yanici
NES Member
I wonder if Senator Timilty would like a copy for his committee to read? It might be better if it came from GOAL or someone that has some connection. It certainly would enlighten them on where the chiefs are coming from on 2259.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
This...It's really simple.
If they can't tell you RIGHT NOW what would make a suitable person, they ultimately wish the power to discriminate. Either you can define what is unsuitable or you are looking for some manner to judge different people by different standards.
Evidently not worried enough.Chief Glidden has been warning chiefs about such abusive practices backfiring on them for years.
I do not recall MCOPA providing a formal forum for his warnings, however. I think 2259, coming on the heels of Coakley's crushing defeat (remember MCOPA backed her) has them worried.
In some cases those chiefs or licensing officers
were replaced by people whose views were 180 degrees
different and those communities started issuing unrestricted
licenses. Some chiefs who made that change look back and
wonder what all the fuss was about. No change in gun crimes,
and no wild west. Nothing changed except those licensing
officials have fewer headaches because they chose not to
fight that particular battle.
If your community
Umm...speak for yourselves, you lawless pricks. We're not cops, so we actually care about law and order. Those of us law-abiding citizens with restricted licenses do not carry because the law prohibits it.MCOPA said:But as most law enforcement officers know, a person with a restricted LTC or for that matter an unlicensed person who is adamant about carrying a concealed weapon is going to carry regardless of a restriction.
This may include a
criminal record where no conviction exists, the affidavit from
a vacated restraining order, internal police records like
protective custody where there is no BOP or III record,
failure to cooperate in a police investigation
Which can sometimes be described as "Exercising one's 5th amendment right to remain silent when questioned about a crime" - see Godfrey .v. Wellesley where exactly this form of non-cooperation was found by the district and appellate courts as a valid reason to revoke an LTC.failure to cooperate in a police investigation
Actually, it is - though on the job carry without a license is still allowed.A restraining order is not grounds for a police officer to lose their license.
A restraining order is not grounds for a police officer to lose their license. Why should it be for normal citizens? And as we all know, failure to cooperate in a police investigation means that you didn't allow the cops to illegally search your house, car, person etc, or wanting to speak with your lawyer before making a statement.
.
They are coaching the "team" to behave, so the legislation doesn't get passed.
First best: no license at all. If you are not in prison, you can buy, sell, and carry concealed or open. Done. Anything else is inferior. And allowing a chief to decide whether someone is suitable is a horrible idea. Much better is the common practice in free states of making carry licenses shall-issue. And that's for carry, not for mere possession as required in Mass.
If they can't tell you RIGHT NOW what would make a suitable person, they ultimately wish the power to discriminate. Either you can define what is unsuitable or you are looking for some manner to judge different people by different standards.
No. The CHIEF does not decide suitability, the board does. The chief only puts it on the table, and had better have good reason.
This is all about power. And thinking that power bases like CoPs will voluntarily surrender power is simply naive.
A criminal record shouldn't exist if there's no guilty plea and no conviction. If the person is acquitted, no criminal record should remain.
I'll go along with everything except for convicted violent offenders. I've seen way too many repeat offenders. Sure, ask me for citation, the prisons are filled with them.
I would be very interested to see a break down of the race & social/financial status of the people who are getting restricted, denied, B-rammed or otherwise deemed [STRIKE]untermensch[/STRIKE] "unsuitable." For some reason, I'm willing to bet that lilly white faces in good neighborhoods get a lot less scrutiny than poor minorities in Dorchester do.
I would be very interested to see a break down of the race & social/financial status of the people who are getting restricted, denied, B-rammed or otherwise deemed [STRIKE]untermensch[/STRIKE] "unsuitable." For some reason, I'm willing to bet that lilly white faces in good neighborhoods get a lot less scrutiny than poor minorities in Dorchester do.
This newsletter makes it obvious that one or more people at MCOPA lurk here on NES.
MANY of them are lurking here, and some new "interpretations" are (I'm convinced, but have no proof) a direct result of some things posted on NES.
That data would indeed be interesting, but may not be as telling as you'd like it to be. First, I don't believe any of the useful data is captured by MIRCS. Social/financial status certainly isn't and "complexion" is as close to race as you're going to get.
Secondly, the number of permits issued vs. denied is misleading as I suspect many people are just simply discouraged from applying in the first place or are denied upfront without ever submitting an application.
However, some data like this from Cali might be interesting in MA if it should that communities with a relatively high minority minority population also don't issue permits.
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/ccwdata.html
I don't buy that. I think race has nothing to do with 'suitability'. Its a matter of town not race/demographics. For example why is Hamilton black and Lynn green?
You're right, and it sickens me.
That the exercise of a fundamental right is subjected to the whim and caprice of 351 different and changing standards, created by 351 different and changing chiefs, is inherently "arbitrary and capricious" - and, therefore, inherently unjust.
I thought Ron was on our side. From what I`ve read in the newsletter he supports the Chiefs right to continue issuing "restricted" licenses based on their bias towards citizens carrying concealed weapons.
But he fights a losing battle with many chiefs who believe that they need to be King and set all the rules.
Unsuitability should be determined by past behavior;
preferably that has been documented. This may include a
criminal record where no conviction exists, the affidavit from
a vacated restraining order, internal police records like
protective custody where there is no BOP or III record,
failure to cooperate in a police investigation, and mental health
issues (suicide attempts, etc.) where there is no DMH record
or other statutory disqualification. While denial for suitability
is not required in any of these cases, it is an option for the
chief who believes the applicant is unsuitable. Suitability
should be determined on a case-by-case basis and not by a
blanket policy. Each case and circumstance affecting
suitability may be different. Keep in mind that a person denied
for suitability may still be eligible to receive an FID Card.
Suitability SHOULD NOT be determined by an applicant
meeting or failing to meet a condition not required by statute
but imposed but the local licensing authority.
I don't buy that. I think race has nothing to do with 'suitability'. Its a matter of town not race/demographics. For example why is Hamilton black and Lynn green?
Basically, they advocate EXACTLY what H2259 would legislate.
Ron is NOT on our side.
However, he is an advocate of LTC-A/NO restrictions ONLY . . . you either get a "real license" or NONE (under chief's discretion). He doesn't believe in adding additional requirements either. But he fights a losing battle with many chiefs who believe that they need to be King and set all the rules.
I am not sure what "our side" consists of. A wide range of positions have been asserted as to licensing, up to and including "if you're not in prison you should be eligible," which I consider not merely absurd, but blatantly irresponsible. The mere fact that one is not presently incarcerated is hardly proof of suitability - as the recidivism rate for parolees so eloquently attests.
The bottom line is that the article was written FOR a chiefs' organization by a chief and the counsel to the chiefs' organization. Expecting a "shall issue" position from such a source is, to be charitable, unrealistic. ALL organizations seek, first and foremost, to protect their power; MCOPA is no different.
In THIS state, with its virulently anti-gun laws, law makers and chiefs, such a fair and forthright position is Enlightenment. IF the bully chiefs would adopt the policies set forth in the article, the bulk of the abuses we suffer from would immediately cease.
IF............
IF the bully chiefs would adopt the policies set forth in the article, the bulk of the abuses we suffer from would immediately cease.
IF............
I do not prefer "adoption" as you put it, but the legislation H.2259.
A wide range of positions have been asserted as to licensing, up to and including "if you're not in prison you should be eligible," which I consider not merely absurd, but blatantly irresponsible. The mere fact that one is not presently incarcerated is hardly proof of suitability - as the recidivism rate for parolees so eloquently attests.