MA Police Chiefs blocking 'Katrina' legislation

[Xak]

I don't understand why we can't find out who is holding it up, why they are holding it up, and why we can't call them and tell them why we disagree and ask them kindly to represent us and push it through.

This shouldn't be rocket science. We do after all pay their salaries.

 

[Half Cocked]

The MCOPA is very political and is not necessarily the views of the majority of Chiefs.

Politics should have no place in police work and police should have no place in politics.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The MCOPA is very political and is not necessarily the views of the majority of Chiefs.

Politics should have no place in police work and police should have no place in politics.

But then we'd have no chiefs!

 

[Raoul Duke]

The MCOPA is very political and is not necessarily the views of the majority of Chiefs.

Alright. I am willing to believe that this action doesn't represent the majority of officers on the force. I am also willing to believe that this is a political kow tow to politicians for the sake of expediency.

What I am NOT willing to do is let this go by without calling these guys out. One by one. With that in mind, below is a list of the 2008 Officers of the MCOPA. I think it is reasonable to expect that this list comprises the voice of the organization. Please correct me if I am wrong. What I intend to do is call the COP in my area:

Franklin County - Gary M. Sibilia, Northfield

And ask him whether or not he supports this. I will post the results of the contact here. I ask each of your reading this today to consider calling the closest chief to you and posting the results of your conversation here.

There is no need to be rude. Simply ask the chief if he supports this legislation. Now, it's likely that you won't get through on your first try, so if you can, write a short letter reiterating your request and CC the local paper.

My point is, these "only ones" are getting away with this simply by passing the buck, over and over again and then intimidating people into not asking questions.

Let's call them out on this bullshit!


President - Anthony J. Riello, Pittsfield
1st Vice President - Terrence M. Cunningham, Wellesley
2nd Vice President - Mary Lyons, Mattapoisett
3rd Vice President - Mark K. Leahy, Northborough
Sergeant-at-Arms - Joseph J. Rebello, Kingston

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Past President - Arthur M. O'Neill, Mansfield
Barnstable & Islands - John J. Thomas, Truro
Berkshire County - Richard B. Wilcox, Stockbridge
Bristol County - Carlton E. Abbott, Jr., Freetown
Essex County - Kevin Barry, Rowley
Franklin County - Gary M. Sibilia, Northfield
Hampden County - Robert D. Campbell, Agawam
Hampshire County - Francis R. Fox, Jr., Belchertown
Major City Chiefs - John W. Suslak, Lynn
Middlesex County - Edward P. Deveau, Watertown
Middlesex County - Richard E. Smith, Wakefield
Norfolk County - Kenneth N. Berkowitz, Canton
Plymouth County - Lincoln W. Miller, Marion
Suffolk County - Brian A. Kyes, Chelsea
Worcester County - Peter F. Roddy, Leominster
Worcester County - Patrick T. Foley, Douglas
Life Member - Joseph N. Perritano (Ret.), Winchester

 

[Lucas McCain]

- It is being "held up" due to some Rep/Sen (I don't know who or how many) cow-towing to MCOPA who wants NO PENALTIES for illegal activities under "color of law".

Why dont we know who? Is this some sort of secret ballot or are the a$$hole(s) just afraid to come out of the shadows?

 

[Admin]

I emailed the Northboro Chief to get his stance.

 

[jhblaze1]

Politics should have no place in police work and police should have no place in politics.

+1

 

[Raoul Duke]

I emailed the Northboro Chief to get his stance.

Great. That's 2 now. Anyone else?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Why dont we know who? Is this some sort of secret ballot or are the a$$hole(s) just afraid to come out of the shadows?

I personally don't know who.

To me it sounds like the typical "back-room politics" of how things really work.

I'm sure that some folks know exactly "who", but I doubt that those in the "smoke filled rooms" want the public to be able to ID them.

As for the MCOPA, like many orgs, the "management" makes all the decisions. Likely they didn't bother "taking a vote" of the 351 cities/towns. So your local chief (unless on the list of officers posted) probably won't have any more clout than you or I.

Over the years I have learned that some/many (?) chiefs aren't even members of MCOPA. Like most orgs, dues cost money and travel to meetings, add in politics and personalities and who knows how many chiefs really have an issue with this bill. We can guess on some of them but we can't know who is "convincable" to see our side . . . and if they have the org clout to change the official position of MCOPA.

 

[Raoul Duke]

I personally don't know who.

To me it sounds like the typical "back-room politics" of how things really work.

I'm sure that some folks know exactly "who", but I doubt that those in the "smoke filled rooms" want the public to be able to ID them.

No disagreement there.

As for the MCOPA, like many orgs, the "management" makes all the decisions. Likely they didn't bother "taking a vote" of the 351 cities/towns. So your local chief (unless on the list of officers posted) probably won't have any more clout than you or I.

I understand. The list I posted was on the executive leadership for the MCOPA. I agree that one's local town COP may not know or even be a part of the MCOPA. In my case, I called the County Rep (Franklin County).

We can guess on some of them but we can't know who is "convincable" to see our side . . . and if they have the org clout to change the official position of MCOPA.

