Police chiefs say gun-screening idea is full of holes

[LoginName]

Talk about a biased news article.

Police chiefs say gun-screening idea is full of holes
By Angeljean Chiaramida
Daily News of Newburyport

NEWBURYPORT - It happens every day at police stations across the commonwealth. Residents apply for gun permits, which are granted or rejected by police chiefs based on background checks and their knowledge of the person who applied.

For law enforcement officials in the region, that's exactly the way it should stay to ensure the safety of the residents they are sworn to protect.

Gubernatorial candidate Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey's recent proposal to remove gun licensing from the jurisdiction of local chiefs is shot full of holes, local police chiefs and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association say. These holes would endanger the public and police officers alike, they add.

Healey's proposal would hand over gun licensing to a statewide panel. Her announcement came as she accepted the endorsement of the influential Gun Owners Action League. The league, which fights for gun owners rights, has long argued that many police chiefs abuse their authority by denying gun permits or by granting permits that limit the type of guns a person can own.

"At the moment, right now your ability to get a gun permit completely is controlled by your local police chief," Healey said at the league's endorsement press conference. "I think we need a standardized set of concerns and regulations that would either disqualify you or qualify you for gun ownership. And that would be much better done at the state level, not the local level."

"It doesn't make any sense," Newburyport Marshal Thomas Howard said yesterday. "I certainly do not want to see my ability to manage who does or does not get a gun permit in this community taken away. ... There are behavioral issues involved when a person applies for a gun permit that are not known on the state level."

Georgetown police Chief Jim Mulligan can't fathom Healey's proposal, either. Granting a gun permit is not just about criminal background checks.

"This is not a good idea," Mulligan said yesterday. "All law enforcement is local. It's the most important aspect of law enforcement. We know our residents best. A person may not have a record, but could still not be a good candidate to own a gun. He may be a hothead or have emotional problems. No matter our input, a statewide panel wouldn't know these things. What they don't have at the state level is the personal information we have on the local level."

Police Chief David L'Esperance of Salisbury has similar problems with Healey's idea.

"I believe chiefs should maintain control over gun licensing," he said yesterday. "Local departments best know who is and isn't qualified to have a gun."

For the local chiefs contacted, the background checks done before they issue gun permits is not simply about who has been convicted of a crime. Although all admit the research needed to make a proper assessment is time-consuming and costly, they also agree granting and rejecting permits, as well as knowing who has a gun permit, saves lives.

"When we get a domestic violence call and the address comes up on the monitor, the computer tells us if there's a gun permit at that address," Howard said. "We need to know that information. ... I can't imagine how long it would take me to find out from the state who has a gun permit."

Mulligan agreed, and said as chief he can hold up a permit for people known to be depressed or who have restraining orders against them as soon as the court approves them. Keeping licensing local means Mulligan can call those applying for gun permits and explain that their problems indicate gun ownership is not a good idea.

"Local police chiefs can do that," Mulligan said. "We know our citizens."

Newburyport Lt. Rick Siemasko said Sgt. Thomas Cappelluzzi spends about 25 percent of his time handling gun licenses for the Police Department. Local and state criminal background checks are done, as are checks with the state Department of Mental Health. But there are people who should still not own guns, he added.

"Granting a gun license is about suitability. It's an important factor, and we'd know that before the state," Siemasko said. "... If every state had gun laws that are as strict as those in Massachusetts, we'd have a lot fewer problems."

http://www.newburyportnews.com/local/local_story_297142228?page=0


FWIW... I found the link to this article on the Brady Campaign website. I'm not sure if there's any significance to that (lately, they've linked to several MA gun control related stories), but it gives me the general impression that they're keeping a close watch on the future of gun control in MA.

 

[Admin]

"Granting a gun license is about suitability. It's an important factor, and we'd know that before the state,... If every state had gun laws that are as strict as those in Massachusetts, we'd have a lot fewer problems."

What problems is he talking about? The shooting problems around the country are not from Legal gun owners....

Rick Siemasko- Taking away constitutional rights for the good of the people one person at a time... What a tool...

 

[Admin]

After reading the above comments from random CLEOs it's a done deal for me... [sad2]

 

[JellyFish]

What's a done deal?

After reading the above comments from random CLEOs it's a done deal for me... [sad2]

 

[Kurtz]

I disagree with the Chiefs, too many Chiefs are anti gun and will not issue a Class A with ALP. In Falmouth you have to prove your life is in danger to get a ALP.

