Question to MA Police Chiefs that Deny LTC

[Midnight412]

I was thinking about H2259 and the whole idea that individual Chiefs of Police can, at their discretion, deny someone an LTC. In some cases, it seems everyone in the town that applies.

So a question is raised. What is the violent crime rate in the city/town of that Chief? How many murders, rapes, violent assaults, armed robberies, muggings, etc. happen on their watch, in their town? If the number is greater than 0, is that chief satisfied with their department for failing the victim? Is that chief satisfied that he/she denied people the right to protect themselves, yet failed to provide the protection that some victim needed when they were being assaulted, raped, murdered, etc?

 

[theGringo]

deep thoughts

 

[yanici]

deep thoughts

WHAT?? You're mumbling again!

 

[BigMike]

Not a knock on Chiefs but:

I would venture a guess that they wouldn't feel any personal responsibility. Perhaps some passing the buck/kicking the can response of "It is for the greater good".


But honestly, I don't think it ever crosses their minds.

 

[HTRN]

I was thinking about H2259 and the whole idea that individual Chiefs of Police can, at their discretion, deny someone an LTC. In some cases, it seems everyone in the town that applies.

So a question is raised. What is the violent crime rate in the city/town of that Chief? How many murders, rapes, violent assaults, armed robberies, muggings, etc. happen on their watch, in their town? If the number is greater than 0, is that chief satisfied with their department for failing the victim? Is that chief satisfied that he/she denied people the right to protect themselves, yet failed to provide the protection that some victim needed when they were being assaulted, raped, murdered, etc?

What, do you expect them to "police" the whole city?

Sorry for the simpson's quote...

I agree with you sentiment 100%.

 

[Half Cocked]

If the number is greater than 0, is that chief satisfied with their department for failing the victim? Is that chief satisfied that he/she denied people the right to protect themselves, yet failed to provide the protection that some victim needed when they were being assaulted, raped, murdered, etc?

I see the point you are trying to make but you are also making a lot of assumptions.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I was thinking about H2259 and the whole idea that individual Chiefs of Police can, at their discretion, deny someone an LTC. In some cases, it seems everyone in the town that applies.

So a question is raised. What is the violent crime rate in the city/town of that Chief? How many murders, rapes, violent assaults, armed robberies, muggings, etc. happen on their watch, in their town? If the number is greater than 0, is that chief satisfied with their department for failing the victim? Is that chief satisfied that he/she denied people the right to protect themselves, yet failed to provide the protection that some victim needed when they were being assaulted, raped, murdered, etc?

I think its more about the exercise of authority than anything to do with the crime rate.

Some do it(exercise their authority) better than others because some are smarter than others, some have far more common sense than others, some are far less narcissistic than others, and some actually have a conscience.

 

[Admin]

I see the point you are trying to make but you are also making a lot of assumptions.

The only assumption he is making is they really don't give a flying f**k about the commoner. And he's 100% correct. It's that simple.
I would hate to be a CLEO in a red town when the SHTF.

 

[atmay]

the question i have about discretionary licensing is this;
If my chief for some reason thinks he's preventing crimes by not issuing a license to me because im like, a gangbanger or something, shouldnt he arrest me and charge me with conspiracy to commit a felony, or whatever? Oh, wait...nevermind, he doesnt have any evidnce, he just 'feels' im a criminal, so he's gotta get to me without that pesky due process crap getting in the way

 

[RadiCS]

Yup, I know quite of few people that will not apply just because of this reason.

 

[KMaurer]

For starters, there are very few chiefs who are actually denying LTCs these days. All but the most stubborn and/or obtuse have conceded that it's a losing approach, since almost all of those denied can get a court to overturn the decision and order them to issue the license. After all, the law gives them the authority to decide who is and isn't "suitable", not to establish a blanket policy of denying permits. Even in places like Boston, Brookline or Newton one can pretty much be guaranteed to get an LTC-A, albeit with the usual restrictions prohibiting carry.

