New Boston, NH Police Chief abuses power Update Post #704

Half Cocked said:
namedpipes said:
The Constitution is quite clear - Thou shalt not take property without a warrant.
Click to expand...
WRONG!
Click to expand...

huh

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty cut and dried to me, but perhaps my advantage is having no legal background. Just common sense...
 
cevtv said:
Sorry, but the way I see it, this "gov't agent" IS a thug.
Click to expand...

Skald said:
Ok, can understand that aspect. But to think that the case may not revolve around the 4A is bit premature. There is an argument as to who has possession of said firearms, which is a clearly dealing with property, and the CLEO possibly coming in and obtaining property under unusual means and motives.
Click to expand...

MrTwigg said:
The fourth ammendment was set into place specifically to keep government agents in check.
Click to expand...

Putting it all together:
The Fourth Amendment was set into place to keep government thugs in check.

(or at least that could be one interpretation)
 
Last edited:
Half Cocked said:
WRONG!
Click to expand...

Our politicians, police and government agents are so used to IGNORING the Constitution that HC seems to think he is right. I don't care what you think is being currently done by LE and the courts it is against the Constitutional rights of our citizens. You just ignore that fact and do it anyway.
 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

Lets parse this for plain English.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Means: Nobody can search you or or your property, or take your things,

and no Warrants shall issue

Means: without a warrant

, but upon probable cause,

Means: based on an immediate danger and belief "this is the guy"

supported by Oath or affirmation,

Means: based on the sworn statement [and evidence]

and particularly describing the place to be searched,

Means: the agent can only search where the warrant specifies

and the persons or things to be seized.

Means: the agent can take only what the warrant specifies.


Is the above perfectly accurate? Probably not.

Is the above "as currently practiced" in law? I seriously doubt it.

Is the above how any reasonably bright and ethical person might interpret the original statement? I think so.
 
cstockwell said:
Our politicians, police and government agents are so used to IGNORING the Constitution that HC seems to think he is right. I don't care what you think is being currently done by LE and the courts it is against the Constitutional rights of our citizens. You just ignore that fact and do it anyway.
Click to expand...

Go back and read what was quoted and then go back and read the fourth amendment and get back to me.[rolleyes]
 
Half Cocked said:
Go back and read what was quoted and then go back and read the fourth amendment and get back to me.[rolleyes]
Click to expand...

You can roll your eyes all you want. You are splitting hairs regarding laws that go against our Constitution and should have never been passed in the first place. I have read this whole thread a few times and your posts are trying to claim the CLEO was within his "legal" rights. You guys bitch about "criminals" who get off using loopholes in the law but use the same types of loopholes and Unconstitutional/illegal laws for your own benefit. Just because a state or federal law is created does not make it legal in the eyes of our Constitution and what was intended by the founders of this country. I won't turn this into a LEO bashing thread but you prove the point most of us make about most LEOs...even when you are wrong you think you are right and push that on everyone else.

And another thing...your comparison of apples to apples in regards to the thug and government agency has no merit. The issue has NOTHING to do with whether or not it was a thug or a government agency that disregards a citizen's 4th amendment rights. The rights BELONG to that citizen and should not be infringed upon by any person, agent or agency. Plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Half Cocked - This country would be a hell hole to live in if it were not for the efforts of our local and state law enforcement and our national defense that make this (IMO) the best place in the world to live. I don't want you to think that I / We do not understand that.

MY issue is with the limits on that power that were very properly set in place over 200 years ago and seem (IMO) to be steadily dwindling away.

Thank you for the good services that you and you colleagues do, but at the same time, respect those limits and the reasons they were put in place.
 
MrTwigg said:
The fourth ammendment was set into place specifically to keep government agents in check.
Click to expand...
Half Cocked said:
Correct... which is what I stated. The first example given was not about a Govt agent hence my reply.
Click to expand...

Good point, it was early and I was still on my first cuppa joe. Your example was about a common thug.

However, cstockwell & namedpipes also make valid points.

cstockwell said:
You guys bitch about "criminals" who get off using loopholes in the law but use the same types of loopholes and Unconstitutional/illegal laws for your own benefit. Just because a state or federal law is created does not make it legal in the eyes of our Constitution and what was intended by the founders of this country.
Click to expand...

namedpipes said:
MY issue is with the limits on that power that were very properly set in place over 200 years ago and seem (IMO) to be steadily dwindling away.

Thank you for the good services that you and you colleagues do, but at the same time, respect those limits and the reasons they were put in place.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cstockwell said:
I won't turn this into a LEO bashing thread but you prove the point most of us make about most LEOs...even when you are wrong you think you are right and push that on everyone else.
Click to expand...

What have I been wrong about that I have pushed on others?

