Only the Police

[greycar]

Ashland officer who had gun permit pulled could get it back
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Michelle Laczkoski/Daily News staff
MetroWest Daily News
Posted Jan 08, 2009 @ 11:59 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a new state law, Ashland Police Officer Ed Pomponio could apply for a new firearms license from his chief, Scott Rohmer.

Pomponio, a Milford resident, had his license to carry a personal firearm revoked by his former boss, Milford Police Chief Thomas O'Loughlin, this week after the chief cited numerous alleged threats and harassment incidents against another cop.

Pomponio is permitted to carry his "service firearm," which was issued to him when he joined the Ashland Police Department last March, at any time, anywhere in the state.

A state law amended in July allows police chiefs to issue a license to "any law enforcement officer employed by the licensing authority." Previously, chiefs were only allowed to issue permits to town residents and individuals who own a business in town.

When asked if he would consider applying for a license from Rohmer, Pomponio said, "I'll cross that bridge when I get there."

Rohmer said yesterday he is researching the state laws about the revocation and reissuing of gun permits.

If Pomponio applies for a license in Ashland, Rohmer said he is unsure how he would react.

"He has not yet, and if he applied, I don't know what the outcome would be," Rohmer said.

Pomponio turned over his permit to Rohmer Tuesday after O'Loughlin revoked his right to carry his personal gun. A former Milford cop, Pomponio resigned from the Milford force in 2005 after being accused of having an extramarital affair while on duty.

Since that time, O'Loughlin has counted 16 incidents involving Pomponio, including one where he threatened a Milford officer and swore at a lieutenant.

"It reached a point where enough is just enough," O'Loughlin said in an interview Wednesday. "I question his suitability to be licensed to carry firearms, and I was the licensing authority."

Pomponio has denied the allegations saying he has been "painted as some type of monster and (he's) really not."

As of yesterday, the chief said Pomponio is carrying his weapon while "on badge" in Ashland and then securing it at the police station before returning home.

If he determines Pomponio can legally bring his gun home as all other officers do, Rohmer said he would "absolutely" allow it.

"I would let him bring it home ... absolutely," Rohmer said.

Local police chiefs have the authority to require officers to hold individual gun permits in addition to the state law which authorizes officers to carry firearms.

In Franklin, officers are required to apply for and obtain a personal firearms license through the state. A few years ago, a Franklin Police officer was unable to obtain a permit through the state and consequently lost his job in the department, O'Loughlin recalled.

Franklin Police Chief Stephen Williams could not be reached for comment yesterday.

In towns such as Ashland and Milford, officers are not required to obtain a separate firearms license.

"Most officers have their license, but some don't," O'Loughlin said, adding the desire to obtain a license to carry is a matter of personal preference.

Pomponio said he plans to file for a judicial hearing in Milford District Court within 90 days.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/a...un-permit-pulled-could-get-it-back?view=print


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

[drgrant]

I don't get this. IMHO if a guy is really "unsuitable" to have an LTC, should the guy really be a LEO? If this guy is a bad seed, shouldn't they try to fire him instead of resorting to petty BS? Or does the union protect them so much that it takes a felony conviction before you can fire a LEO?

I know that in the "dreaded private sector" if I harassed my co-workers, etc, I would just get fired.

-Mike

 

[DickWanner]

Did he use his firearm to threaten the said LEO and in the other 15 incidents? I think the suitability clause is utter BS either way.

Where do we draw the line at what makes someone "unsuitable" to own firearms?

 

[cekim]

Guy appears to be a douche, that's not much of an argument, but here's the thing...

CHARGE HIM, TRY HIM, CONVICT HIM - then and only then can we talk about revoking rights guaranteed by the constitution...

And yes, if he's that much of a douche, he should not be a LEO, but as unpleasant as it may be in many instances, we still operate on the presumption of innocence and I'd like to keep it that way thanks rather than acting on the whim of a LEO who might be a good person or heck, might be a douche like this guy...

I have no faith in the benevolence of dictators...

 

[cekim]

Where do we draw the line at what makes someone "unsuitable" to own firearms?

See above - its easy - its called a conviction after due process and your right to a jury trial...

It ain't pretty, but it is the only way we can balance rights and crime...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't get this. IMHO if a guy is really "unsuitable" to have an LTC, should the guy really be a LEO? If this guy is a bad seed, shouldn't they try to fire him instead of resorting to petty BS? Or does the union protect them so much that it takes a felony conviction before you can fire a LEO?

I think there is a LOT MORE here than meets the eye!

I know Tom O'Loughlin and he is about as much 100% pro-2A as you'll find out there. In no way do I think that he would be vindictive in his actions.

In legal situations they rarely tell all the info so that the public can come to a just conclusion. Then there is media bias to consider as well. How often do they get a story straight?

