MA Police Chiefs blocking 'Katrina' legislation

[hminsky]

Katrina Bill Enactment Held Up -

As GOAL members are aware, the Massachusetts version of the Katrina legislation S.1401 "An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During the State of Emergency", was engrossed by the House and Senate in the final hours of the formal session. We did inform our members that the bill would still need to be enacted during an informal session and that enactment is normally a formality, but we would have to watch it closely. Under the rules of the legislature, during an informal session it only takes one legislator to object to any action being taken.

We regret to report to our members that the enactment of S.1401 has been held up. Several legislators have reported to us that the Mass. Chiefs of Police Association has been lobbying hard to have the bill stopped.

The Chief's Association has given several reasons why they believe the bill should not be passed. The following are some of those reasons that have been passed on to GOAL:

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."

GOAL is urging our members to contact the House Speaker's Office (617-722-2500) and the Senate President's Office (617-722-1500) and ask them to enact S.1401. Georgia, Alaska, Idaho, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Missouri, Texas, Arizona, Montana, Tennessee, Nevada, Delaware, Oregon, California, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Utah have all passed this legislation, there is no reason why Massachusetts shouldn't.

GOAL would also suggest that our members contact their local chiefs to ask them what their stance on the bill is and if they have any legitimate concerns



Angela/GOAL
Gun Owners' Action League

The Police Chiefs would like the power to confiscate people's firearms in an emergency. I thought it was the whole "best judgement" problem that
caused the New Orleans police to disarm lawful gun owners.
Who do these guys work for anyway?

 

[Scrivener]

The Police Chiefs would like the power to confiscate people's firearms in an emergency. I thought it was the whole "best judgement" problem that
caused the New Orleans police to disarm lawful gun owners.
Who do these guys work for anyway?

Themselves and their further aggrandizement.

With YOUR money.

 

[weerwolv]

Had to look that one up. Oh so true though.


Aggrandizement

n.

The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation.
selfaggrandizing self'-ag·gran'diz'ing (-ə-grăn'dī'zĭng) adj.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Big Surprise....It's the "Only Ones" at it again. When are we going to wake up and realize that we pay these jerkoffs?



Update 4:30. I called my reps and registered my outrage at this perversion of authority. Don't feel a whole lot better.

 

[LoginName]

Dirty rotten c**k s*****s probably got their law enforcement training and schooling in Central America or Eastern Europe.

 

[HangEmHigh]

I just spoke to the House Speaker's office, Senate President's office (a female I found out), Sen Tolman's office and Rep. Brownsberger's office. All were very helpful.

 

[drumenigma]

Someone enlighten me as to how a chief is acting in his best judgement in disarming a law abiding citizen of his means to protect himself during a crisis?

 

[News Shooter]

Please forgive me for making a statement of the obvious, but police chiefs are appointed by mayors and city councils. And what are mayors and city councilors?

That's right, they are politicians.

I am fairly certain that in many towns prospective chiefs must pass a series of questions, including their position on firearms ownership. In order to get the job and then keep it, they have to conform to whatever the local hacks say.

I know there are exceptions, but that is the only explanation. That's why the National Police Chief's Association is anti-2nd Amendment.

It's just the way it is.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

ecuse my language, but those guys are f***ing a**h***s. every one of them.

 

[hminsky]

I guess what is killing me here is for christ's sake, the *reason* this bill is being proposed is *because* the police f***ed up so badly in New Orleans, and this law was a reaction to the unconstitutional behavior the police engaged in when they used their "best judgement". The undebatable result was a shameful stripping of citizens of their civil rights. Hence the need for this law. The police must be *expected* to object, otherwise we wouldn't need the stupid law.

 

[WayneWong]

ecuse my language, but those guys are f***ing a**h***s. every one of them.