And another thing...your comparison of apples to apples in regards to the thug and government agency has no merit. The issue has NOTHING to do with whether or not it was a thug or a government agency that disregards a citizen's 4th amendment rights. The rights BELONG to that citizen and should not be infringed upon by any person, agent or agency. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Umm.... the whole Constitution has to do with the actions of the "Government" . So comparing a street thug and a Government agent in the context of the 4th Amendment is quite relevant.
 
Maybe I am wrong, but this is NOT about a CRIMINAL and having a warrant to search and seize evidence of a CRIME. This is about a PRIVATE CITIZEN having government officials raid and seize property from his possession and threaten him with incarceration if he resists.

This is completely about an abuse of power. MFLR committed NO crime, it had NO warrant served on it.

please help me understand how anyone can actually stand with a straight face and defend the actions of the COP in this matter?
 
Half Cocked said:
What have I been wrong about that I have pushed on others?
Click to expand...
I believe you are wrong because according to what the OP has stated the chief told him he had a court order retrieve said firearms. He did not provide a court order that stated he was to retrieve them from OP's business directly...only from defendant. He used this ambiguous "court order" to threaten arrest or seizure of the OP for failure to comply to an order that was not issued against him or his business. I am aware that you state that you are not condoning this act by the chief and that is great. However, there is an issue of possession of firearms at a licensed FFL. If I were to purchase a non-MA compliant firearm out of state and have it shipped to an FFL from a seller unaware of the MA AG lists who would legally have ownership of this firearm? It can not be transferred to me. I have purchased and "own" this firearm but it is the FFL responsibility and has it in his possession. Wouldn't a court order to retrieve this firearm have to be filed against the FFL?



Half Cocked said:
Umm.... the whole Constitution has to do with the actions of the "Government" . So comparing a street thug and a Government agent in the context of the 4th Amendment is quite relevant.
Click to expand...
Yes that is correct. Technically you have a point regarding the comparison. In this case, however, this CLEO acted more like a street thug hiding behind a badge. There are many out there.
 
Last edited:
So, is this filthy little POS Gemme Mini-Me feeling the heat yet? And, where's that POS RP at?[rofl]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Chief+in+crosshairs+of+firearms+coalition&articleId=8db07327-69ec-442b-a239-fa83f833f136

NEW BOSTON – The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition has taken aim at New Boston Police Chief Christopher L. Krajenka, claiming he improperly altered the state's license to carry application.

The nonprofit gun advocacy group has taken issue with a page on the New Boston Police Web site that asks applicants to provide the phone numbers of three references on the state's pistol and revolver license application. The instructions also prohibited the applicant's family members from serving as references.

The state application, which is available on the New Hampshire Department of Safety Web site, asks for the names and mailing addresses of three references, but does not ask for phone numbers. There is no language on the application barring family members from serving as references.

Early this week, the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition sent letters to all registered voters in New Boston, arguing that the town's license requirements went beyond those required by RSA 159:6, the state statute that allows local selectmen, mayors, police chiefs and designated police officers to issue pistol and revolver licenses.

Calls to the New Hampshire State Police Permits and Licensing Unit for clarification on the law were not immediately returned yesterday.

Jonathan Evans, an attorney and president of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, said alterations to the state's pistol and revolver application are not allowed under New Hampshire law.

"Once you allow a chief to amend a state application, then the amendments "¦ where does it stop? Do you need a DNA sample?" Evans asked. "You have to have uniformity. I remember living in Massachusetts, where each little town was its own fiefdom and a chief in one town may give you a license while the chief in another may not."

Chief Krajenka said yesterday the application was within the bounds of the law.

"We didn't add any stipulations," Krajenka said. "We ask for phone numbers to call the references. That's what we're supposed to do."

Krajenka declined to comment further.

On Wednesday afternoon, instructions prohibiting family members from serving as references had been removed from the New Boston Police Web site. Krajenka acknowledged the removal, and said he was previously unaware that the stipulation had been placed on the site.

The accusations against Krajenka come at a time of intense scrutiny for the chief, who has come under fire for the way he handled a Jan. 27 gun seizure at the Manchester Line Firing Range.

On Jan. 31, the New Hampshire Sunday News reported that Krajenka had seized nine guns from the firing range on a domestic violence order against a New Boston man. The firing range owner, Jim McLoud, has claimed that the guns were under consignment and belonged to him. McLoud has since filed a writ of replevin to have the guns returned to him.

The incident prompted the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition to denounce Krajenka's actions on its own Web site, and put a microscope on the chief.

"When we heard about that, we started looking into New Boston," said Alan Rice, the coalition's treasurer. "And quite frankly, the chief's a scofflaw."

The coalition's letter asks New Boston voters to bring their concerns about Krajenka to the New Boston Board of Selectmen.

"Chief Krajenka needs to be reminded that he is a servant of the people and not their master," the letter states. "He needs to know that he is subject to the rule of law just like everyone else."

A memo accompanying the letter asks voters to sign a petition that the coalition will send to the town's selectmen. The petition insists that Krajenka "change his ways and treat all residents with respect."

