Police chiefs blast Healey on gun permits

[Mike508]

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061019/NEWS/610190783/1116

Thursday, October 19, 2006
Police chiefs blast Healey on gun permits

Gun group endorses proposal

By Scott J. Croteau TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]


WORCESTER— Area police chiefs are concerned that gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey will take from them an essential tool they say is needed to curb gun violence if she becomes governor and removes their right to issue gun permits.

Worcester Police Chief Gary J. Gemme said yesterday the Healey campaign had an opportunity to tell several police chiefs about her gun licensing proposal Tuesday when she spoke before the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs Association.

“Not once during that meeting did she mention that she wanted to take this discretionary authority away from police chiefs,” Chief Gemme said. “I think that speaks volumes about her commitment to public safety.”


Chief Gemme learned about the lieutenant governor’s position yesterday morning, he said. It was during the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference in Boston this week that the Healey campaign approached the MMCCA and asked for an audience with the group so Ms. Healey could speak on public safety.

Chief Gemme said he considered the proposal to remove police chiefs’ ability to issue or revoke gun licenses a huge issue, and Ms. Healey’s talk to the group an opportune time to bring it up.

Nate Little, campaign spokesman for Ms. Healey, said the proposal is to bring statewide uniformity to issuing permits.

“The goal is to have a uniform set of standards so everyone in the commonwealth is treated equally when applying for an FID (Firearm Identification) card,” he said. “The goal here is not to undermine local chiefs.”

Ms. Healey made the statement about the gun licensing proposal around the same time the Gun Owners Action League endorsed the Republican gubernatorial candidate.

Mr. Little said the proposal is still in its infancy. Several ideas include creating a police commission in the Executive Office of Public Safety to develop guidelines for the gun licensing proposal. The commission could be picked by state police chiefs, he said.

Local chiefs would be solicited for guideline ideas and a statewide panel would make the decision on whether someone would be granted a gun permit, Mr. Little said. Local chiefs would be able to speak in front of the panel to say whether someone should or should not receive a gun license.

Chief Gemme instituted a new gun license policy more than a year ago in the city stricter than the state’s law. The state bans felons from getting gun permits. Chief Gemme considers anyone unsuitable who was arrested for a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of more than two years, any drug arrest, any driving-under-the-influence arrest, other alcohol-related arrests, or affiliation with gang members.

Anyone arrested on charges of committing physical violence or threatening to commit violence, or anyone involved in a domestic violence incident that results in the issuance of a restraining order would also be banned under the chief’s policy.

Chief Gemme’s policy earned the backing of the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association, which has argued that the chief has the authority to determine the suitability of a person and has the right to set standards for his own community.

Democratic candidate Deval L. Patrick, who sat down with Worcester police two weeks ago, earned the backing of Chief Gemme. Mr. Patrick has proposed adding 1,000 police officers in the state and is committed to funding police, the chief said.

“How can’t I support a candidate that has that kind of agenda versus a candidate who was going to strip us of one of our tools,” the Chief Gemme said.

Leicester Police Chief James J. Hurley and Hudson Police Chief Richard A. Braga said local police departments know their communities and residents and whether someone should be carrying a firearm.

“There is no statewide organization that knows my community or its members like my licensing officer and the other members of the Police Department,” Chief Hurley said.

The local officers can spot if someone is having problems such as alcohol or drug abuse or if a domestic situation is getting out of hand, Chief Hurley said. Local police aware of the situation can call in the permitted person and talk to him or her.

“It is a step backward and people would slip through the cracks that otherwise might not,” Chief Hurley said of Ms. Healey’s proposal.

When a person fills out a permit, the local department reviews it and checks it. The department then sends it to the state for review, Chief Hurley said. The state already has a number of checks and balances in place, he added.

Some people applying for a gun permit might have no record and appear to be a good candidate, but their agenda might be devious, Chief Gemme said. The Police Department has experienced this when gang members recruit someone to buy a gun.

That gun essentially becomes a community firearm used by the gang members, Chief Gemme said. His gang unit and other officers might know the person applying for the permit has friends in gangs, but the state panel won’t, he said.

What burns my @$$ about the argument that police chiefs know who the bad guys are, thus, they should be the firearms-license issuing authority, is that, for the most part, they don't even know where specific freakin' streets are in their own city or town.

 

[daceman63]

Some people applying for a gun permit might have no record and appear to be a good candidate, but their agenda might be devious, Chief Gemme said. The Police Department has experienced this when gang members recruit someone to buy a gun.

