Local man hopes FID bill will spare him from jury duty

[Becka]

I searched, hoped this isn't a dupe...
The story is worded a bit differently from what was in the paper on Tuesday, but it's still pretty similar.

A local man is once again pushing legislation that would exempt from jury duty people who have been denied the right to possess weapons.

SOUTHBOROUGH — A local man is once again pushing legislation that would exempt from jury duty people who have been denied the right to possess weapons.

Anthony Liccardi Jr., 52, is petitioning through state Rep. Danielle Gregoire, D-Marlborough, a measure that says a person denied a firearm identification card (FID) needed for work won't have to serve jury duty until the card is granted.

House bill 1414 has been referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary and awaits a public hearing.

"They think I'm a good enough citizen for jury duty," Liccardi said. "But I can't have a weapon to defend myself."

State law requires a card for possession of non-large capacity rifles, shotguns and ammunition. A restricted FID card allows possession solely of pepper spray or mace.

Liccardi, whose FID card was revoked following a 1998 arrest, said he got the idea for the legislation the last time his name came up for jury duty, in 2002.

He did not serve on a jury then, and said he was dismissed after telling the judge if he wasn't a good enough citizen to get a firearm identification card, he shouldn't sit in judgment of someone else.

Liccardi petitioned for similar bills in 2005 and 2007, through former Marlborough Rep. Stephen LeDuc, but both stalled after being sent for study. A bill was also filed in 2003, though too late for consideration.

This time, Liccardi said he wants to make the bill stronger by saying those denied a card for the "purpose of employment" shouldn't have to serve on a jury.

Liccardi is a bus driver for MetroWest Transit Authority, but said he wants to get a better-paying job driving a hazardous-materials truck. He said he wouldn't feel safe, however, doing so without carrying pepper spray, which requires a restricted FID card.

He said he has had a commercial driver's license since 2006, and got a letter from the state saying he could take a test to get a hazardous materials endorsement on that license.

"The state of Massachusetts thinks I'm good enough to stick my neck out driving hazmat," he said. "But the state of Massachusetts won't give me anything to protect myself against criminals and terrorists."

He said as a hazardous materials driver he would be a "sitting duck" target for criminals and terrorists, and he wants to be able to defend himself with pepper spray or a pistol.

Liccardi, who said he has been living at the Southborough Motor Lodge for nearly 13 years, last applied for an FID in 2000. His application was denied by Chief William Colleary, who retired in 2003 and is now deceased.

Colleary told The Daily News in 2000 that he was reluctant to grant a card to Liccardi because he believed Liccardi was not a permanent resident of Southborough and because Liccardi had incorrectly answered questions about his age and about being a defendant in a criminal offense. In 1998, Liccardi was arrested and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and intimidation of a witness after he pepper sprayed a dog that attacked him while hunting in Upton State Park.

Liccardi said he'd had a FID card since 1976. It was revoked following his arrest. The charges against Liccardi were dismissed in 1999 in Worcester District Court.

Liccardi said he plans to submit an application in the coming weeks.

Interim Chief Jane Moran said if Liccardi does apply, his application will be considered like any other.

 

[K-DUB]

Interesting.

 

[PaulD]

So he's saying he's not accorded the full rights of a citizen so why should he have the same responsibilities as a citizen. He has a point.

 

[lord1234]

yet another reason why "suitability" licensing is a bad idea.

 

[mikem317]

Makes sense to me.

But if the charges against him were dismissed in 1999, what's the hold up for an FID?

He said as a hazardous materials driver he would be a "sitting duck" target for criminals and terrorists, and he wants to be able to defend himself with pepper spray or a pistol.

AFIAK, this wouldn't make him ineligible for a restricted, "Class D" FID.

 

[Becka]

Makes sense to me.

But if the charges against him were dismissed in 1999, what's the hold up for an FID?



AFIAK, this wouldn't make him ineligible for a restricted, "Class D" FID.

That's what I thought, too.

 

[terraformer]

I thought FID cards were not subjected to suitability? Also, how the hell does one get charged with A&B on property (the dog)? I am not saying this guy is lying or embellishing, but I would like to hear the full story. I can easily see someone getting jacked up here for defending themselves and the fact he was out hunting (ie; in possession of a loaded gun) and only used spray to defend himself says a lot. If he was truly dangerous fido, or the dog's owner, would have been dead.

 

[drgrant]

I thought FID cards were not subjected to suitability? Also, how the hell does one get charged with A&B on property (the dog)? I am not saying this guy is lying or embellishing, but I would like to hear the full story. I can easily see someone getting jacked up here for defending themselves and the fact he was out hunting (ie; in possession of a loaded gun) and only used spray to defend himself says a lot. If he was truly dangerous fido, or the dog's owner, would have been dead.

Well, if this guy lied on the application he perjured himself, and that, is not a suitability issue. It's called being too stupid to fill out the form correctly.

Course this whole thing is stupid, ,because in nearly any other state, anyone can walk into a store and
buy a can of OC without a stupid permit. That has to be, bar none, about the dumbest law in this
state.

-Mike

 

[JonJ]

So if he perjured himself than he should have been charged with perjury. At least if he was charged he'd be able to defend himself and be exonerated.
Why wasn't he charged? Maybe because the chief knew it was a boo-boo and can't prove it.
Nice way to able to deny a constitutional right.

 

[wolf223]

this could very well be any one of us. filling out a form, make an honest mistake....


holy crap! i can't wait until i leave this oasis

 

[drgrant]

So if he perjured himself than he should have been charged with perjury. At least if he was charged he'd be able to defend himself and be exonerated.
Why wasn't he charged? Maybe because the chief knew it was a boo-boo and can't prove it.
Nice way to able to deny a constitutional right.

Now that I think about this more, in a way it does sound like they were blowing smoke up his backside, then again, someone probably thought they were "doing him a favor" by not trying to charge him for it.

-Mike

 

[CRSIII]

this could very well be any one of us. filling out a form, make an honest mistake....


holy crap! i can't wait until i leave this oasis

You spelled "gulag" wrong.

 

[joehaus]

Give him an A for effort anyway. The stuff against him sounds kinda bogus too.