MA Gun Laws

[Scrivener]

False premise, false logic, false result.

"Simple logic says it's got to be one of those, unless we're back in the land of "it depends on the definition of 'is'".

Hardly.Just because your license is ALP does not mean that is the be-all and end-all of the analysis.This means the issue is NOT as you narrowly framed it, as not everyone has - or is allowed to get - ALP.

The issue is what benefit - if any - GOAL's actions have conferred upon the licensed. The answer: NONE.

The next issue is whether any HARM has been created or increased by GOAL's actions. The answer: The increased probability of criminal prosecution of those whose license is NOT for All Lawful Purposes and who have been challenged as to their possession.

WHY? Because the law provides for PROSECUTION of those found carrying outside the scope of the restriction. Since certain people on this board appear unaware of that fact, I post it herewith:

A violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation.

MGL c. 140, s. 131 (a) Read it and learn.

Before GOAL involved itself in this non-issue, someone stupid enough to "carry" on a T&H or "Sporting Purposes" RFI could argue that it was just that - a REASON - and NOT a restriction AND they would have a District Court decision to cite so holding. Now that GOAL has blessed us all with restricted LTCs AND failed to provide the promised relief of standard reasons for issuance - the problem it was allegedly solving - that decision is now worthless.

We await the next desperate rationalization of this ill-considered action....

[roll]

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Oh, I don't have any problem keeping up. Let's got back to the question I asked. When my chief issues a new license for All Lawful Purposes, what restriction is there that wouldn't have been there if not for the nasty incompetents at GOAL?
Ken

Ok, I'll bite.

Imagine it's license issuance time, and you're facing a police officer who is new at it and doesn't want to make waves. Which would you rather he see on the MIRCS screen when it's time to enter your data :

(A) A fill in the blank "reason" box, with the only quasi-official guidance being the recommendation of ALP in the chief's gun law book sold by a local firm well known to police.

or

(B) A box labelled "restriction", perhaps with a pulldown menu of options.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Rob, it won't matter.

Of all the towns that I'm familiar with their licensing officer or chief's "tactics", I can tell you that they do NOT randomly pick what you get.

In most cases the Chief MANDATES what his licensing officer will issue to whom (by classes of people) and the licensing officer just does his bidding!

Case in point, a chief that I'm friendly with retired early this year. His licensing officer was "known" to be a real prick to deal with to get your LTC, giving people a real hard time. Well a month before this chief retires he says to me in an off-hand way that "perhaps the licensing officer was just following his policies". Guess what, the former licensing officer is now chief and allegedly is issuing ALP without hassle now!

MOST PDs in MA do NOT have a copy of Ron Glidden's book and a number of departments refused to buy it when I was selling it for Ron (before MPI took over and the price almost doubled). Most licensing officers don't have a clue what's in the book and could care less! That's part of the reason why when a LEO attends one of Ron's LE seminars, the fee for the course includes a book . . . he's trying to "force feed" them the information and give them the resource to find answers (most never look though and ask the same questions over and over again).

The MIRCS system now has a pull-down menu with the reasons/restrictions. I can almost guarantee you that the actual issuing policies of PDs will NOT change just because MIRCS has a populated list or changed the word from "reason" to "restriction". The reasons that they do what they do is part prejudice and the rest is as mandated to the chief by his bosses (e.g. Menino dictates what Boston PD does - "RESTRICTED!")

 

[KMaurer]

False premise, false logic, false result.

"Simple logic says it's got to be one of those, unless we're back in the land of "it depends on the definition of 'is'".

Hardly.Just because your license is ALP does not mean that is the be-all and end-all of the analysis.This means the issue is NOT as you narrowly framed it, as not everyone has - or is allowed to get - ALP.

The issue is what benefit - if any - GOAL's actions have conferred upon the licensed.

I can see how you might reach that conclusion if you're dealing sith some question that I never posed. The question I actually asked (as opposed to some variation you'd prefer to deal with) has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that my license is ALP, or that my chief only issues ALP licenses. Here is is again, verbatin, in case you'd care to address it:

When my chief issues a new license for All Lawful Purposes, what restriction is there that wouldn't have been there if not for the nasty incompetents at GOAL?