AS to whether they feel any responsibility, the answer is almost certainly, "no". First, the courts have uniformly held that they have absolutely no liability, either as individuals or as a department, for failing to protect anybody. More importantly, they've probably convinced themselves that no mere "civilian" would have a real chance of successfully defending themselves with a firearm. After all, police often miss and sometimes shoot the wrong people or get their guns taken away and used against them, so the assume that things would only be worse for everybody else.

Ken

 

[Deer_KiLLer]

ive got the pleasure of dealing with a real piece of work myself 7 years ago.

ive heard people say oh they just test you a bit to see if you crack.

I didnt crack and he yelled allot, i didn't yell back etc.

that nut jobs last words after all the yelling about me applying for such a permit and how no one should get it was, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HASNT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T COMMIT THEM, ILL GIVE YOU A B, IF YOU WANT AN A YOU HAVE TO TAKE ME TO COURT. i had to meet with that guy just to get chewed out, even if i wanted to yell back i don't think he would have heard me because of how loud he was yelling... around 8 cops appologized to me on the way out and said its not just me and i was the 3rd person of the day.

yes im not nameing names but that guy is a nut case, testing? that wasn't testing at all. its in your face yelling till you turn red and then yelling more. how a person like that becomes a cop is sick.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

ive got the pleasure of dealing with a real piece of work myself 7 years ago.

ive heard people say oh they just test you a bit to see if you crack.

I didnt crack and he yelled allot, i didn't yell back etc.

that nut jobs last words after all the yelling about me applying for such a permit and how no one should get it was, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HASNT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T COMMIT THEM, ILL GIVE YOU A B, IF YOU WANT AN A YOU HAVE TO TAKE ME TO COURT. i had to meet with that guy just to get chewed out, even if i wanted to yell back i don't think he would have heard me because of how loud he was yelling... around 8 cops appologized to me on the way out and said its not just me and i was the 3rd person of the day.

yes im not nameing names but that guy is a nut case, testing? that wasn't testing at all. its in your face yelling till you turn red and then yelling more. how a person like that becomes a cop is sick.

Thats narcissism my friend, pure and simple. http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/npd.htm

 

[Half Cocked]

The only assumption he is making is they really don't give a flying f**k about the commoner. And he's 100% correct.

My only point was that he is making an assumption, based upon how I read the OP, that every victim would/could have been in a position to defend themselves with a firearm. That is a big assumption. That's it.

Again...... I understand the point he is trying to make and I do not disagree with it.

 

[ShadeWPI]

Again...... I understand the point he is trying to make and I do not disagree with it.

Actually, I don't think to do understand the point he's trying to make.

I believe the point he's trying to make is this:

When reviewing an application for License to Carry, does the licensing authority consider, "Could issuing this LTC prevent a crime? Could issuing this LTC protect someone who the police wont be able to protect?" Or when reviewing a crime that has occur, does he consider, "Had this person had an LTC, would they have been able to protect themselves?"

The opinion seems to be that in some areas Licensing Authorities don't seem to consider the potential benefits of lawful carry and feel no personal responsibility about whether any victim, could have defended themselves had they not been denied the right to do so.

 

[GSG]

"Could issuing this LTC prevent a crime?

If guns can't cause crime they can't prevent it either. There's a pool table in my house, but it doesn't mean that I can play.

 

[Midnight412]

The point I am trying to make is that if someone denied the right to have a firearm to defend themselves, is the chief of police that denied that right satisfied with his failure to protect that person, if that person is assulted, murdered, raped, etc. Perhaps less specific in the OP.

If person goes and applies for an LTC, and is denied, and then that same person becomes the victim of a crime, then a direct comparison can be made as to weather or not that person would have been a victim if that person had a firearm to defend themself with.

To Half Cocked - Of course not every victim of a crime would have wanted to carry a gun, or know how to use it if they had one. However, if the option is not available to anyone, then it leaves everyone vunverable.

One could probably go and find a few cases where the victim wanted to have a gun, but couldn't, due to being denied.

 

[Half Cocked]

Actually, I don't think to do understand the point he's trying to make.

No... I understand it and as I stated I don't disagree with him.