 

[drgrant]

The funny thing is if the police chiefs/mcopa (or whoever) were really smart
about this, they'd "reserve" their "veto power" to deny licenses only when
it warranted it. If most licenses were granted + renewed w/o restriction,
nobody is going to care about those one or two people that got denied for
some bad rep they had in the town. Instead, the worst of the chiefs
have applied huge blanket policies which draws a lot of heat and attention to
the issue. The system would still be unfair (at least in terms of ownership being
a RIGHT) but nobody would care about it much if like less than 1% got a denial or a
restricted license, due to non-statutory disqualifiers. I'm sure that there are a lot of
good chiefs in MA that are left, that actually carry a similar viewpoint. They'd rather
issue A/ALP 99% of the time and only deny in some corner cases.


-Mike

 

[matt1956]

"I certainly do not want to see my ability to manage who does or does not get a gun permit in this community taken away"

This in itself is exactly why it needs to be removed. The cheif is basically saying, "I don't need to be impartial of fair, I can give or deny whomever I want"

Where the hell are the civil rights groups on that one.

 

[hminsky]

In Newton, we need two letters of reference for the application (be quiet, Scrivener, I know, it's not required by law). I had a reference from a doctor and from an ex-Air Force fighter pilot. I was denied a CCW. The fighter pilot, living in Brookline, has no hope of getting a CCW himself. He told me "unless you know someone on the Police force, forget it".

 

[JonJ]

The chiefs that bitch the most are the ones that want the power. The ones who could care less about the power trip aren't heard from.

 

[Dick]

"It happens every day at police stations across the commonwealth. Residents apply for gun permits, which are granted or rejected by police chiefs based on background checks and their knowledge of the person who applied."

If that were not an outright lie it might not be a bad system.

Unfortunately, the decision is also based on an individual chief's personal feelings about guns and the 2nd Amendment, his/her personal whims and prejudices, pressure exerted by the personal prejudices of those who hire those chiefs, and dozens of other factors that have no place in regulatory decision-making.

That's why Healey's idea makes sense, which is of course reason enough for it not to succeed in this state. A reasonable compromise would be an honestly independent appeal system at the state level, but that ain't gonna happen either.

 

[calsdad]

After reading these posts - and quite a few other threads on this forum and coming around to the conclusion that nobody has any real ideas to solve this situation. Frankly I have a little bit of an issue with giving all the power to grant licenses to the state rather than the local authorities. It may be true that some local chiefs abuse their power by denying any and all licenses - but with the power resting in the hands of the state all you would need to deny everybody in the state licenses is to get one person in charge of the permitting process for the entire state. This would mean that instead of having to move to the next town over to get a gun license you would now have to move out of the state.

How about this for a solution ( I know there is fat chance of it happening here but I figured I would put it out there):

1) Make LTC Class A licenses in this state a "Shall Issue" or whatever the proper terminology is - instead of the "may issue" that we have now. The state would come up with a universal system that every town would use for the permitting process, instead of the town by town process we appear to have now.

2) Applications would still go thru the local police - the local police however would have to prove and provide evidence as to why they were in favor of denying the license. After the permitting process is complete only the local towns will retain the licensing information. This would keep that information out of the hands of the state, and the federal goverment.

3) A statewide appeal board would be setup, enabling anybody who was denied a permit to appeal. This board would specifically NOT be made up of anybody associated with Police Chiefs so there would not be any undue influence applied to the appeal process.

4) Any bill going thru our legislature that proposes an idea like this must contain language specifically stating that civilian ownership of firearms is a constitutionally protected right. Furthermore in times of emergency, war, or disaster when the police and emergency response personel are overwhelmed, an armed populace helps to preserve order and protect property - (not create disorder as our politicians would have us believe) as such they are a help to disaster response, not a hindrance.

5) Include something in the firearms licensing application with wording along the lines of " as a citizen with a firearm I understand that in times of emergency my duty is to preserve life and property and protect the commonwealth" You would then sign next to this statement. This once again would reinforce the good citizenship nature of owning firearms.

6) The wording of any bill proposing this must also ban the confiscation of legally owned firearms during times of emergency - so another New Orleans will never happen here.


Yes - I know this will probably never happen here in MA. I think the problem we face here in this state today is that both sides - pro gun, and anti gun, are stuck in the same tired old arguments. Something has to change so that things get better. I also think any proposal like the one above must include some provisions for tougher punishment for anybody caught using a gun during a crime. Just bitching about this isn't going to help us - sooner or later we will have to do something about it.