That gun essentially becomes a community firearm used by the gang members, Chief Gemme said. His gang unit and other officers might know the person applying for the permit has friends in gangs, but the state panel won’t, he said.

Then they might have to trace the gun and arrest someone as they broke the law....god forbid.

 

[Admin]

Gemme is a f*cking tool. Plain and simple. He a power hungry enemy of the constitution...

And this statement.

“There is no statewide organization that knows my community or its members like my licensing officer and the other members of the Police Department,” Chief Hurley said.

They know their community? When I went to the Spencer PD they didn't know who the hell I was. Give me a break...

Worcester and Boston both don't issue ALP, and guess what? They both have violent crime that is out of control...

Let me say this again Chief Gemme is a complete moron and a coward...

 

[Admin]

And in typical liberal fashion, they are trying to scare the sheeple in to voting for Patrick... The sky is falling...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'm surprised that it took the MCOPA this long to bitch!

Creating a new board to vote on EVERY LTC issuance will likely make the process take 6 months or more for everyone! NOT a good solution. Sounds like Healey's idea is half-baked at best! Doing what they already do for NR LTCs is the most sensible way to do it and it works. Input from chiefs should be the exception (if s/he KNOWS something significant about an applicant) to the process . . . just like the C&R FFL process.

If they go head-to-head against MCOPA this entire proposal is DOA! Making any changes in the process affecting the dictatorial chief's process would be exceptionally difficult to get thru anyway.

 

[Scrivener]

If Gemme is against it, how can it be wrong?

 

[Mike508]

They know their community? When I went to the Spencer PD they didn't know who the hell I was.

And that's the way it should be! If you are a law-abiding citizen, there's no reason that a police chief should have a clue as to who you are. If you never come up on the radar, why would they know you? Conversely, if they know who you are and you're a law-abiding citizen, why in the hell are they wasting their time on you and not on the criminals in their district?

 

[JonJ]

So set it up like the BATFE. They get C&R licenses out in 1-2 months for a whole country! The COP gets a copy of the application in case he knows something pertinent about the applicant.
In this case, Massachusetts can learn something from the Feds.

 

[sdavid]

Thursday, October 19, 2006
Police chiefs blast Healey on gun permits

Gun group endorses proposal

By Scott J. Croteau TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]


WORCESTER— Area police chiefs are concerned that gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey will take from them an essential tool they say is needed to curb gun violence if she becomes governor and removes their right to issue gun permits.

Last I read issuing a permit that violates rights is not a right


Worcester Police Chief Gary J. Gemme said yesterday the Healey campaign had an opportunity to tell several police chiefs about her gun licensing proposal Tuesday when she spoke before the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs Association.

“Not once during that meeting did she mention that she wanted to take this discretionary authority away from police chiefs,” Chief Gemme said. “I think that speaks volumes about her commitment to public safety.”


Chief Gemme learned about the lieutenant governor’s position yesterday morning, he said. It was during the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference in Boston this week that the Healey campaign approached the MMCCA and asked for an audience with the group so Ms. Healey could speak on public safety.

Chief Gemme said he considered the proposal to remove police chiefs’ ability to issue or revoke gun licenses a huge issue, and Ms. Healey’s talk to the group an opportune time to bring it up.

Nate Little, campaign spokesman for Ms. Healey, said the proposal is to bring statewide uniformity to issuing permits.

“The goal is to have a uniform set of standards so everyone in the commonwealth is treated equally when applying for an FID (Firearm Identification) card,” he said. “The goal here is not to undermine local chiefs.”

Nice run around, FIDs are standardized and issued as “shall issue”

Ms. Healey made the statement about the gun licensing proposal around the same time the Gun Owners Action League endorsed the Republican gubernatorial candidate.

Mr. Little said the proposal is still in its infancy. Several ideas include creating a police commission in the Executive Office of Public Safety to develop guidelines for the gun licensing proposal. The commission could be picked by state police chiefs, he said.

Bad idea right there especially if the COP in Boston bullies the smaller town COP in to going along to get along.

Local chiefs would be solicited for guideline ideas and a statewide panel would make the decision on whether someone would be granted a gun permit, Mr. Little said. Local chiefs would be able to speak in front of the panel to say whether someone should or should not receive a gun license.

And how many COP would take the time out of their day to do this? How much will it cost? May be there will be only one day a month that permits will be looked at per town. Or worse each town has two days to bring forward all new applicants then they go to the back of the line and have to wait out the rest of the town before they can come before the panel again.