If the officer didn't do anything wrong in Ashland, where he works, there is no job action that Ashland can take against him that would stand up to a Civil Service appeal. CS does NOT make it easy to dismiss an officer in any case.

Extramarital affairs amongst officers is relatively common from what I've seen (regrettably), as is divorce. Most are ignored just like in any other workplace unless someone makes a stink about it. It's a morals issue, but in today's society, I wouldn't be so swift to fire someone for it (unless there was egregious activity that came down badly on the department). So he resigned from that department and moved on, I see no problem with that.

If he's cussing out some FORMER co-workers, it's in bad taste, but it might be due to some unfair treatment that occurred while he worked there (a personal issue rather than a general issue). Again, there has to be a lot more here to meet the "unsuitability" criteria before Tom would act on this officer's LTC. I'm convinced of that.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

All Pomponio has to do is leave the station in uniform, stick his personally owned firearm in the holster and OC on the way home. We need a good test case. Jack.

 

[drgrant]

I think there is a LOT MORE here than meets the eye!

I know Tom O'Loughlin and he is about as much 100% pro-2A as you'll find out there. In no way do I think that he would be vindictive in his actions.

I don't disagree with that, Len. I'm just trying to connect the dots here- eg, how can this guy do something bad enough that a chief wants to yank his LTC, yet still justify keeping him on the payroll as a LEO- and I realize it's not as simple as firing the guy, but doesn't that cause the transparency of the system to come into question here... any way you slice it, the whole thing "looks" bad- especially given that in free america, you generally have to break a serious law (and get convicted) to lose gun rights.


-Mike

 

[terraformer]

If there was ever an example of just how f'd up a subjective "suitability" test for firearms ownership was, this is it. Len, I read what you wrote but if this guy did more, then he should be charged. There are harassment statutes, correct? There are all sorts of laws in this states one can break. Charge him.

To sit here and pull his LTC when his job allows him to be armed, while providing the firearms and bullets free of charge to boot, is a bad joke. Nay, it is a incompetent joke. One where the audience cringes instead of laughs.

 

[appraiser]

I know many members of the O'laughlin family, the law enforcement background runs back generations. There are no bad apples in that family, and you guys know how suspicious I am of LEO's.

I have a problem with the whole "carry on the badge " thing. There are a lot of cops out there with 209a orders on them that still get to carry a weapon while working in a dangerous profession, something the general public does not have the luxury of doing.

somewhere out there in MA there must be a cop with a DWI conviction who is legally prohibited from gun ownership but "carries on the badge" too... the Police should not be above the law.

 

[mikem317]

All you need is that shiny piece of jewelery from the government and you can do anything you want!

 

[seanc]

Sounds like a lot going on that they are not telling us... If he is not suitable to carry a gun off duty, it would seem that he is not suitable to carry a badge or a gun.

But as it appears he has never been convicted of anything and is still on the job, something is very wrong here..So, I say innocent until proven guilty. Give him back his license. If he is fit to wear a uniform, he is fit to carry a firearm off duty.


I agree though, ONE standard, ONE law for all. Needs to be applied equally.

 

[clinotus]

Some departments require that all their officers hold a separate LTC -Class A, solely for issues of Domestic Violence, this works in conjunction with their ability to carry on the badge as the article states, however it allows the initial license yank to stand as grounds for later dismissal or review of that officer.

He could still carry a firearm on the badge, or not use the badge for carry since he is covered for carry as a full time police officer. Lot of little details are missing.

This story reads more of an Administrative smack down occurring in the background, and I'd urge people to follow the story rather than making judgment so quickly.

 

[n1zfg]

So, this guy gets canned from Milford PD and his LTC pulled after he gets accused of having an extramarital affair while on duty.

MGL Chapter 272: Section 14 lists adultery as a felony that can get you up to 3 years in prison. That would get him permanently disqualified from ever carrying as well as kicked off any police force, regardless of civil service.

He needs to get charged, tried, convicted, and categorized as human trash. If he gets off, he should be left to do his thing, along with scrutinizing oversight that should be a part of the life of every LEO while on duty.

Why the Ashland PD didn't check his employment at Milford and see if he was terminated with prejudice is beyond me. In fact, the Milford chief should have officially busted him for adultery, even if it doesn't stick, just to get that mark into the CJ system.

 

[hunter46spring]

I know Eddie Pomponio and Chief O'Laughlin. I also know the story behind the story. What it comes down to is Ed made some bad decisions but nothing illegal that would, or should, prevent him from having an LTC or from serving the people of Ashland. Chief O'Laughlin also made a bad decision in suspending Ed's LTC. If anything that Eddie is alleged to have done was criminal Chief O'Laughlin should of (and would of charged) him with the appropriate crime. Chief O'Laughlin is a smart man, an attorney as a matter of fact, he knows that nothing that occured is more than expression of free speech...It may have been inflamitory or in bad taste but not criminal.