1) Would the license have allowed one to use the firearm for illegal acts? or

2) Is there some secret restriction beyond "All Lawful Purposes" that wasn't on old licenses? or (my bet)

3) Is it simply a load of crap that "All licenses are now restricted"?

Simple logic says it's got to be one of those, unless we're back in the land of "it depends on the definition of 'is'".

I posed this question in reponse to this statement of yours, which I considered to be completely false:

The "improvement" ... expressly IMPOSES restrictions on all LTCs .... GCAB and EOPS leaped on the chance GOAL gave them to impose restrictions on ALL licenses ....

I've posed the question twice, and had it ducked twice, so I won't bother posting it any more afther this. If you answer it, great, otherwise I'll just assume that you're either incapable of providing an answer or unwilling to do so.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

Remedial reading, redux

YOUR initial question:

"When my chief issues a new license for All Lawful Purposes, what restriction is there that wouldn't have been there if not for the nasty incompetents at GOAL?"

My response:

Hardly. Just because your license is ALP does not mean that is the be-all and end-all of the analysis.This means the issue is NOT as you narrowly framed it, as not everyone has - or is allowed to get - ALP.

The issue is what benefit - if any - GOAL's actions have conferred upon the licensed.

To those applying objective analysis, I DIRECTLY confronted your issue, which is issuance of an ALP license. Once again, as you’ve obviously missed it, NOT EVERYONE GETS AN ALP LICENSE. Grasp that concept and you might be able to follow the train of thought instead of just lying across the rails.

Then go back and re-read the above explanations to see what you missed the first few times....... [roll]

 

[Rob Boudrie]

GOAL

When my chief issues a new license for All Lawful Purposes, what restriction is there that wouldn't have been there if not for the nasty incompetents at GOAL?

Probably not relevant to your case since I very much doubt you are one of those confused by the old wording, but, let's assume someone has been busted for violation of a reason for issuance.

Old System:

Defense counsel to prosecutor: "As you know 'reason for issuance' is an ambiguous term, and one district court has already held it's not a restriction. I'd like to talk a deal for my client such as CWOF with payment of court costs."

There is a real chance a non-urban prosecutor would go for it.

-----------------------

New System:

Defense counsel has NOTHING to offer to mitigate the fact that it is a slam-dunk conviction. Chances of a beneficial plea bargain go way down when the prosecutor does not face the risk of a not-guilty verdict.

-----------------------

Since scrivener is a real lawyer, perhaps he can weigh in on this thought.

 

[Cross-X]

Re: GOAL

When my chief issues a new license for All Lawful Purposes, what restriction is there that wouldn't have been there if not for the nasty incompetents at GOAL?

Probably not relevant to your case since I very much doubt you are one of those confused by the old wording, but, let's assume someone has been busted for violation of a reason for issuance.

Old System:

Defense counsel to prosecutor: "As you know 'reason for issuance' is an ambiguous term, and one district court has already held it's not a restriction. I'd like to talk a deal for my client such as CWOF with payment of court costs."

There is a real chance a non-urban prosecutor would go for it.

-----------------------

New System:

Defense counsel has NOTHING to offer to mitigate the fact that it is a slam-dunk conviction. Chances of a beneficial plea bargain go way down when the prosecutor does not face the risk of a not-guilty verdict.

-----------------------

Since scrivener is a real lawyer, perhaps he can weigh in on this thought.

Ummm, Rob, maybe your hypothetical client has the wrong hypothetical lawyer.

CWF deals in the situation you describe are still being made in Massaschusetts courts today.

 

[Scrivener]

Where and when?

"CWF deals in the situation you describe are still being made in Massaschusetts courts today."

As the restricted licenses have only been out since July - a scant three (3) months - how many people bearing the new licenses could even have been apprehended, still less had an actual trial?

I sincerely doubt thare are ANY cases upon which to declare a track record for these new, expressly restricted licenses.

 

[Cross-X]

Where and when?

"CWF deals in the situation you describe are still being made in Massaschusetts courts today."

As the restricted licenses have only been out since July - a scant three (3) months - how many people bearing the new licenses could even have been apprehended, still less had an actual trial?

