employer privacy
will be used as an excuse to conduct the hearings
in a manner unavailable to The Little People.
I'm not so sure about this. Remember that the CoP isn't entitled to medical reports of normal LTC holders, so this is unlikely to come up and the liberal courts aren't likely to let a medical report improperly obtained to be used. But if you are stupid enough to give the chief a negative medical report, thus giving up your HIPAA guaranteed privacy, then sure it will be used.

But how else do you suggest the protect the officer's privacy and still give them a process of appeal. I expect a lot of closed doors and redacted documents.

Forgot this;
And "Cody Ann" takes it as a given that
of course no one should lose gun rights
absent a diagnosis by a medical professional -
even though the Brady Act can create an FPP
by the mere existence of a record of involuntary confinement -
not necessarily because they've got a professional diagnosis.
An order of involuntary confinement (not sure this is the right term) isn't going to come without some due process, and that will include more than one professional diagnosis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHM

MGnoob

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,978
Likes
894
Everyone involved is probably an a**h***... that said it says “shall not be infringed” not “shall not be infringed, unless your an a**h***.”

I doubt there is a legitimate reason to pull their LTCs..... I never really thought about these red flag laws meaning somone outside of the chief issueong your license getting final say in pulling your license..... but I guess any department can just pull your license? That doesn’t seem right or go with the narrative that your local CLEO know you well enough to violate your right without first committing a crime and being convicted...
LTCs and red flag laws are not consistent with the constitution.... sorry people are dangerous but until they commit a crime or make a credible threat(which is a crime) they have rights they were born with..
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,844
Likes
2,984
No real gap here. An LTC can be issued where you live or work, either way the issuing Chief can revoke for suitability.
(Live or own a business; right?)

And while technically it's not just "sole discretion", by statute it public safety, the courts enforce broad discretion, either way if it's challenged the chief will have to give some kind of excuse.
While that Suffolk County appeals court's ruling in Phipps v. The Commish that
... for a finding of unsuitability to not be arbitrary and capricious,
the finding must "bear a reasonable nexus to public safety".​
seems like a bolt from the blue, but it's not even binding in Hopkinton.

So "some kind of excuse" seems pretty easy to whip up...


Carrying on the badge is a perversion of a vague statute that deals with issuing equipment, it does not get you an LTC. It's basically a wink and a nod kind of thing.
I guess I should at least research it on NES, thanks.

I think it was said (not sure) that it was the medical reports on which the chief based his determination, so that's what they will argue against.
I confess my eyes glazethed over and I didn't even try to re-read the 140+ replies
to see if there was even a consistent-sounding news report about such matters.
(You know how the MSM fabricates whatever they can't manage to just get wrong).

Of course they will get special treatment, but they will try to make it look normal.
There's "trying to make it look normal",
and there's "providing no useful information whatsoever".

A disappointed lawyer for the 3 police might try and make a stink in the papers if they lose,
but until/unless they rule out an appeal they might still have nothing substantive to say.

I'm not so sure about this. Remember that the CoP isn't entitled to medical reports of normal LTC holders, so this is unlikely to come up and the liberal courts aren't likely to let a medical report improperly obtained to be used. But if you are stupid enough to give the chief a negative medical report, thus giving up your HIPAA guaranteed privacy, then sure it will be used.
The flip side is that people aren't entitled to LTCs,
and Mass. chiefs have made plenty of outrageous demands of applicants.

In some sense it'd be silly for me to make a long argument that HIPAA
will be used as an excuse to cloak the reasoning of the outcome.
It will, or it won't.
I'm just expressing my concern in advance - laying down a marker.

But how else do you suggest the protect the officer's privacy and still give them a process of appeal. I expect a lot of closed doors and redacted documents.
Yes; I'm confident that existing processes exist to protect privacy,
and the court would have no problem figuring out how to employ them.

But they may prove a handy excuse to keep a ruling unnecessarily opaque.

An order of involuntary confinement (not sure this is the right term) isn't going to come without some due process, and that will include more than one professional diagnosis.
I never doubted the need for due process,
but you're on to something -
a "72-hour hold" doesn't count:

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Legal Regulation of Restoration of Firearms Rights After Mental Health Prohibition
...
In 1997, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) issued regulations defining terms used in the federal legislation including "committed to a mental institution." The agency specified that this ... did not include a person ... held involuntarily in a mental institution on an emergency or temporary detention.​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JJ4

ridleyman

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
2,285
Likes
904
This is a great example of how precarious our rights our. Any POS, of which there are many, can pull our LTC and confiscate our guns on any whim, whether due to a neighbor's made up tale or personal prejudice. This state sucks, as do many more. This is just another liberal way to gut the Bill of Rights for their ultimate power grab somewhere down the road.
 

MGnoob

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,978
Likes
894
Rock: If an officer claims serious PTSD it may be used as justification to revoke an LTC.

Hard Place: If an officer claims to not have PTSD, or reports symptoms consistent with responsible gun ownership, his/her chances of having full disability approved decrease.
I don’t like the hard truth...... wish I had a win, win!
 

MGnoob

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,978
Likes
894
This is a great example of how precarious our rights our. Any POS, of which there are many, can pull our LTC and confiscate our guns on any whim, whether due to a neighbor's made up tale or personal prejudice. This state sucks, as do many more. This is just another liberal way to gut the Bill of Rights for their ultimate power grab somewhere down the road.
Ya the state sucks ...... just bow to your overloads!
 
Top Bottom