 

[Half Cocked]

The point I am trying to make is that if someone denied the right to have a firearm to defend themselves, is the chief of police that denied that right satisfied with his failure to protect that person, if that person is assulted, murdered, raped, etc. Perhaps less specific in the OP.

This explains it better as you explained that you were speaking of someone who was denied a LTC.

To Half Cocked - Of course not every victim of a crime would have wanted to carry a gun, or know how to use it if they had one. However, if the option is not available to anyone, then it leaves everyone vunverable.

That was the point I was trying to make. I knew that was you most likely intended your OP but it just was too generalized.

 

[Len-2A Training]

When reviewing an application for License to Carry, does the licensing authority consider, "Could issuing this LTC prevent a crime? Could issuing this LTC protect someone who the police wont be able to protect?" Or when reviewing a crime that has occur, does he consider, "Had this person had an LTC, would they have been able to protect themselves?"

The opinion seems to be that in some areas Licensing Authorities don't seem to consider the potential benefits of lawful carry and feel no personal responsibility about whether any victim, could have defended themselves had they not been denied the right to do so.

Personally, I don't think that most (if any) CLEOs consider these points and no they don't review crimes with a "could this person have prevented the outcome if they were armed". Realize that those making LTC decisions "ride a desk" and never get their fingers dirty. They do not personally investigate crimes. They may stand in front of cameras or read the reports of their "underlings" <that's the term one of my chiefs used to describe his "boots on the ground"> but they are not "involved".

The point I am trying to make is that if someone denied the right to have a firearm to defend themselves, is the chief of police that denied that right satisfied with his failure to protect that person, if that person is assulted, murdered, raped, etc. Perhaps less specific in the OP.

If person goes and applies for an LTC, and is denied, and then that same person becomes the victim of a crime, then a direct comparison can be made as to weather or not that person would have been a victim if that person had a firearm to defend themself with.

Yes, I would hazard a guess that 99% of CLEOs are satisfied with their decisions and feel no personal remorse if a denied person is killed/maimed/assaulted.

I recall a case many years ago, DV, husband promised to kill her. She went to the PD and was told that ONLY once he broke into her house could they do anything to help her . . . that she should just call 911! Well he did and they found her dead. IIRC this was before 1998 so she could have had a LTC w/o training requirements within 5 days if she was clean. NOBODY in the PD suggested self-defense, just "call 911 and die"! Even during the press conference after they did the chalk outline, the chief at that time mentioned nothing about her having the means to defend herself.

 

[cekim]

IMHO, most Chiefs that deny or restrict do not understand or believe that their doing so will bring people to harm.

Most honestly believe that they are making their town safer by restricting ownership and/or carry of firearms. If not their town, at least their officers.

They are sadly misguided, but I honestly believe that most are acting with the best of intentions. Despite the SCOTUS ruling that relieves them all liability and responsibility to protect and serve, many do "fear" liability of issuance of licenses.

The problem of course is that they are wrong on all accounts. Though I do it myself now and then out of frustration, it does no good to demonize people for acting wrongly with the best of intentions. It would be more productive to educate them and help them realize that they are wrong. It won't be easy, but it can be done.

This is the fundamental problem with the liberal ideology that permeates this state. Most of them (virtually all of them), "mean well", but manage to do profound damage to the liberty and safety of the people of this state (and anyone unfortunate enough to drive through wrongly assuming they were still in America) with their "good intentions."

 

[Kurtz]

All I can say is when the SHTF they'll be on the wrong side of the fence and will have to deal with the repercussions of being on the wrong side of the fence. The only way out is to go to the right side of the fence ASAP.

 

[cekim]

All I can say is when the SHTF they'll be on the wrong side of the fence and will have to deal with the repercussions of being on the wrong side of the fence. The only way out is to go to the right side of the fence ASAP.

Waiting around for something that may never happen, and if it does everyone suffers, to punish the wicked is also not terribly productive...

 

[theGringo]

Waiting around for something that may never happen, and if it does everyone suffers, to punish the wicked is also not terribly productive...