I sincerely doubt thare are ANY cases upon which to declare a track record for these new, expressly restricted licenses.

Client confidentiality prevents me from discussing either my clients or their cases. However, I can tell you that CWF dispostions are always made pre-trial, and not after trial, and are often negotiated by the second or third court appearance, long before a trial date is even set.

We rarely see a CWF disposition after trial. In Massachusetts, it is virtually impossible to persuade the prosecutor to agree to a CWF after there has been a verdict, as is required per Massachusetts' law.

One other note -- the mandatory minimum fines you accurately referenced in this thread do not apply to a CWF disposition. The monetary penalties imposed in CWF cases are referred to as costs, not fines, and the judge is not bound by the mandatory minimum fines set by statute. When cases are continued without finding, typical costs may be as low as $250 -- $500.

What matters most in these kinds of firearms carrying cases, in addition to the essential facts of the incident, is the defendant's past record, if any, and the remedial steps he or she has taken subsequent to the incident, and the creative appeal of the defense proposal.

It is also essential to make sure that the case gets heard by a judge who is willing to listen to the plan proposed by the defense lawyer. Pre-trial, there is no need to convince the prosecutor if you can convince the judge.

Too many good people get jammed up by our state's byzantine firearms laws, and too few recognize the need for qualifed defense counsel to stand up for them.

Prevention is better than having to seek a cure. I believe it is essential that gun owners take the time to educate themselves about gun laws and the limits of self-defense prior to carrying a gun for personal protection.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

CWOF Question

I have a question for the practicing attorneys on the list.

There is conflicting information regarding the impact of a CWOF with admission to succifient facts on firearms licensing. I'm not talking about the use of the presence of a CWOF as a factor for the issuing authority to determine suitability, but the statuatory impact. (please, no responses explaining the chief is free to use a CWOF to determine suitability - that is already well known, and not the question at hand).

Some sources (for example, the Andover PD site http://www.andoverps.net/investigations/Permit.htm) state that a CWOF is not a conviction, which is what most people would assume.

Other sources (for example, the Litteton PD, http://www.littletonpd.com/gunsafety.htm) state a continuation without a finding is treated as a conviction for firearms licensing purposes ("....An admission to sufficient facts will be deemed a plea of guilt pursuant to c278§18"). c278§18 contains the statement "If a defendant, notwithstanding the requirements set forth hereinbefore, attempts to enter a plea or statement consisting of an admission of facts sufficient for finding of guilt, or some similar statement, such admission shall be deemed a tender of a plea of guilty for purposes of the procedures set forth in this section." I don't see any reference to firearms licensing in c278§18, so I don't see how this applies to "the procedures set forth in this section."

I don't know the original source of the text regading the CWOF posted at the Littleton PD site, however, it is repeated on numerous local PD web sites, so it probably indicated a somewhat pervasive view of the status of CWOF w/ASF.

This is an important point of law which I would like to make sure is included when I am doing firearms courses. I use the services of a retired police officer to cover the NRA requirement of "lawyer or cop" as presenter of law in class, however, he does not have a clear answer to this question.

So, if any real attorney could enlighten on this issue it would be most appreciated.

If you reply indicating the impact of a CWOF w/ASF on statuatory eligibility for an LTC, please indicate if you are a real lawyer of an internet legal scholar. I don't qualify as either.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Rob, I don't qualify as either!

I suggest that you get in touch with Ron Glidden, send me an Email directly (button below) and I'll give you his contact info if you need it.

I think I understand what is happening here:

- Originally Ron was teaching that CWOF was NOT a disqualifier.

- Lately, I've seen him say that CWOF means an admission of sufficient facts to disqualify under the statute. You referenced the statute that they are hanging their hats on.

That is why I think it is wisest to check with the most likely source of this info.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

CWOF

I have emailed Chief Ron.

There are really two questions:

#1: What is the position of licensing authorities on this issue?

#2: If licensing authorities believe that CWOF w/ASF is equal to a conviction for licensing purposes due the provisions of c278§18, do knowledgeable attorneys agree?