I honestly don't know if the goal is to change their thinking. Often I prescribe that method when I think the other party isn't seeing the whole picture, but I can't help but assume this is another case of the "Only Ones" choosing their fantasies about safety over the actual safety and civil rights of the population they're sworn to protect. I see this action as a gross violation of the public trust.

 

[terraformer]

Great. That's 2 now. Anyone else?

I took care of lynn. Feel free to copy and paste for your local/nearby CLEO.

Chief {insert chief name here...},
I am citizen in a neighboring town. As you know being on the executive board of MCOPA, not all towns are represented so I am reaching out to you, the closest chief geographically to me to find out what your stance is on S.1401. For background, after a successful vote in the state house, the so called Katrina bill (S.1401) has been held up in a procedural maneuver to keep it from getting sent to the Governor for his signature or veto. The reason being given is that MCOPA has objections (listed below) to the bill. Below is also Jim Wallace's statement on those objections. I look forward to hearing from you on this very important Second Amendment issue given your position on the executive board of MCOPA.
Thanks,
{concerned citizen name here...}

The penalties in the bill are a felony and if an officer were convicted under it they would never be allowed to serve as a law enforcement officer again.

What if an officer is acting under their best judgment?

The bill would prevent an officer from confiscating firearms under a protection order.

This bill would prevent Chiefs from revoking licenses.

This bill would prevent officers from confiscating firearms from those committing crimes.

"None of these so-called concerns over the bill are legitimate," said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of Gun Owners' Action League. "The legislation was clearly written to cover lawfully owned firearms. You can't lawfully possess a firearm under a protection order or in the commission of a crime. As for an officer acting under their best judgment, why would they be confiscating a firearm from someone they haven't arrested? You certainly are not in lawful possession if you are under arrest. We have one of two things happening here. Either this is a political tactic to wait until the formal legislative session is over so no one actually has to go on record as voting against it or the Massachusetts firearm laws are so complicated that even the Police Chiefs are having difficulty interpreting what a lawfully owned firearm is."

 

[Half Cocked]

I am NOT defending anyone here but does anyone know for sure if this is even true?

The article states that unnnamed politicians are telling Goal that the Ma Chiefs are blocking this.

This is third hand heresay from POLITICIANS!!!

Sounds credible to me!

Maybe one should write a letter to the MCOPA to ask what their position really is on the matter before calling the local chiefs.

Just a thought.....

 

[terraformer]

I am NOT defending anyone here but does anyone know for sure if this is even true?

The article states that unnnamed politicians are telling Goal that the Ma Chiefs are blocking this.

This is third hand heresay from POLITICIANS!!!

Sounds credible to me!

Maybe one should write a letter to the MCOPA to ask what their position really is on the matter before calling the local chiefs.

Just a thought.....

If you look at the note I sent, it is open ended on that. I specifically said that MCOPA was being blamed for this by others, not that MCOPA has said these things are an issue. This allows the chief to say, no, this did not come from us as much as it allows them to defend the position. In other words, I agree your point is very valid and I hope others write their notes with the same open minded perspective.
It is not however, invalid to contact members of the exec committee to get that confirmation. They should be in tune with what the org is saying or not saying. They can chose to forward the information to a PR person or respond directly at their discretion.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I took care of lynn. Feel free to copy and paste for your local/nearby CLEO.

I'll see if I can send this to Douglas as it's right around the corner from me. Question though, did you sign with your full name? For some reason I'm a little leary about that.

 

[terraformer]

I'll see if I can send this to Douglas as it's right around the corner from me. Question though, did you sign with your full name? For some reason I'm a little leary about that.

I did. I understand why someone wouldn't though...

 

[Raoul Duke]

I did, but I live in a "greener" area than some. I think the letter looses credibility without a real signature but it's certainly reasonable to think that there might be some retribution in some less than scrutable locations. I guess it's up to you.

Here's the bottom line. It seems like we ride this merry-go-round of carefully parsed statements whenever the issue of LEO overstepping the boundaries of the law comes up.

On one side, the belief that the continued militarization of our law enforcement is both misguided, and intolerable, and that this cancer manifests itself visibly in armed thugery, the "only one" syndrome, and even over-spending on inappropriate offensive armament.

On the other side we have those who feel that nothing more than what needs to be done to get the job done is taking place. Some feel the LEO community is beyond reproach, others feel like it's painted with a very broad brush unfairly. What is consistent however, is this idea that "we don't know the whole story and thus we are making incorrect snap judgements.

I think that there is a lot of merit to that idea. We do make snap decisions but they aren't all we're capable of. What I am trying to do here is get down to the root of it. I don't need to change their mind and probably can't, but I want to know exactly who opposes this and I want it brought out into the light. I think that the most efficient manner of achieving that is writing/calling the officers of the organization as ID'ed by the website and asking for clarification of their stance on the issue.

I fail to see how this could be threatening to any officer with nothing to hide.

I want to tear away the layer's of layers of obfuscation and get at the truth of who thinks what. Now, you may well tell me that it's naive and isn't going to happen, and you may be right. But I, for one, want to know who and so I am going to ask.