Chief Gemme instituted a new gun license policy more than a year ago in the city stricter than the state’s law. The state bans felons from getting gun permits. Chief Gemme considers anyone unsuitable who was arrested for a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of more than two years, any drug arrest, any driving-under-the-influence arrest, other alcohol-related arrests, or affiliation with gang members.

Anyone arrested on charges of committing physical violence or threatening to commit violence, or anyone involved in a domestic violence incident that results in the issuance of a restraining order would also be banned under the chief’s policy.

Do he wants to get rid of the appeals board.


Chief Gemme’s policy earned the backing of the Massachusetts Police Chiefs Association, which has argued that the chief has the authority to determine the suitability of a person and has the right to set standards for his own community.

Democratic candidate Deval L. Patrick, who sat down with Worcester police two weeks ago, earned the backing of Chief Gemme. Mr. Patrick has proposed adding 1,000 police officers in the state and is committed to funding police, the chief said.

“How can’t I support a candidate that has that kind of agenda versus a candidate who was going to strip us of one of our tools,” the Chief Gemme said.

Leicester Police Chief James J. Hurley and Hudson Police Chief Richard A. Braga said local police departments know their communities and residents and whether someone should be carrying a firearm.

What Derek said

“There is no statewide organization that knows my community or its members like my licensing officer and the other members of the Police Department,” Chief Hurley said.

The local officers can spot if someone is having problems such as alcohol or drug abuse or if a domestic situation is getting out of hand, Chief Hurley said. Local police aware of the situation can call in the permitted person and talk to him or her.

“It is a step backward and people would slip through the cracks that otherwise might not,” Chief Hurley said of Ms. Healey’s proposal.

When a person fills out a permit, the local department reviews it and checks it. The department then sends it to the state for review, Chief Hurley said. The state already has a number of checks and balances in place, he added.

Some people applying for a gun permit might have no record and appear to be a good candidate, but their agenda might be devious, Chief Gemme said. The Police Department has experienced this when gang members recruit someone to buy a gun.

That gun essentially becomes a community firearm used by the gang members, Chief Gemme said. His gang unit and other officers might know the person applying for the permit has friends in gangs, but the state panel won’t, he said.

Maybe Ms. Cleo can help him look in to the future also.

 

[MARINE96]

In a city that big you cant tell me the cops know every person that is a resident of that city.

 

[JonJ]

In a city that big you cant tell me the cops know every person that is a resident of that city.

True but the local department will have information on an individual in their database that no one else will have.

 

[Jay G]

Who's to say that the state-wide review board wouldn't ask the local COP?

I find it stretching the very bounds of credibility that a person could be completely law-abiding yet known to law enforcement (other than friends/family, of course).

Besides, since when do we start denying a Constitutionally protected right based on what someone MIGHT do? That thought scares me more than anything.

True but the local department will have information on an individual in their database that no one else will have.

 

[Mike508]

True but the local department will have information on an individual in their database that no one else will have.

Information that should prohibit someone from getting a firearms license that the state doesn't have?

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

What an assbiscuit. I don't even know where to begin in replying to that stream of runny horse waste.

 

[JonJ]

Besides, since when do we start denying a Constitutionally protected right based on what someone MIGHT do? That thought scares me more than anything.

Ever hear of a 209A Restraining Order?

Information that should prohibit someone from getting a firearms license that the state doesn't have?

Yes.
"Otis the town drunk" who's been brought in to sleep it off 10 times in the last year applies for an LTC. The department's database will have an incident and report for each instance that never gets forwarded to any other agency. He's been placed into Protective Custody (PC), no charge of a crime.
MGL Chp111B Section 8

Think there's a question of suitability?
From the MCOPA files:

SUITABLE PERSON
The statute leaves it to the local chief to determine whether an applicant is
a “suitable person”. So long as an applicant is unable to convince a judge that
he chief had no reasonable ground for refusing to issue a license, the denial will
be upheld. The appellant must show that the chief’s refusal was arbitrary,
capricious or an abuse of discretion. Chief of Police of Shelburne v. Moyer, 16
Mass. App. 543, 453 N.E.2d 461 (1983).
A chief may consider evidence underlying a criminal charge even if the
matter was dismissed, continued without a finding, the record sealed or even if
the governor pardoned the offender. Id; DeLuca v. Chief of Police of Newton,
415 Mass. 155, 612 N.E. 2d 628 (1983).

