If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
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.
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.
The overtime must have been killing his budget making him look bad.$100 this was retaliation for their milking a comp claim.
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.
People who actually play stupid games(*)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.
Don't forget,The bar should be pretty high to have a person to lose their LTC if they have never been committed.
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.No surprise. Lawyers are paid by the hour so several postponements are typical. Each appearance usually burns up 3 or 4 billable hours.
Uh, would that be "a district attorney"?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 ...
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.
Uh, would that be "a district attorney"?
Or was someone (illegally?) reenacting a Rumpole episode here?
(Just like a house buyer can theoreticallyWell 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.
The hearing is now scheduled for May 24 in Framingham District Court. It’s unknown why it got moved.
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
Very frustrating how most of the video participants on the Hopkinton topicDid find this. No idea about who he or his channel are:
<Does Work Related PTSD Make You Ineligible To Carry A Gun? LEO Round Table 2019 S04E16c>
A maddening fundamental gap in the narrative is whetherThe 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.
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.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?
Of course they will get special treatment, but they will try to make it look normal.How many NESers think they're going to follow precisely the same "LTC appeals process"
open to all Mass. licensees?
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 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.
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.
No real gap here. An LTC can be issued where you live or work, either way the issuing Chief can revoke for suitability.
While that Suffolk County appeals court's ruling in Phipps v. The Commish thatAnd 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.
I guess I should at least research it on NES, thanks.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 confess my eyes glazethed over and I didn't even try to re-read the 140+ repliesI 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.
There's "trying to make it look normal",Of course they will get special treatment, but they will try to make it look normal.
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.
Yes; I'm confident that existing processes exist to protect privacy,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.
I never doubted the need for due process,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 don’t like the hard truth...... wish I had a win, win!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.
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.
Chief seems like a dickhead. He has it out for those guys for sure.