 

[maee]

I don't get this. IMHO if a guy is really "unsuitable" to have an LTC, should the guy really be a LEO?

Sounds to me like some kind of sour, office politics. Obviously, if he was a genuine danger they would have fired him. However, looks like they yanked his LTC because he really pissed somebody off in the department.

 

[seanc]

I know Eddie Pomponio and Chief O'Laughlin. I also know the story behind the story. What it comes down to is Ed made some bad decisions but nothing illegal that would, or should, prevent him from having an LTC or from serving the people of Ashland. Chief O'Laughlin also made a bad decision in suspending Ed's LTC. If anything that Eddie is alleged to have done was criminal Chief O'Laughlin should of (and would of charged) him with the appropriate crime. Chief O'Laughlin is a smart man, an attorney as a matter of fact, he knows that nothing that occured is more than expression of free speech...It may have been inflamitory or in bad taste but not criminal.

Sounds like yet another example of why licensing should not be based on fiat of a single person. "Discretion", "Suitability", "Gut Feeling" and innuendo need to be taken out of the mix entirely.
One Cleo can get a bug up their bonnet due to a personality conflict or a what happened in second grade in the lunchroom issue and deny somebody.. Not right.

and if Adulty by a public servant is a friggin felony, when the hell are they going to send the Paddy wagon to Beacon and Capital Hill for the round up?

 

[M1911]

and if Adulty by a public servant is a friggin felony, when the hell are they going to send the Paddy wagon to Beacon and Capital Hill for the round up?

I think you missed the on duty part:

Pomponio resigned from the Milford force in 2005 after being accused of having an extramarital affair while on duty.

 

[seanc]

I think you missed the on duty part:

yes, no.. kind of sort of.. I just think that our illustrious representatives should be held to the same, if not higher standards than any and all other public servants..


I'm very ok with the idea that boffing the intern in their congressional office, while they are on the clock be a felony...

 

[M1911]

Congresscritters are never "on the clock." It is not an hourly position. They work all the time, most of it not in their office.

No, I don't agree with a Congresscritter boffing an intern, let alone defiling their office. But that is still a different situation than a cop who is supposed to be out on patrol driving over to his girlfriend's house for a quickie.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't disagree with that, Len. I'm just trying to connect the dots here- eg, how can this guy do something bad enough that a chief wants to yank his LTC, yet still justify keeping him on the payroll as a LEO-

Sorry Mike. Reading Comprehension 101 . . . His LTC is issued from Milford, he works in Ashland (now). So exactly how could the Milford Chief fire him from his job in Ashland? Inquiring minds want to know?

but if this guy did more, then he should be charged. There are harassment statutes, correct? There are all sorts of laws in this states one can break. Charge him.

There is a tremendous amount of harassment and hazing that goes on in PDs, but very few officers want to be "that one" who blows the whistle on it. I know of a number of such cases and I myself was hassled numerous times by a few bad apples while on the job. I contemplated revenge but realized that he'd always have the upper hand, so just sucked it up and moved on. I know of one case where the chief found out and two officers were disciplined, but the chief had to pull teeth to get that info.

and if Adulty by a public servant is a friggin felony, when the hell are they going to send the Paddy wagon to Beacon and Capital Hill for the round up?

Most juries wouldn't convict on the adultery statutes today, it's an obsolete law due to current "social norms". I also know of numerous cases on the job and the best that any chief could do was quietly try to get rid of one or both officers. Not good, but social reality in all areas of life . . . just watch all the politicrats apologizing for GETTING CAUGHT (not for actually being adulterers).

yes, no.. kind of sort of.. I just think that our illustrious representatives should be held to the same, if not higher standards than any and all other public servants..


I'm very ok with the idea that boffing the intern in their congressional office, while they are on the clock be a felony...

Yup and plenty of that stuff goes on on Bacon Hill, Capital Hill, etc. It's not always interns either. Regrettably just a microcosm of life in the 21st century. Unless it is taking advantage of a minor, no jury will convict, so DAs don't want to deal with it.

 

[cricco]

So, this guy gets canned from Milford PD and his LTC pulled after he gets accused of having an extramarital affair while on duty.

MGL Chapter 272: Section 14 lists adultery as a felony that can get you up to 3 years in prison. That would get him permanently disqualified from ever carrying as well as kicked off any police force, regardless of civil service.

He needs to get charged, tried, convicted, and categorized as human trash. If he gets off, he should be left to do his thing, along with scrutinizing oversight that should be a part of the life of every LEO while on duty.

Why the Ashland PD didn't check his employment at Milford and see if he was terminated with prejudice is beyond me. In fact, the Milford chief should have officially busted him for adultery, even if it doesn't stick, just to get that mark into the CJ system.

So, every guy here who has ever cheated on a spouse, or had an affair with a married person should lose his/her right to carry? OUTSTANDING idea! I will gladly accept all of your firearms now.

 

[M1911]

deleted