Right! Punish 'em NOW!

 

[pernox]

IMHO, most Chiefs that deny or restrict do not understand or believe that their doing so will bring people to harm.

Most honestly believe that they are making their town safer by restricting ownership and/or carry of firearms. If not their town, at least their officers.

They are sadly misguided, but I honestly believe that most are acting with the best of intentions. Despite the SCOTUS ruling that relieves them all liability and responsibility to protect and serve, many do "fear" liability of issuance of licenses.

The problem of course is that they are wrong on all accounts. Though I do it myself now and then out of frustration, it does no good to demonize people for acting wrongly with the best of intentions. It would be more productive to educate them and help them realize that they are wrong. It won't be easy, but it can be done.

This is the fundamental problem with the liberal ideology that permeates this state. Most of them (virtually all of them), "mean well", but manage to do profound damage to the liberty and safety of the people of this state (and anyone unfortunate enough to drive through wrongly assuming they were still in America) with their "good intentions."

Hitler thought he was making the fatherland safer by exterminating the Jews. He really, honest-to-God believed he was doing the world a service by marching millions of people off to the gas chambers.

Maybe we should have educated him instead of demonizing him. After all, he meant well.

I know my comparison is over the top, but really, a fanatic is a fanatic regardless of whether they issue orders to kill 6,000,000 or issue orders to prevent my grandmother from carrying a pistol with her to church in case she gets mugged, raped, and strangled on the way home. Either way, their hands are stained with blood.

 

[cekim]

Hitler thought he was making the fatherland safer by exterminating the Jews. He really, honest-to-God believed he was doing the world a service by marching millions of people off to the gas chambers.

Maybe we should have educated him instead of demonizing him. After all, he meant well.

In principle, I agree that we are on a spectrum with that as the extreme. I don't think we are there yet...

I won't argue at all that this is the precise problem with government given too much power. Those in power and those foolish enough to let them take the power often believe themselves in the right no matter how extreme, murderous, etc.. their ideology gets.

What I will argue is that as a matter of degrees, we aren't there yet. We can still speak our mind (in most towns) and use the political process to re-balance power. As I've said many times if I saw a crowd of hundreds or more at the statehouse for 2259's hearing and it still died in committee, then I would have no argument left for you. I didn't see that. I saw a lot of apathy...

 

[theGringo]

In principle, I agree that we are on a spectrum with that as the extreme. I don't think we are there yet...

And here, sir, is where we so often part ways. This is Germany, circa 1933. We're living it all over again. What will follow is inevitable.

 

[cekim]

And here, sir, is where we so often part ways. This is Germany, circa 1933. We're living it all over again. What will follow is inevitable.

Maybe we are quibbling over months, but I'm not ready to give up yet.

Watching Germany, there too people just stood aside and did nothing as it happened. They literally watched their neighbors get executed in the street. I hear a lot of trash talk, but I don't see people using the system we have to turn things around before we get there.

 

[TomH]

I was thinking about H2259 and the whole idea that individual Chiefs of Police can, at their discretion, deny someone an LTC. In some cases, it seems everyone in the town that applies.

So a question is raised. What is the violent crime rate in the city/town of that Chief? How many murders, rapes, violent assaults, armed robberies, muggings, etc. happen on their watch, in their town? If the number is greater than 0, is that chief satisfied with their department for failing the victim? Is that chief satisfied that he/she denied people the right to protect themselves, yet failed to provide the protection that some victim needed when they were being assaulted, raped, murdered, etc?

The crime rate doesn't matter, it is still violation of a Constitutional right whether crime is up or down.

 

[Kurtz]

Waiting around for something that may never happen, and if it does everyone suffers, to punish the wicked is also not terribly productive...

I'm certainly not one of those that hopes it happens, but if it does I won't shy away from it either. But since most of the left are not willing to budge what's the next step? They're dead set against one of the freedoms the Constitution gives to all of us. This can't be taken lightly. One solution is that everybody moves to the state they see as the most conducive to their beliefs, but on the other hand, this is our home and why should we move just so we can fully exercise our rights?