If the answer to #1 is YES and #2 is NO, it might be a good idea for GOAL to consider finding a sympathetic plaintiff with a CWOF on record and backing an appeal of this issue. Of course, the downside is that the few departements that don't consider a CWOF to be a conviction would likley start treating it as such if GOAL lost. I know that there are some attorneys out there who are telling clients that CWOF is not a conviction, therefore it does not void firearms rights.

If #1 is YES and #2 is YES, Goal should work to educate people about this on a regular basis. Just consider the case of a defendant in a minor case thinking "Well, CWOF is cheaper than a trial, and at least it doesn't blow my gun rights.". Before you think that "simply don't admit to sufficient facts when you take the CWOF" is a solution, I'd note that one attorney has advised me that certains courts in the commonwealth will not enter a CWOF without such an admission.

We were stuck with an interpretation for years that leaving a handgun in a car was in fact carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle while not under the licensee's direct control - although there is a chance this would have been appealable since it's hard for carry to occur without movement or the presence of the alleged offender. If the CWOF issue is left unchallanged (if it is, in fact, challangeable) we'll be stuck with that interpretation for the long term.

 

[Scrivener]

The LICENSING statutes (140, s. 129B and 131) expressly state that a CONVICTION is required to be a disqualifier:

"...has ever, in a court of the commonwealth, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child..."

The statute cited by Littleton applies to PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS and requests for dispositions in district court.

"G.L.c. 278, § 18. Pleas of not guilty, guilty

"A defendant who is before the Boston municipal court or a district court or a district court sitting in a juvenile session or a juvenile court on a criminal offense within the court's final jurisdiction shall plead not guilty or guilty, or with the consent of the court, nolo contendere."

The firearms licensing statute requires a CONVICTION for the statutory disqualifier to apply; CWOF is NOT a conviction. While the Littleton chief - and any other department parroting that line - could deny an LTC on grounds of "suitability," it could not lawfully deny an FID card and the LTC denial could certainly be challenged in court.

As for interpretation, Chief Glidden is but one source and he is not an attorney. I suggest those unhappy with any lack of specificity on this issue contact Dir. Caroline Sawyer at the CHSB.

Regarding Cross-X's remarks; no-one asked for information about pre-"Restriction" LTC cases. The question was how many - if ANY - holders of the new, restricted LTCs have been charged with carrying outside their restriction.

I doubt ANY have, as there are only 3 months worth issued.

 

[KMaurer]

Re: Remedial reading, redux

YOUR initial question:

"When my chief issues a new license for All Lawful Purposes, what restriction is there that wouldn't have been there if not for the nasty incompetents at GOAL?"

My response:

Hardly. Just because your license is ALP does not mean that is the be-all and end-all of the analysis.This means the issue is NOT as you narrowly framed it, as not everyone has - or is allowed to get - ALP.

The issue is what benefit - if any - GOAL's actions have conferred upon the licensed.

To those applying objective analysis, I DIRECTLY confronted your issue, which is issuance of an ALP license. Once again, as you’ve obviously missed it, NOT EVERYONE GETS AN ALP LICENSE. Grasp that concept and you might be able to follow the train of thought instead of just lying across the rails.

Then go back and re-read the above explanations to see what you missed the first few times....... [roll]

The real problem seems to be that I can not only read just fine, but that I refuse to get distracted by the red herrings you keep throwing out. This is going to be my last post on this topic, since the horse seems to have limited itself to an occassional twitch or spasm. I've asked a direct question three times, and three times (just as a good attorney tends to do when the answer isn't what he wants) the question has been ducked. As a result I'll accept that as a concession that the original statement to which I referred, specifically that all licenses are now restricted is in fact totally false and without any basis in fact.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

Self-induced delusions

"As a result I'll accept that as a concession that the original statement to which I referred, specifically that all licenses are now restricted is in fact totally false and without any basis in fact."

The concession exists only in your fertile imagination, along with the equally false sense of security regarding the new LTCs.

That "RESTRICTION" replaced "Reason For Issuance" in the LTC form is fact and has been since early July, if not sooner. Even GOAL acknowledges that. Your refusal to accept reality does not alter it.

That said change negates the Ipswich court decision necessarily follows.

Further, the language in the controlling statute, already set forth above, expressly specifies the consequences of carrying outside the scope of those restrictions. That statute speaks for itself.

