MA Police Chiefs blocking 'Katrina' legislation

[Raoul Duke]

I hear you. And I wouldn't ask anyone to push to matter. My question really comes from a desire to understand what exactly the "issue" is. You know? What do we have to re-word, re-think, or re-submit to get this back under consideration? I don't mean that you should abuse your relationship with someone who's already given you as clear an answer as is coming.

Thanks for asking on our behalf. And thanks to everyone else who has emailed, called or contacted their rep.

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.

 

[Admin]

He was under the impression his officers wouldnt be able to take guns away from BG's when they needed to.

 

[dwarven1]

My question really comes from a desire to understand what exactly the "issue" is. You know? What do we have to re-word, re-think, or re-submit to get this back under consideration?

That's easy to answer - take the language out that makes seizing guns a crime.

 

[Raoul Duke]

That's easy to answer - take the language out that makes seizing guns a crime.

EDIT[sad2]

 

[Half Cocked]

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

Fair enough......but is it not politicians that are agreeing with the MCOPA that are the ones blocking it.

Thank You for speaking to them on the matter.

My chief, who is pretty involved with the MCOPA, knew nothing about the position of the MCOPA.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

He was under the impression his officers wouldnt be able to take guns away from BG's when they needed to.

I doubt that is the case. Police chiefs, while they sometimes disagree with us, are not generally stupid people who read absurdities into law - unless, of course, doing so furthers an agenda. It's not as "saleable" saying that "this law is unacceptable becuase it penalized police who violate it", so they come up with all sorts of reasons that will "sell". This is similar to the beer in grocery store debate - where package stores used every argument except the real one (profit erosion) to fight the issue.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Fair enough......but is it not politicians that are agreeing with the MCOPA that are the ones blocking it.

Thank You for speaking to them on the matter.

My chief, who is pretty involved with the MCOPA, knew nothing about the position of the MCOPA.

Legislators are scared shitless of MCOPA, so they wield a very big stick when they speak out against something.

Somehow I doubt that MCOPA polled their membership on the matter. I would suspect that a few key officers "announce positions" on a lot of such matters. Basically they don't want to upset the status quo, unless it is to do things like allow "suitability" to be more pervasive, such as for FID cards, allow refusal of FIDs to those that are DQ for a LTC, etc.

 

[Scrivener]

I would suspect that a few key officers "announce positions" on a lot of such matters. Basically they don't want to upset the status quo, unless it is to do things like allow "suitability" to be more pervasive, such as for FID cards, allow refusal of FIDs to those that are DQ for a LTC, etc.

Ah - the "Gloucester Defense."

 

[JonJ]

One word, POWER.

Oh and they got the money needed to keep the academies open with their "threat".

 

[Half Cocked]

Legislators are scared shitless of MCOPA, so they wield a very big stick when they speak out against something.

This may be...and the legislators are the ones blocking this legislation and failing to act. They are the ones that we shoud be contacting.

Somehow I doubt that MCOPA polled their membership on the matter.

Correct...which is why there is not much use to contact individual police chiefs. Contact the President of MCOPA and your legislator.

Not every Chief is a member of MCOPA.

 

[theGringo]

This may be...and the legislators are the ones blocking this legislation and failing to act. They are the ones that we shoud be contacting.



Correct...which is why there is not much use to contact individual police chiefs. Contact the President of MCOPA and your legislator.

Not every Chief is a member of MCOPA.

There's no discussion of this issue at all at masschiefs.org. What a surprise. It might be helpful if citizens began seeking greater transparency with regard to the legislative advocacy of this organization. There's certainly nothing wrong with enquiring of the rank and file membership. In fact, I think it's a pretty good start. My PD holds office hours one hour a week, on Thursdays. I'll try to clear my schedule for a drop-in ... if the Chief isn't too busy interviewing citizens for gun licenses, that is ...

 

[LoginName]

Ah - the "Gloucester Defense."

"Gloucester Defense." ?

 

[theGringo]

"Gloucester Defense." ?

I thought it was an obscure reference to Lord Gloucester, or the Gorton's Fisherman ...

 

[Scrivener]

"Gloucester Defense." ?