 

[C-pher]

I like the comment that the chief's know who the people are in their town...

This isn't the 30's. We don't have Andy Griffith working the beat.

I can bet you this about that the majority of the people on this forum...

If we were to walk into our local station, and asked to speak to the chief, they wouldn't know who we are...

What they do know is what street we live on, and if we have the money to go to court and press their decisions.

I do wonder about a state wide panel that can just deny the whole state...but I think that that would cause more trouble than not...and it wouldn't happen. Then, this is MA and you never know....

 

[Jose]

Rick Siemasko- Taking away constitutional rights for the good of the people one person at a time... What a tool...

f*** Siemasko, incompetent shitbag. The rest of the country lives pretty f***ing well and FAR safer than most of Mass with laws that drive those a**h***s crazy.

Stop blaming your goddamned crime wave on the rest of the country. Your social and fiscal policies are what cause your crime, you retarded, inbred, sister-violator.

I'd like to kick the good LT in the balls.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

After reading these posts - and quite a few other threads on this forum and coming around to the conclusion that nobody has any real ideas to solve this situation.

Step 1: Repeal all laws in the Commonwealth pertaining to the sale, purchase, possession, use, and carrying of firearms.

Step 2: Replace them with New Hampshire's laws pertaining to the same.

How's that for a good start.

It'll never happen. The Meninions would never risk having their anti-gun, anti-personal responsibility agenda exposed for the crock of shit that it is, which is precisely what would happen once the crime rate started dropping rapidly.

 

[Coyote33]

Step 1: Repeal all laws in the Commonwealth pertaining to the sale, purchase, possession, use, and carrying of firearms.

Step 2: Replace them with New Hampshire's laws pertaining to the same.

How's that for a good start.

It'll never happen. The Meninions would never risk having their anti-gun, anti-personal responsibility agenda exposed for the crock of shit that it is, which is precisely what would happen once the crime rate started dropping rapidly.

Can't say I didn't try. (click)

 

[JimB]

talk to chief

C-pher, bad news here, the chief would not talk to you... (my guess of course)

JimB

 

[tuna]

Jose, you really gotta stop bottling up your feelings.

 

[Admin]

Jose, you really gotta stop bottling up your feelings.

 

[Jose]

Jose, you really gotta stop bottling up your feelings.

I know. Half a bottle of bourbon later, I feel much better.

I'd still like to crush that prick's gonads, though.

 

[JellyFish]

I must admit that I do like and appreciate the way you think, Jose.

I know. Half a bottle of bourbon later, I feel much better.

I'd still like to crush that prick's gonads, though.

 

[JWalker]

I like the comment that the chief's know who the people are in their town...

This isn't the 30's. We don't have Andy Griffith working the beat.

I can bet you this about that the majority of the people on this forum...

If we were to walk into our local station, and asked to speak to the chief, they wouldn't know who we are...

What they do know is what street we live on, and if we have the money to go to court and press their decisions.

I do wonder about a state wide panel that can just deny the whole state...but I think that that would cause more trouble than not...and it wouldn't happen. Then, this is MA and you never know....

If I was depressed for awhile back in the early 90's and lived in another city...how would the chief know? Depressed, emotional, hot tempered, etc.
I'm not any of these but it's crazy to say that a chief would know this about an individual who's only lived in a community for a few years or less.
It's non-sensical and ridiculous.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

It's non-sensical and ridiculous.

I think we just found the next special edition MA license plate.

MASSACHUSETTS
"Non-sensical and Ridiculous"

 

[C-pher]

C-pher, bad news here, the chief would not talk to you... (my guess of course)

JimB

That's another point. You're going to have someone else walk up and ask what you need. You have to know someone to get that high in the ranks from the window at the station.

And hell, how many towns does the Chief really even interview the person?

In NA, it's a SGT. And he's one hell of a guy. I would still bet that he doesn't know everyone...

 

[JonJ]

I think we're rehashing this thread:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12040&highlight=healey

 

[JellyFish]

With Boston you deal with a lackey. You do NOT see the police chief. Not ever.

That's another point. You're going to have someone else walk up and ask what you need. You have to know someone to get that high in the ranks from the window at the station.

And hell, how many towns does the Chief really even interview the person?

In NA, it's a SGT. And he's one hell of a guy. I would still bet that he doesn't know everyone...

 

[runJonnyrun]

f*** Siemasko, incompetent shitbag. The rest of the country lives pretty f***ing well and FAR safer than most of Mass with laws that drive those a**h***s crazy.