Some, of course, just refuse to listen.... [roll] [/b]

 

[KMaurer]

Self-induced delusions

"As a result I'll accept that as a concession that the original statement to which I referred, specifically that all licenses are now restricted is in fact totally false and without any basis in fact."

The concession exists only in your fertile imagination, along with the equally false sense of security regarding the new LTCs.

That "RESTRICTION" replaced "Reason For Issuance" in the LTC form is fact and has been since early July, if not sooner. Even GOAL acknowledges that. Your refusal to accept reality does not alter it.

That said change negates the Ipswich court decision necessarily follows.

Further, the language in the controlling statute, already set forth above, expressly specifies the consequences of carrying outside the scope of those restrictions. That statute speaks for itself.

Some, of course, just refuse to listen.... [roll] [/b]

Others simply throw out more chaff and refuse to address the question. The only thing I've been objecting to in my past four posts is a simple statement that you made, namely that all licenses are now restricted. Since you seem to believe that the problem rests entirely in my simple brain, lets accept that premise arguendum (1600 SAT score, Mensa membership, PhD, etc notwithstanding). Then help me out by providing a simple yes or no answer: do you or do you not stand by your original statement that all licenses are now restricted? No diatribes, no bombasic cirumlocution, just a sime yes or no, so that those of us less intelligent can understand your position.

Yes, you still assert that all licenses are now restricted, or

No, you concede that that assertion is incorrect.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

It is my assertion that ALL LTCs issued since GOALs intermeddling; i.e., since about 7/1/05, now bear the word "RESTRICTED" where the phrase "Reason For Issuance" used to be and, therefore, are expressly restricted.

As ALP used to be the equivalent of an unrestricted license, THIS particular class will see no practical change in status. ALL other licenses, be they T&H, Sporting, Protection or whatever, will be stripped of the benefit of the terms of the license itself and the Ipswich district court decision holding that an LTC is NOT restricted unless that language expressly appears on the LTC itself.

The question now is what, if any, effect this will have on those departments which used to issue ALP. One hopes that they will continue to issue ALP, but this is Massachusetts.......

Are we all on the same page now?

 

[thwkman]

Likelihood of change in restriction upon renewal?

Any thoughts on whether ALP "restrictions can be changed upon renewal? As a new LTC holder (post July 1) I am wondering if I'll have something to worry about 6 years from now and I should start savings for my lawyers fees [lol]

 

[Scrivener]

Of COURSE the restriction can be changed at renewal; it's a new license. The questions are:

WHO is the chief?

WHAT are his parameters?

WHAT is the political climate at the time of your renewal?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

ALP

There are basically three tupes of towns:

#1 - ALP to everyone

#2 - Discourages ALP, but lets a few slip through.

#3 - Dead set against ALP for anyone and you have to a person of privilige, power or influence to get ALP.

There is no statuatory prohibition of adding a restriction upon renewal. The good news is that it is easier to be one of the ones that "makes it" if you are dealing with a Type 2 town and already have ALP. If, on the other hand, you are dealing with a type 3 town you may find that they are prepared to spare no expense if defending their right to restrict.

Ask your lawyer what their track record is for getting the district court to order a restriction removed from an LTC-A which was approved with restrictions for an applicant without either connections or an incredibly compelling reason (like proof they will be terminated from their primary employment if not allowed to be armed). You may be in for a rude awakening. From what I hear, firearms attorneys call it ia "victory" when they convince the Brookline PD to issue a restricted LTC-A.

 

[thwkman]

THANKS

SCRIVENER

I HAVE PRETTY GOOD INTERNET HEARING SO CAPS AREN'T ALWAYS NE CESSARY.

Thanks Rob.

I'm not familiar with the "ALP ness" of my town (Hanover Ma) other than to say when I applied I probably couldn't have known less about the process. So when the officer asked me what I wanted it for, I said "Target Shooting". Then I go home and read some of the lit from GOAL, etc and learn about the key phrase ALP. So now I'm thinking OH OH.

But happily mine came through in 40 days with ALP on it. Turned out to be a very painless process.

I asked the question because in my mind a "new" license presumes one did not exist for this person before whereas a "renewal" would seem to indicate a continuation of an existing relationship.