This is their political association to advance their political agenda. We mean sh*t to them when our interests are contrary to theirs. There can't be more than 300 or 350 in the organization, yet they seem to have no problem screwing over we in GOAL. Maybe because they're <drumroll> Chiefs of Police <end drumroll> and we are just the unwashed masses that they have to keep away from the Crate and Barrel crowd.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

MA Police Chiefs blocking 'Katrina' legislation

Wow, there's a surprise!

 

[Raoul Duke]

This can't be a surprise to anyone paying attention.


Water's getting warmer gentlemen. Can you feel it?

 

[Navy Moose]

I am very glad I'm going to be leaving this state.

 

[greycar]

Its likely that these heavy-badged bullies would get away with grabbing our guns so long as Commonwealth v. Davis is the controlling law. Maybe we could have a hope of suing them and prevailing if Heller is incorporated against the States.
GC

 

[Xak]

Well, I called my Rep and urged him to vote for it, think he did. Now who do I (we) call?

 

[Palladin]

ecuse my language, but those guys are f***ing a**h***s. every one of them.

+1 ditto

 

[Coyote33]

The Police Chiefs would like the power to confiscate people's firearms in an emergency. I thought it was the whole "best judgement" problem that
caused the New Orleans police to disarm lawful gun owners.
Who do these guys work for anyway?

The Chief's Association has given several reasons why they believe the bill should not be passed. The following are some of those reasons that have been passed on to GOAL:

• 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.

  
  Isn't that the point?
  
  

• What if an officer is acting under their best judgment?

  
  What if civilians act under THEIR "best judgement"? Do we get a mulligan too?
  
  

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

  
  Does this mean a restraining order? I think the bill is worded so it is only under a declared state of emergency. No?
  
  

• This bill would prevent Chiefs from revoking licenses.

  
  Again, this is the point.
  
  

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

  
  I don't know about this one. Maybe a clarification could be made.

Please forgive me for making a statement of the obvious, but police chiefs are appointed by mayors and city councils. And what are mayors and city councilors?

That's right, they are politicians.

I am fairly certain that in many towns prospective chiefs must pass a series of questions, including their position on firearms ownership. In order to get the job and then keep it, they have to conform to whatever the local hacks say.
...

Well, maybe this opens the door as a way to address the issue. Remember, "All politics is local".




MODERATOR: PLEASE, merge this thread onto the end of the other one on the same subject!

 

[Len-2A Training]

Color me a bit confused on the bill's status.

Scriv reported that it is DEAD! I did believe him. [I may not always agree with him, but he usually has his facts straight.]

Now GOAL says it is DELAYED.

??

Is there really some hope that they won't kill it? or that it isn't procedurally dead?

 

[terraformer]

Color me a bit confused on the bill's status.

Scriv reported that it is DEAD! I did believe him. [I may not always agree with him, but he usually has his facts straight.]

Now GOAL says it is DELAYED.

??

Is there really some hope that they won't kill it? or that it isn't procedurally dead?

Based on my reading of the GOAL email, they are both right. It is dead in that someone procedurally blocked it so it could go no further. But it could be revived as a new bill and revoted on in the new session, which to me is basically starting over again from scratch because it requires a new general assembly and senate vote.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Based on my reading of the GOAL email, they are both right. It is dead in that someone procedurally blocked it so it could go no further. But it could be revived as a new bill and revoted on in the new session, which to me is basically starting over again from scratch because it requires a new general assembly and senate vote.

If that is the case, the new session starts after the elections, so spinning our wheels now is not the most productive use of our time.

 

[terraformer]

If that is the case, the new session starts after the elections, so spinning our wheels now is not the most productive use of our time.

I think what they are hoping for is the one person who held it up, will remove that block and it can go forward in the special session. I think they are really thinking wishfully at this point since I am betting there are 6 more just waiting to take that person's place. But at any rate, it at least says to folks, hey, this is ticking off the electorate and they will remember that next time around when it comes up again.

 

[hminsky]

Well, I contacted both of the phone numbers given, and left a message that I wanted to see this bill move forward if at all possible.