The Gloucester LO made the fatuous assertion that (among others), case law gave him "wide latitude" and "broad discretion" to deny an FID card, regardless of the utter absence of any statutory disqualifiers.

He lost.

 

[terraformer]

Update on Lynn:
I won't post his whole response here (I don't think he wrote it thinking there was an audience) but relevant to the standing issue, he supported MCOPA and the gist of his response definitely was one of protecting officers from prosecution in cases where probable cause and/or good faith actions, not part of some gun grab, exist. Not so surprisingly, there were a good number of cc'd individuals on his response, some @ masschiefs.org. None @ my local PD so hopefully my very unique last name, which would have made finding my local PD trivial, won't be blackballed because of a question... Isn't it f'd that this would even have to cross my mind??? Not that I think Suslak would do this, he seems to be a supporter of 2A rights, or at least Lynn is green...
Here was my response:

Thank you very much for taking the time out of your day to respond. I know it was not part of your regular duties and appreciate it greatly. I hope that MCOPA will support an amended bill of this type where blanket confiscation is prohibited, while, "officers acting in good faith and/or with probable cause" are duly protected, as they should be.
As a concerned citizen, I believe this type of compromise can easily be worked out and hope that MCOPA will work with GOAL and other stakeholders to balance the two needs. In this state Second Amendment rights always seem to be an afterthought at best, and it would be a shame to have an environment where gun owners are afraid to open the door, acknowledge their presence in the home, or take to the roads with a collection of firearms in an emergency out of fear of a old fashioned gun grab (like that seen in NOLA), for no other reason than some bad weather (again, not for a lawful confiscation from prohibited individuals such as 209A "recipients", etc) or other unfortunate temporary circumstance. It seems it would be in everybody's best interest to have everyone welcome police presence and communication in an emergency and this bill, or one of it's type, would help that interest, while continuing to preserve constitutionally protected rights.

 

[Coyote33]

Does anyone here have the wording of the re-redone bill which makes everyone happy?

From the other thread on this:

What GOAL should do is encourage someone to submit it as an amendment on the senate (house?) floor, to the pandemic bill. They can sell this rider as one way to gain a wider acceptance of the pandemic bill. This pandemic bill is most likely going to go through anyhow, and this amendment can just ride along. I don't think putting it into the "MA Gun Reform" omnibus bill is going to help its chances or speed of getting passed. Putting into the VERY pending pandemic bill will do that.

 

[Coyote33]

bump (merge with other "Katrina" posts?)


edit: In answer to my own question, here is the bill as it currently stands:

SENATE DOCKET, NO. 1210 FILED ON: 1/7/2009

SENATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 964



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

_______________

PRESENTED BY:

Moore, Richard (SEN)

_______________

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General
Court assembled:

The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the passage of the accompanying bill:

An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency

_______________

PETITION OF:



Name:


District/Address:

Moore, Richard (SEN)


Worcester and Norfolk

George N. Peterson, Jr.


9th Worcester

Stephen M. Brewer


Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire and Franklin

Bradley H. Jones, Jr.


20th Middlesex

Geraldo Alicea


6th Worcester

Bruce E. Tarr


First Essex and Middlesex

Michael O. Moore


Second Worcester

Todd M. Smola


1st Hampden



[SIMILAR MATTER FILED IN PREVIOUS SESSION
SEE SENATE, NO. S01401 OF 2007-2008.]

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

_______________

In the Year Two Thousand and Nine

_______________




An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 140 of the Massachusetts General Laws shall be amended by adding the following section;

Section 129E. Prohibiting the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms.

No government official or any person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall order the confiscation of, or otherwise cause the confiscation of, any lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition.

No law enforcement officer, person acting as a law enforcement officer, or other public official shall confiscate or attempt to confiscate any lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition.

Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to a civil fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 for each firearm unlawfully confiscated or by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than two and one-half years.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit the confiscation of a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition from any person who;

(a) Has been placed under arrest;

(b) Who is the subject of a protection order issued under Chapter 209A;

(c) Has had their Firearm Identification Card or License to Carry revoked or suspended.