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Re: THANKS

I asked the question because in my mind a "new" license presumes one did not exist for this person before whereas a "renewal" would seem to indicate a continuation of an existing relationship.

In MA, each renewal is treated as if it were a "NEW" application. All the checks are done all over again, asks for references again, etc. Only statutory difference is that you are not required (by law, chief may require anything he likes) to take another safety course.

 

[Scrivener]

"...by law, chief may require anything he likes"

Really?

And what law might that be?

Citations, please.

 

[Lynne]

"...by law, chief may require anything he likes"

Really?

And what law might that be?

Citations, please.

What Len was saying, Scrivener, is that by law, you are not required to take another safety course for a renewal. The chief, however, may tell you that you do.

 

[KMaurer]

"...by law, chief may require anything he likes"

Really?

And what law might that be?

Citations, please.

Could it be the same law that permits me to scratch my ass when I feel the need? Unless somebody can point to some specific law that forbids chiefs from requiring extras, complete with actual penalties specified for violations, then the law indeed allows chiefs to require anything they like.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

“Unless somebody can point to some specific law that forbids chiefs from requiring extras, complete with actual penalties specified for violations, then the law indeed allows chiefs to require anything they like.”

START here:

MGL c. 140, § 131(g):

The application for such license shall be made in a standard form provided by the executive director of the criminal history systems board, which form shall require the applicant to affirmatively state under the pains and penalties of perjury that such applicant is not disqualified on any of the grounds enumerated above from being issued such license.

Then go on to the specific statutes affecting safety courses, storage and transportation. The chiefs get away with it because they don’t get challenged - in LARGE part because of specious assertions about how the chiefs can do whatever they want.

If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scrivener, you know exactly what I meant!

They add all the crap as part of their "suitability" test and to the best of my knowledge, no judge has ordered a chief/licensing authority to stop testing people (e.g. Boston, Brookline, etc.), demanding other BS . . . to date.

As Ken so eloquently pointed out [lol] , there are NO legal penalties for any chief/licensing authority that would effectively prevent/deter them from demanding this "add-on" stuff.

Ask yourself:

- What is the penalty for the state NOT notifying a LTC/FID holder of pending expiration of their LTC/FID?

- What is the penalty for the chief/licensing authority not approving/disapproving an application within 40 days?

- What is the penalty for the chief/licensing authority denying someone or downgrading them with no proof of "real" unsuitability?

They face exactly the same penalty for demanding "add-ons"!

 

[KMaurer]

Sorry, it must be somewhere in the fine print that I can't see with my browser. I can't find the part that prohibits them from requiring things that aren't specified on the standard application, or the penalties to be imposed on them if they do.

From what I can tell (please do tell me if there's some actual evidence to the contrary) the worst that happens to a chief who requires all these extra things is that, after putting a few dozen applicants through the wringer, one of his underlings has to show up in court where the judge orders the chief to issue a license (with whatever restrictions he feels like imposing) to that one person. Nothing for any of the previous applicants; nothing for any future applicants; no legal fees for this applicant. The chief gets to screw over people with impunity, except for the occassional assertive individual who pays a few thousand dollars to get a restricted license without having to jump through the hoops, thus getting screwed over in a different position.

As I said, the law allows chiefs to impose whatever requirements they feel like.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

"...they add all the crap as part of their "suitability" test and to the best of my knowledge, no judge has ordered a chief/licensing authority to stop testing people (e.g. Boston, Brookline, etc.), demanding other BS . . . to date"

And who has CHALLENGED those tests?

Is the deck stacked? Yes.

Does that mean, as you claimed, that the LAW grants them authority to impose conditions in violation of controlling statutes? Hardly.....

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scrivener,

To paraphrase your sig line "What you tolerate, you validate"

Ken and I contend that the LAW (judges in this case) TOLERATE what the chief/licensing officers do, and thus THEY (the legal system) VALIDATES it as "ACCEPTABLE"!

Until they pass a law forbidding what I mentioned in prior posts, with real penalties on those that disobey (no hiding behind the Town Counsel's skirts) . . . then, and only then, will things change and you will be correct!