 

[Admin]

"Otis the town drunk" who's been brought in to sleep it off 10 times in the last year applies for an LTC. The department's database will have an incident and report for each instance that never gets forwarded to any other agency. He's been placed into Protective Custody (PC), no charge of a crime.
MGL Chp111B Section 8

This goes back to what dis-qualifies from an LTC?

Why do so many other states not have a problem with shall issue? Why is the world going to come to an end in MA if the state issues LTC's for those who don't have a CRIMINAL record?

Leaving the decision up to the COP was a huge mistake when it happened.

 

[LoginName]

Chief Gemme instituted a new gun license policy more than a year ago in the city stricter than the state’s law. The state bans felons from getting gun permits. Chief Gemme considers anyone unsuitable who was arrested for a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of more than two years, any drug arrest, any driving-under-the-influence arrest, other alcohol-related arrests, or affiliation with gang members.

Anyone arrested on charges of committing physical violence or threatening to commit violence, or anyone involved in a domestic violence incident that results in the issuance of a restraining order would also be banned under the chief’s policy.

What an innovator! Isn't about %95 of the things listed already a prohibition
for posessing a firearm (either federal and/or state)?

Concerning the gang affiliation denials...

From the MCOPA website.

"JUDICIAL STANDARDS FOR FIREARMS LICENSE APPEALS"

http://www.masschiefs.org/hottopics/hotpdf's/firearms_pdfs/Articles/Feb 2001.pdf


"Dennison v. Whearty, 1998 Mass. Superior Ct. (No. 96-542)
(Connor, J.)
Local chief wrongly denied an applicant a firearms license solely on
account of his membership in the Hell’s Angels organization."

I don't know the details of the case. Perhaps one of our legal professionals knows more about it?

 

[Mike508]

Yes.
"Otis the town drunk" who's been brought in to sleep it off 10 times in the last year applies for an LTC. The department's database will have an incident and report for each instance that never gets forwarded to any other agency. He's been placed into Protective Custody (PC), no charge of a crime.
MGL Chp111B Section 8

Maybe Otis needs to be charged with something to get Otis to start doing something about his drunkenness. If his drunkenness is that far out of control, Otis needs help and LE is doing him, as well as society, absolutely no good in continuing with this "catch and release" policy.

I've worked many years in substance abuse and found that, of those who do begin to strive for sobriety, it is because their problems have gotten so big they can no longer pretend the boozing is not an issue. Most often they begin to look at their drinking and drugging behavior because of a pending charge or a conviction.

The license application form considers cases of habitual drunkenness. Getting locked up 10 times due to drunkenness is a sure sign of habitual drunken behavior. Seems to me, the department locking Otis up that many times without some kind of referral is setting in motion a dangerous situation, not just for Otis, but for the next town he might move to.

Now, what if Otis gets PCed 10 times for drunkenness in Brockton then moves to Pittsfield to apply for a firearms license? I suspect Otis' record will follow regardless of whether or not his reputation has preceded him. Why can't this happen at the state level?

 

[Thor67]

Isn't Tim Murray the mayor of Worcester?

Is Gemme an appointee of his?

 

[squarooticus]

I think it's ironic that the police chiefs don't want to give up their individual ability to strip you of your individual right to bear arms. This tool rejects even a *democratic* approach where the chiefs are *represented* by a panel deciding who should and should not get an LTC. LOL. I guess democracy is fine when it's the peasant class whose rights are trampled by it, but not when the chiefs' privileges are to be abridged.

Cheers,
Kyle

 

[Admin]

I guess democracy is fine when it's the peasant class whose rights are trampled by it, but not when the chiefs' privileges are to be abridged.
Cheers,
Kyle

That's what this state is all about...

 

[matt1956]

My local chief has never met me. Doesn't know anything about me but what I put on that application and what he can find in my history... that same information is available to the state police as well.

So why would it be up to the local chief to make the final call on the type of license I get... as opposed to a state wide standard.

It is stupid and the chiefs just want to keep more power.

In big cities like mine the chiefs are only going to know a few types of people.

The scumbags - that wouldn't qualify anyway.
The rich - that get whatever they want anyway.
The politicians - that get whatever they want anyway.
Those in LE - that wouldn't normally aply to the normal rules anyway.

Then there is everyone else (people like me) that they basically make up crap on why a particular lic is issued... At 30 years old I was issues a restricted LTC-A. I have never been arrested and have (in my profession) made a number of citizens arrests in my home town of people that live in my home town. Yet was told the likelyhood of me needing to defend myself in BROCKTON was slime to none... Now... I have lived here my whole life... and had to defend myself a number of times...