Stop blaming your goddamned crime wave on the rest of the country. Your social and fiscal policies are what cause your crime, you retarded, inbred, sister-violator.

I'd like to kick the good LT in the balls.

Ouch, a kick in the jewels, now that's a bad way to start the day! I know Rick, in fact, I've known him for quite some time. He's not really a retarded, inbred, sister-violater. He's actually an educated (BS, JD), pleasant, and quite normal guy. I've never really had a discussion with him regarding this topic, but after seeing it in the local paper, I will certainly bring it up next time I see him.

In general I agree that most chiefs won't know much about the people in their town. For example, I live 300 yards from our station and I don't think I've even seen the chief Of course, that doesn't mean he hasn' seen me. There just aren't that many people in this town!

And I know that sometimes we all get so frustrated (esp. in Mass) that we'd want to kick someone in the balls, but hey, I'm thinking that might really influence the chiefs view on the 'suitability' thing

 

[Len-2A Training]

Depends on the town. In small towns I'd expect that if anyone insisted, they could get to see the chief. Places like Boston, typically no . . . first because they do NOT have a "chief" but have a Supt of Police instead.

I ended up standing next to the Boston Supt of Police at one point, while I was talking with a friend (BPD Sgt).

If anyone attended the IACP Expo, they had the opportunity to walk up and talk with thousands of chiefs! [In spite of the advance info, NOBODY asked for any ID before giving out "Expo Only" credentials to attend the Expo. I was rather surprised, especially due to the security measures in place to protect the venue . . . this was a very serious gap IMNSHO. However there were probably >1000 armed officers wandering the floor at all times in addition to the assigned security forces. I know of some retirees that were concerned that they might be denied access since they weren't active status . . . turned out not to be an issue.]

The Quincy chief was within 3' of me, surrounded by his brass, but I had no desire to talk with him.

I spotted the Milford Chief and had a productive discussion with him that I need to follow up with Email. It wasn't about guns, but could result in benefiting active and retired LEOs.

I talked with Chief Ron Glidden for a few minutes.

I didn't see anyone else (chiefs) that floated my boat, but I certainly saw tons of chiefs.

 

[drgrant]

Ouch, a kick in the jewels, now that's a bad way to start the day! I know Rick, in fact, I've known him for quite some time. He's not really a retarded, inbred, sister-violater. He's actually an educated (BS, JD), pleasant, and quite normal guy. I've never really had a discussion with him regarding this topic, but after seeing it in the local paper, I will certainly bring it up next time I see him.

Most liberals/statists can be "nice people", and often are very well
educated. That still doesn't stop them from being communists or
fascists, though. Being intelligent and eloquent in and of itself does
not portend that the individual will be of sound moral character or
a reasonable mindset/worldview. Many of the people trying to
ban our guns "seem like nice people" under one context but when it
gets down to the real issues, they're complete douchebags.

I agree with how people like Suzanna Hupp and L Neil Smith see the
issue- if a politico does not trust you with a gun, then what does that
say about their character, and how they view you as a person? In
a way, anyone who supports discretionary licensing agrees with the
concept of "precrime". Let's deny a person this right, becuase we think
they'll abuse it. The person is "Guilty" without a crime ever having been
committed. If that isn't reprehensible, I don't know what is. It allows
the "state" to levy punishment (denial of rights) without any form of
due process!


-Mike

 

[Admin]

RJR,

See if you can have a chat with him on the Issuance issue.

 

[Jose]

Ouch, a kick in the jewels, now that's a bad way to start the day! I know Rick, in fact, I've known him for quite some time. He's not really a retarded, inbred, sister-violater. He's actually an educated (BS, JD), pleasant, and quite normal guy. I've never really had a discussion with him regarding this topic, but after seeing it in the local paper, I will certainly bring it up next time I see him.

In general I agree that most chiefs won't know much about the people in their town. For example, I live 300 yards from our station and I don't think I've even seen the chief Of course, that doesn't mean he hasn' seen me. There just aren't that many people in this town!

And I know that sometimes we all get so frustrated (esp. in Mass) that we'd want to kick someone in the balls, but hey, I'm thinking that might really influence the chiefs view on the 'suitability' thing

I just want your buddy to STFU regarding the freedoms we in other states enjoy.

He can't be none too bright if he contends that our lack of oppresive and unconstitutional gun permits are the proximate cause of crime and violence in your state.

I stand by what I said of him. Since Ohio is often mentioned as a source of "guns flooding the streets of (insert Eastern libtard city here)", he can KMA.