I'm tired of hearing about who isn't to blame.



R. Duke

 

[Half Cocked]

We do make snap decisions but they aren't all we're capable of. What I am trying to do here is get down to the root of it. I don't need to change their mind and probably can't, but I want to know exactly who opposes this and I want it brought out into the light. I think that the most efficient manner of achieving that is writing/calling the officers of the organization as ID'ed by the website and asking for clarification of their stance on the issue.

I fail to see how this could be threatening to any officer with nothing to hide.

I want to tear away the layer's of layers of obfuscation and get at the truth of who thinks what.

R. Duke

Right On!! Do not go off "Half Cocked"....find out who is to blame and why and then drop the gloves.

 

[LoginName]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if part of the MCOPAs opposition to the bill is that they probably have a hard-on for GOAL... it's leaders... it's legislative actions... and it's criticisms of certain CLEOS policies...

FIREARMS LICENSING FEES
Over the past several months, questions have arisen
and several complaints have been filed regarding what police
departments charge for firearms license application fees. In
the February issue of GOAL’s “The Outdoor Message,” a
front page article’s headline read “Four More Towns Found
to be Overcharging Applicants.” Some of the information regarding
alleged overcharging apparently had come from po-lice
department websites. GOAL has forwarded complaints
about several departments to the Governor’s Office, the Office
of the Inspector General, the Executive Office of Public
Safety, and various state Representatives and Senators. In
their written complaints GOAL is citing MGL Chapter 140,
Section 131 paragraph (k) which states, “Whoever knowingly
issues a license in violation of this section shall be punished by
a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment
for not less than six months or more than two years in
a jail or house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
They have gone so far as to ask state officials to
seek charges against licensing authorities for overcharging.

http://www.masschiefs.org/documents/April 2008 Newsletter.pdf

Think the MCOPA is being obstructionist and stubborn now, just wait a few more years when the Heller case could open the doors for us (and GOAL), to go after "may issue" licensing.

 

[jzrawlins]

Email sent to Kevin Barry of Rowley. He's on the board for Essex County.

 

[Coyote33]

Did anyone ever get to the bottom of this to see who is driving this stoppage on the bill?

 

[Admin]

Did anyone ever get to the bottom of this to see who is driving this stoppage on the bill?

The MCOPA is.

 

[Raoul Duke]

I wrote yesterday, I haven't heard back as of today.

 

[terraformer]

I wrote yesterday, I haven't heard back as of today.

Me either. Radio silence.

 

[Coyote33]

The MCOPA is.

We KNEW THAT, D.; I thought someone was trying to see what individual(s) were really the driving force.

I see on the MCOPA web page that they are having a "Fall Conference" at the Sheraton in Leominster. Maybe Raoul and the others who are really into rooting this out would like to hold a picket or rally or something.

 

[Half Cocked]

The MCOPA is.

Are you sure? Or are they the ones being blamed by a politician who does not have the guts to admit that they are the one blocking it?

 

[Raoul Duke]

Are you sure? Or are they the ones being blamed by a politician who does not have the guts to admit that they are the one blocking it?

That's certainly a possibility. I think that finding out who pulls the strings at that level may be prohibitively difficult. Nonetheless, the time-honored tradition of leaning not on the target, but rather on the weakest link in the target's chain, may help clarify the issue. It may not too. Further, the MCOPA may not be the weakest link in the chain. But we'll see.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Are you sure? Or are they the ones being blamed by a politician who does not have the guts to admit that they are the one blocking it?

I would ask that question as well, but the silence from these LEs has me thinking they are staying mum on the subject. I sent an email to the chief in Dudley and haven't received anything back as of yet. I'll follow up on Monday.

 

[Admin]

Are you sure? Or are they the ones being blamed by a politician who does not have the guts to admit that they are the one blocking it?

I spoke to one of the VP's of the MCOPA and he said it was them.

 

[Raoul Duke]

I spoke to one of the VP's of the MCOPA and he said it was them.

I realize this may not have come through in the conversation, but did you get a sense of whether they understand that the laws don't, in fact, prevent them from doing their jobs?

 

[Admin]

I realize this may not have come through in the conversation, but did you get a sense of whether they understand that the laws don't, in fact, prevent them from doing their jobs?

I wasn't about to go back and forth with him on what they could and couldn't do. He stated his reasons, which GOAL his listed and I thanked him for his time. The CLEO that I spoke to is very pro 2nd and is a good guy. I think what he told me was a consensus of the MCOPA and not just his opinion.

I am hoping in the future the bill and the MCOPA can find some common ground. What I got from it was their major concern is snow storms cause a lot of state of emergencies in MA. I know the bill specifically states "lawfully owned firearms" and if there was a concern about responding to a domestic the CLEO could pull the license if he was concerned about the safety of the occupants. Like I said I'm NOT the one to try to change his mind, I simply talked to him to get HIS opinion on the matter.

Like I said the CLEO I spoke to is one of the good guys, I think and hope this can be worked out show how.