Not a choice for the chief to make

 

[daceman63]

I never met a chief in any town I lived in. They had either a Sgt. or and Lt. do all the paperwork and fingerprinting....I never once saw the chief and I've had a few renewals over the years...

 

[squarooticus]

So why would it be up to the local chief to make the final call on the type of license I get... as opposed to a state wide standard.

I question why there should be any standard as opposed to simply, "I want a gun and someone is willing to sell me one."

The moment you give someone else the compulsory authority to determine who can and cannot have a gun, you've given them the ability to arbitrarily or capriciously decide whether or not you can possess the means for self-defense. Is the right to self-defense not a natural human right? Why should it be subject to licensure at all?

Cheers,
Kyle

 

[matt1956]

I question why there should be any standard as opposed to simply, "I want a gun and someone is willing to sell me one."

I like this... can we get it written into law

 

[matt1956]

ultimately... it should simply come down to one thing. Criminal history. If you have no criminal history... no brainer... you get the ALP.

If you have a questionable (minor juvenile arrest, minor traffic, and such) then I can see a review board.

Any violent or serious crime or crimes of theft. You get nada.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I understand both sides of this situation:

- I am aware that the PD knows things about some folks that make them undesirable, even though no convictions. [If this were done like the C&R FFL, the chief could still input to the state a viable reason for denial.]

- I also believe that good people don't deserve to have additional impediments thrown in their path at the whim of a local official. [e.g. shooting tests, forced to take a course for each renewal, doctor's letters, providing bank deposit slips, etc.]

- I have been made aware that some chiefs as a matter of personal prejudice, will not issue a LTC-A/ALP to women. It's illegal, but good luck proving it! [If the chief's role was like the C&R FFL where s/he can raise an objection (notified of application by state), but not the arbitrary decision maker . . . s/he is unlikely to "go public" to deny a female as a matter of personal policy.]

The chiefs have brought this upon themselves by abusing their authority. The MCOPA assists them in trying to "out-badass" each other for further restrictions than mandated by law, for totally arbitrary (anti-gun) reasons.

All said and done, the MCOPA holds more political clout with the legislature than ANY GOV would . . . her proposal is going to die on the vine.

 

[JellyFish]

Maybe it will die and maybe it is DOA already but at least she raised the issue and is taking them on. Kudos for her for having the balls to do so.

The current system is corrupt to the core and the cops who are fighting to protect it are our enemies and the enemies of the constitution, as Derek so aptly put it. Screw them, the turds. I hope they all get flushed out of their cushy jobs.

 

[drgrant]

I like this... can we get it written into law

It is written into law, it's called the 2nd amendment.

Too bad no authority in the land really recognizes or respects it at
all. Even the feds have dodged this issue numerous times... and even
the NRA.... Incorporating the 2nd amendment is a legal land mine
that nobody wants to touch.

-Mike

 

[squarooticus]

ultimately... it should simply come down to one thing. Criminal history. If you have no criminal history... no brainer... you get the ALP.

Problem: in order to enforce this, you need to give the authority to some group of people. Who is that?

Is it a group of police chiefs? Then they can choose any arbitrary standard they want.

What if it's written into the Mass code that the chiefs have to give you an LTC if you are not disqualified by a felony conviction? Then you're incessantly playing defense against the legislature, which is elected by people who may or may not agree with you, and which has the authority to change the code so you can no longer have an LTC.

What if it's written into federal law? Same logic applies.

What if it's written into the constitution? Oh, wait: it already is. And look at what good that's done.

This should give you an idea of why ever delegating this authority to anyone but yourself, enforced by the very same gun you buy as a result of this natural right, is eventually going to subject you to the whims of a much more powerful group led by someone who doesn't think you should have that right.

The only good way to permanently solve this problem is through the concept of the natural order, in which you have the natural right to possess the means for self-defense: if someone comes to take your guns away by force, denying you the ability to defend yourself, you have the natural right to defend yourself against such aggression with potentially lethal force. Unfortunately, this is a losing proposition in an age in which most people are willing to grant the state a monopoly on force: i.e., the second you shoot a cop who's trying to take away your guns, you're going down, because no sane person will want to get killed standing beside you against the tyranny of the state, even though objectively you are in the right. "I was right" would make a great epitaph, but nothing more.

What a mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Kyle