In Massachusetts, those convicted of assault and battery on a cop can't get a firearm

[mark056]

This ought to give you a good jump start for a Monday morning and raise your blood pressure a few points. Most of us know that a LEO can "carry on the badge" here in Mass, but here is a LEO who was convicted of A&B on a police officer , actually several police officers. Guess what people? He got a three month suspension and then will be back on the Job with his trusty sidearm on his hip.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/in_massachusetts_those_convict.html

 

[Jose]

Animal Farm

 

[KMaurer]

While Massachusetts might allow him to continue to carry, he's running a major risk if he should every piss off someone with influence.

CHAPTER 265 CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
Section 13A. (a) Whoever commits an assault or an assault and battery upon another shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 2 1/2 years in a house of correction or by a fine of not more than $1,000.

Since the maximum possible sentence is more than 2 years, then regardless of whether or not the A&B was against a police officer, regardless of whether or not he's a cop, and regardless of whether or not he did a day in jail, federal law still applies. Every time he so much as touches a gun he's looking at a potential 10 years minimum in Club Fed under 18 USC 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

So, Officer Cook, you should ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, punk?

Ken

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This is exactly why more departments should require their officers to maintain a current LTC as a condition of employment. Problem Solved.

Still, it's baffling to see this total lack of accountability.

 

[drgrant]

While Massachusetts might allow him to continue to carry, he's running a major risk if he should every piss off someone with influence.


Since the maximum possible sentence is more than 2 years, then regardless of whether or not the A&B was against a police officer, regardless of whether or not he's a cop, and regardless of whether or not he did a day in jail, federal law still applies. Every time he so much as touches a gun he's looking at a potential 10 years minimum in Club Fed under 18 USC 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

So, Officer Cook, you should ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do you, punk?

Ken

I always thought there was some sort of wallhack in US Code for LE/Military, or at least I know there is one for Lautenberg amendment.

Doesn't make it right, though.

Even if he is a PP, there's a fat chance in hell of him ever seeing club fed. Hell, even against thugs on their 2nd or 3rd trip through the court system, FIP is rarely enforced.

Like Jose says.... "Animal House".... some are more equal, apparently.

-Mike

 

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

Not to split hairs, but I thought the Mass law was meant to apply to members of the public attacking /assaulting an officer during the course of their duties on the street, not officers in the station who decide they want to fight each other. Likewise, one would have a tough time being subject to this if the officer is off duty in a bar and the officer is assaulted by someone who does not know he is an officer. Sure one assaulted an officer, but is this the way it was to be applied?

A similar analogy (though not exactly the same) is when two NHL players get into a fight on the ice, sure it is an assault and battery, but no one is ever charged as the law was not meant to apply in that circumstance.

Dave

 

[LoginName]

I wish the article (or Jim Wallace), made it more clear that if a civilian was involved, the conviction would prohibit more than simply not being allowed "to carry" a firearm... the conviction would mean never being allowed to purchase and possess a firearm (or ammunition).

One of my minor gripes about the MA licensing system, is that the term LTC (License To Carry), is a misnomer.

If the average non-gun owning citizen hears, or reads, that someone has a License to Carry, they're going to automatically assume that it's a flat out license to CCW.

Even if the offense(s) carried less than a 2 year misdemeanor sentence... there's still the nagging BS of a Chiefs using his "discretion" in issuing the license.

There's little doubt in my mind which way the wind would blow in the Chief's "discretion" if a civilian were involved in the same altercation.

 

[terraformer]

This is exactly why more departments should require their officers to maintain a current LTC as a condition of employment. Problem Solved.

Still, it's baffling to see this total lack of accountability.

Well, the problem there is some of the stupid laws that can prevent getting an LTC. I am not a fan of this approach.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I always thought there was some sort of wallhack in US Code for LE/Military, or at least I know there is one for Lautenberg amendment.

Is there? I clearly remember the first day of OSUT MP school having to sign a Lautenberg certification that I had never been convicted of a domestic violence offense. That was the first time I had ever heard of it.

The admin sergeants exact words were: "And if you can't certify that, we'll be sending you back to reception where the Army will train you into some other specialty like a paper pusher or cook."

This shouldn't even have been an issue because I don't know that he should still be employed:

Cook began serving a three months’ suspension without pay from the Police Department on July 25 in the wake of his guilty pleas to charges for attacking two superior officers during a station-house fight in 2008. One of the officers was knocked unconscious and suffered a concussion, while the other, who tried to intercede to break up the altercation, sustained a broken tailbone.

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

 

[milktree]

Not to split hairs, but I thought the Mass law was meant to apply to members of the public attacking /assaulting an officer during the course of their duties on the street, not officers in the station who decide they want to fight each other. Likewise, one would have a tough time being subject to this if the officer is off duty in a bar and the officer is assaulted by someone who does not know he is an officer. Sure one assaulted an officer, but is this the way it was to be applied?

A similar analogy (though not exactly the same) is when two NHL players get into a fight on the ice, sure it is an assault and battery, but no one is ever charged as the law was not meant to apply in that circumstance.