The memo also gives voters the option to make a donation to the coalition.

Dave Woodbury, chairman of the New Boston Board of Selectmen, declined to comment on the letter, which he had himself received in the mail.

"We're hearing accusations but at this point in time I don't know what the true facts are," Woodbury said.

Woodbury said a March 1 Board of Selectmen's meeting will serve as a forum on Krajenka, who is also facing a resident-led petition to have him removed as police chief.

"It will be for anyone who wants to say something positive, negative, or in-between about the chief," Woodbury said.
Click to expand...
 
tele_mark said:
So, is this filthy little POS Gemme Mini-Me feeling the heat yet? And, where's that POS RP at?[rofl]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Chief+in+crosshairs+of+firearms+coalition&articleId=8db07327-69ec-442b-a239-fa83f833f136
Woodbury said a March 1 Board of Selectmen's meeting will serve as a forum on Krajenka, who is also facing a resident-led petition to have him removed as police chief.

"It will be for anyone who wants to say something positive, negative, or in-between about the chief," Woodbury said.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sounds like there is going to be a little party in New Boston. Wonder how many residents will attend.
 
Well...

I dropped my letter off the the town administrator detailing my experience renewing my concealed weapons permit. Aside from being told it must not be family members and that I have to put down phone numbers...

I submitted my application on November 3rd. My birthday is November 19th. RSA 159:6 in New Hampshire clearly states that I must get my license in 14 days and if denied, detailed as to why in writing. My birthday came and went and my license expired. I had to call them on the 23rd of November to find out where my license was. I was told it was "just put in the mail", with no sorry or explanation as to why the delay. I receive it on the 24th.

I was clearly without a license and had to remove my gun from my truck and on my person since I did not have a license due to their unlawful delay.

Actually they pre-dated my license and says the 20th, but even that stated day was over the 14 day time frame that state law allows. I gave them a copy of my CCW Permit with the dates on it, a copy of my canceled check, the day it was written and the day it was cashed (written on the 3rd, and cashed on the 24th) clearly marked. I also gave them a copy of the RSA.

Simply put if I was to break a state law, our chief probably wouldn't hesitate to put me in cuffs as he has threatened members on this board exactly just that. But when HE clearly breaks state law... What is our recourse as a simple citizen?

I realize that what happened to me probably isn't a big deal in the great scheme of things. But playing on what if's... What IF something happened and I was without a license due to an unlawful delay? I did everything right on my end, and just because it all worked out in their favor doesn't mean it was right or ok.

Carter
New Boston, NH

PS, checking my references for a renewal? Come on... Seriously? I even have an FFL C&R and have to send a letter to the police chief stating such every time I renew that. He's GOT to know who I am, so I can only imagine a delay must have been personal. Either that or a total lack of respect and disregard for the law.
 
Last edited:
This guy sounds like he has some serious issues. Did daddy beat him as a child? Or was he bullied around as a child? He seems to push people around through the abuse of his power.

I'd love to see this guy in real life and see how he fairs in social interactions. I'm sure it's just about as sick as it gets.
 
It is said that there is a fine line between cop and criminal.

Many appear to be folks that either; like to be giving orders, or will beat up those who give them.

This guy sounds like that type of person.
 
flintoid said:
This guy sounds like he has some serious issues. Did daddy beat him as a child? Or was he bullied around as a child? He seems to push people around through the abuse of his power.

I'd love to see this guy in real life and see how he fairs in social interactions. I'm sure it's just about as sick as it gets.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he was shoved into lockers. Most of these guys have Napoleonic complexes.
 
HTRN said:
It is said that there is a fine line between cop and criminal.
Click to expand...
Quippy sound bite that sounds good in Robert Parker Novels, but in my experience does not reflect reality.

That's not to say that people who choose that line of work are always "typical", but to suggest that the vast majority of them are anything close to the mentality of a typical criminal is entirely wrong.

Bad eggs in every profession of course...
 
So, not only is he a prick, but he's very likely entirely dirty.

Someone should find his address and post it. Let's see if the chief likes a whole ton of really well armed people knowing where he lives. Maybe it'll keep him a smidge more honest.

The Jersey way doesn't work in NH, Chief.

It's high time we start cleaning house of the corruption in the system. We don't have it too bad in NH, but's it's still the same cancer that's everywhere. And it's growing.
 

Similar threads

New Orleans Police Chief Pushes More Gun-Free Zones — Where Tourists Can’t Be Armed for Self-Defense
Replies
21
Views
365
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
767
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
  • Poll
NH - Governor's race
Replies
17
Views
487
Grendizer138
Grendizer138
Police Officers Firearm, New York Post
Replies
10
Views
757
powerman
powerman
Additional new caselaw affirms: the police and the courts believe cops are allowed to kill people
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
1K
ThePreBanMan
ThePreBanMan
Back
Top Bottom