I'll have to depend on GOAL to tell us what the next step is, since I don't have the time and expertise to drag it out of our state representative (who is hostile to gun rights).

 

[Len-2A Training]

I think what they are hoping for is the one person who held it up, will remove that block and it can go forward in the special session. I think they are really thinking wishfully at this point since I am betting there are 6 more just waiting to take that person's place. But at any rate, it at least says to folks, hey, this is ticking off the electorate and they will remember that next time around when it comes up again.

Again correct!

I spoke with Nancy Snow at GOAL a little while ago.

Sitrep:

- 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".

- GOAL desires that we respectfully call our Rep/Sen and the heads of both branches to request that pressure be put to bear on those holding it up to "do the right thing".

- If they get enough constituent complaints about it, they might just "do the right thing" and the bill might pass.

 

[KMaurer]

- 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".

Sure, I'd go along with that ... the day that MCOPA agrees to no penalties for any citizen who uses force to resist an officer attempting to violate the law.

Ken

 

[Admin]

Ken, come on, they are more equal than us...

 

[terraformer]

Sure, I'd go along with that ... the day that MCOPA agrees to no penalties for any citizen who uses force to resist an officer attempting to violate the law.

Ken

I do get that cops don't want to be punished for breaking the law, who does. And for all the supposed cop-basher bashers, those are the facts, the CLEOs are objecting.
What I don't get is why this should have held this thing up. Presumably someone heard this issue before the vote and why stand on ceremony to get the punishments to be felonies. When was the last time a govt employee was punished for executing their job as they saw it. How many towns overcharged on FID/LTC licensing fees? Now how many were punished? 0. Whoever wrote the bill should have converted it to misdemeanors or fines and call it a day. The big benefit of this law was to have recourse for getting the weapons back and perhaps more importantly to make folks like you and I more comfortable about opening the door and talking to the cops during a state of emergency.
Those two benefits are worth far more than locking some cop up for confiscating a weapon he/she sees during a zombie attack, or even an overzealous CLEO who thinks the citizens are going to overrun town hall when the zombies come and goes a confiscatin'.
This all seems so short sighted.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Ken, come on, they are more equal than us...

When it comes to MCOPA, they definitely are!! They are also much more equal than their troops too!

I do get that cops don't want to be punished for breaking the law, who does. And for all the supposed cop-basher bashers, those are the facts, the CLEOs are objecting.
What I don't get is why this should have held this thing up. Presumably someone heard this issue before the vote and why stand on ceremony to get the punishments to be felonies. When was the last time a govt employee was punished for executing their job as they saw it. How many towns overcharged on FID/LTC licensing fees? Now how many were punished? 0. Whoever wrote the bill should have converted it to misdemeanors or fines and call it a day. The big benefit of this law was to have recourse for getting the weapons back and perhaps more importantly to make folks like you and I more comfortable about opening the door and talking to the cops during a state of emergency.
Those two benefits are worth far more than locking some cop up for confiscating a weapon he/she sees during a zombie attack, or even an overzealous CLEO who thinks the citizens are going to overrun town hall when the zombies come and goes a confiscatin'.
This all seems so short sighted.

I don't think that the issue is the "street cops" objecting. It is the CHIEFS who are objecting . . . they don't want to be held legally accountable for their actions (ordering their troops to do illegal acts).

Most chiefs wouldn't think twice about throwing their officers under the bus for doing illegal acts (even if the chief ordered them to do it) . . . they just don't want to suffer the same consequences personally.

I also predict that even if this passes as written, no judge in MA will sentence any chief to any jail term for violating it (when that happens). Call it "judge's discretion"!

You are correct, we never got a refund for illegal overcharging and I don't know of anyone who has. It's not worth the non-refundable filing fee to sue a chief for such indiscretions, so they got away with it.

 

[RG617]

I'm interested in finding out who exactly it is cutting farts in our church. Is no one willing to own up to it or point fingers at the ones stalling it?

 

[Raoul Duke]

Ken, we're talking about the "only ones" here...Remember your place.