Dave

I don't see any hairs to split. The law (as quoted above) says, "Whoever commits an assault or an assault and battery upon another..." It doesn't mention "police" or anything of the sort. Perhaps I'm looking at too small a quote of the law.

Furthermore, nobody "decided to fight each other." If that were the case, there wouldn't have been a conviction, or a charge; just like there isn't a charge or conviction when people beat the snot out of each other when playing hockey.

And... um... does it make any difference if you're in a bar or on the street or anything? Assault and battery is still bad, no matter whom it happens to, right?

But the real problem (for me, anyway) is that if any civilian were convicted of exactly the same thing, we'd lose our rights forever.

 

[wolf223]

Is there? I clearly remember the first day of OSUT MP school having to sign a Lautenberg certification that I had never been convicted of a domestic violence offense. That was the first time I had ever heard of it.

The admin sergeants exact words were: "And if you can't certify that, we'll be sending you back to reception where the Army will train you into some other specialty like a paper pusher or cook."

This shouldn't even have been an issue because I don't know that he should still be employed:

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

maybe he has dirt on them? he's a pretty big dude too.

 

[drgrant]

Is there? I clearly remember the first day of OSUT MP school having to sign a Lautenberg certification that I had never been convicted of a domestic violence offense. That was the first time I had ever heard of it.

There is at least for DV based restraining orders. Technically, people who are the subject of a DV RO are prohibited persons until the RO is vacated, but there appears to be an LE/mil exemption.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Not to split hairs, but I thought the Mass law was meant to apply to members of the public attacking /assaulting an officer during the course of their duties on the street,

Any conviction for assault, not just assault on a police officer, is a MA LTC disqualifier.

The only thing that is surprising about this case is that it was not handled with a CWOF to fully protect the officer's clean record.

 

[Radtekk]

This is exactly why more departments should require their officers to maintain a current LTC as a condition of employment. Problem Solved.

Still, it's baffling to see this total lack of accountability.

Not really...

 

[ochmude]

Civil service really blows my mind. If I knocked one of my supervisors unconscious, I'd be in jail. Actually, depending on the supervisor, I might get shot in my attempt.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Well, the problem there is some of the stupid laws that can prevent getting an LTC. I am not a fan of this approach.

Yes, but at least everyone is on an even footing. No one is 'special'.

 

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

Rob,

Is there a law that mandates one be disqualified for an A&B or is it that one can be disqualified? The resources I am looking at do not specify.

Dave

Any conviction for assault, not just assault on a police officer, is a MA LTC disqualifier.

The only thing that is surprising about this case is that it was not handled with a CWOF to fully protect the officer's clean record.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Rob,

Is there a law that mandates one be disqualified for an A&B or is it that one can be disqualified? The resources I am looking at do not specify.

Dave

Look at the list of DQs federally and what require to be DQed and then compare to the penalties for AB in MA.

 

[Kevlar]

Is there a law that mandates one be disqualified for an A&B or is it that one can be disqualified? The resources I am looking at do not specify.

Yes, MGL 140-131(d)(i) dictates that conviction of a "violent crime" with a potential penalty in excess of 1 year is a lifetime LTC dis-qualifier, but the fact that every assault charge under MGL c.265 is either a felony, or a misdemeanor with a potential penalty of incarceration in excess of 2 years, means a conviction is a lifetime LTC dis-qualifier anyway, as well as rendering one a Federally prohibited person.

 

[LoginName]

This is exactly why more departments should require their officers to maintain a current LTC as a condition of employment. Problem Solved.

Still, it's baffling to see this total lack of accountability.

I'd take that a step further and make it a statutory requirement that police officers maintain an LTC.

LEO's can't operate a patrol vehicle "on the badge" (and having a valid MA DL is a job requirement). Why should an LTC be any different?

 

[OfficerObie59]

I'd take that a step further and make it a statutory requirement that police officers maintain an LTC.

LEO's can't operate a patrol vehicle "on the badge" (and having a valid MA DL is a job requirement). Why should an LTC be any different?

It's pretty much coming to that already. A good number of departments have the policy as a surefire, unappealable way to terminate bad apples based on Town of Franklin v. Wheeler.

While I don't disagree with that, MACOPA does institute rules that go above and beyond reasonableness under the guise of LEOSA compliance.
The new statewide police ID system currently being implemented mandates that the ID expire on the date an officer's LTC expires. And the MACOPA model policy requires an officer carry his police ID and badge whenever he carries without regard for off-duty carrying a private capacity--that seems a bit over the line for me, as I essentially never have the ability to carry as a private citizen.

Moreover, even under an LTC (not MGL 41/98 which gives the authority to carry "on the badge") some departments mandate the ONLY weapons you can carry are those approved by the chief. Thus, if you have a chief who's big on liability, he's not certfying you in anything other than your duty gun, limiting you to one weapon for off-duty carry. And with a number of departments going to the M&P .45, good luck with that.