Question to MA Police Chiefs that Deny LTC

[theGringo]

I'm certainly not one of those that hopes it happens...

I'm one of those who hopes it happens.

 

[Kurtz]

I'm one of those who hopes it happens.

Not me, I need to order more primers... then it can happen

 

[GSG]

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.

I just don't think that connection can really be made. In MA you need an LTC just to possess some of the most common guns in the US. Whether you want to carry for self defense, bench rest shoot a customized AR or keep a revolver in your (securely locked) nightstand drawer, you need an LTC. I know people who've maintained an LTC for years and years but have never owned a gun, just because they might want one some day (this way if I ever need one I can get one ), or who carry 3-4 times a year when they rarely feel the need. Applying for that one license doesn't mean that they wanted to carry 24/7 to prevent crimes against themselves.

It was mentioned somewhere else here on NES that in the wreckage of planes on 9/11 they found knives and other things that could have been used as weapons against the terrorists that weren't for whatever reason...even when adequately armed some aren't prepared to fight back.

I agree with you that chief's should consider these things, but IMO it's just not that applicable.

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".

In some smaller towns in MA the licensing officer is also a street cop. But in general I think you're right, in the more urban areas with higher populations, which is where most people in MA live, this would be the case.

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.

Yup.

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.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of these chiefs aren't fanatics trying to disarm as many law abiding citizens as they can. Most don't even carry a gun at work, nevermind off duty, so the idea of a private citizen carrying simply seems dangerous or questionable to them. Also, have you considered that some chiefs may not restrict licenses because they don't care about guns? NES rating a town as green just means that they hand out permits easily enough, it doesn't say anything about the personal views of the chief, or why they have the policy that they do.

This isn't a condition unique to CLEO's either, people are people, and some will never see a need for self defense. Some of them post on this forum.

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.

+1.I'm not aiming this comment at anyone in particular, but it concerns me that people are upset enough to shoot at the husbands, sons and fathers in our military over 2A issues, but they aren't upset enough to make a single attempt to contact a rep to express their views.

 

[Len-2A Training]

In some smaller towns in MA the licensing officer is also a street cop. But in general I think you're right, in the more urban areas with higher populations, which is where most people in MA live, this would be the case.

GSG, "licensing officers" do NOT stand in front of TV cameras and reporters.

The "decision makers" are far insulated from what goes on in the streets, even (in almost all cases) in the small towns.

I personally know some chiefs and some licensing officers and I assure you that in all cases known to me, what I stated above is accurate. Like anything else there may be a handful of exceptions out there, but I'm certain that the exceptions won't be the case in the larger cities that give people a real hard time on licensing.

 

[Bill Nance]

I don't think chiefs are any different from the majority of people in this state, who don't like guns for the most part and who are queasy about anyone owning anything other than a hunting rifle or shotgun.

If the vast majority of the state felt the way we do, there wouldn't be red towns. But when gun owners who care about the issue are o more than a very vocal but small minority there is no incentive whatever for the CoP to issue unrestricted class As or for that matter, anything but class Bs.

I'm not defending the chiefs, but I am saying that they are part of the anti-gun culture here. Until it's politically untenable to be anti-gun here, chiefs will tend to be anti-i-gun unless they personally believe in RKBA, which automatically means they have limited career options in Mass. Given how people are about guns here, I would say that b-ramming everyone or never giving unrestricted class-As is pretty much the will of the legislature. I don't think it's a liability issue, I think it's a "keep my political masters happy and so prosper" issue.

 

[pernox]

I'm willing to bet that the majority of these chiefs aren't fanatics trying to disarm as many law abiding citizens as they can. Most don't even carry a gun at work, nevermind off duty, so the idea of a private citizen carrying simply seems dangerous or questionable to them. Also, have you considered that some chiefs may not restrict licenses because they don't care about guns? NES rating a town as green just means that they hand out permits easily enough, it doesn't say anything about the personal views of the chief, or why they have the policy that they do.

This isn't a condition unique to CLEO's either, people are people, and some will never see a need for self defense. Some of them post on this forum.

I agree - I'm sure most of these CLEOs aren't sitting around rubbing their hands together like Monty Burns cackling over how many rapists are succeeding, or how many middle age women are being machete'd this week...

However, the way I see it is if they're crapping all over a constitutional right because they feel personally that it might not be the best idea, they are an extremist. They are extreme in denying a creator-endowed right to self protection, and in violating one of the basic tenets of the country's founding principles. To me, that is an extreme viewpoint made even worse by their ability to affect others with it. They aren't running propaganda schemes (...in most cases) wailing over the evils of firearms, but they are metering out a Right as though it were a Privilege. In my view, that's Extreme. -edited to add- Whereas a "moderate" view IMO would be someone supportive of the rights of others, who merely chooses not to exercise those rights without wanting to strip others of theirs.

As for Chiefs not being particularly pro-gun because they don't infringe upon the citizenry's rights (by issuing ALP every time) - I agree. I assume in most cases that they are just doing their job of protecting the liberty of their townsfolk by not arbitrarily denying them a protected right. Their compliance with requests for ALP shouldn't be looked at as a Great Big Deal, but rather as the actions of a Chief that "gets it" regarding his role in the community; that being an official who helps make sure that persons' liberty isn't trodden upon by anyone (including themselves) and the lawful punishment of those who do the trodding.

 

[cekim]

GSG, "licensing officers" do NOT stand in front of TV cameras and reporters.

The "decision makers" are far insulated from what goes on in the streets, even (in almost all cases) in the small towns.

Well, perhaps it is the exception, but I know of at least one small town it is a detective who handles licensing.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well, perhaps it is the exception, but I know of at least one small town it is a detective who handles licensing.

Not sure that this contradicts what I stated.

I know one Lt who is the current licensing officer and one current chief who was a Lt when he was licensing officer. In both cases when they were LOs, I was told (one directly and one by his chief) that the chief set the LTC policies. I don't know if the selectmen set the chiefs' policies in these cases however as they are not towns that I live in.

 

[wahsben]

"It was mentioned somewhere else here on NES that in the wreckage of planes on 9/11 they found knives and other things that could have been used as weapons against the terrorists that weren't for whatever reason...even when adequately armed some aren't prepared to fight back."


This most likely happened because the passengers thought it was a regular hijacking and not the suicide mission that it was. If they had known they were going to be killed no matter what there would have been more resistance as there was on the flight over PA in which the passengers knew what their fate was going to be.

 

[Bill Nance]

However, the way I see it is if they're crapping all over a constitutional right because they feel personally that it might not be the best idea, they are an extremist. They are extreme in denying a creator-endowed right to self protection, and in violating one of the basic tenets of the country's founding principles. To me, that is an extreme viewpoint made even worse by their ability to affect others with it. They aren't running propaganda schemes (...in most cases) wailing over the evils of firearms, but they are metering out a Right as though it were a Privilege. In my view, that's Extreme.

The problem you keep banging your head against is that until McDonald there was no federally protected right to own a firearm for self defense that applied to the states.
You can cry all you want to over what "should" be, but point of fact is that the constitution means what the judges and previous case law say it means, not what you or I think it should mean. If the state issues Bs as shall-issue and does away with class A's 100% I doubt a federal court is going to strike it down. Right to carry is NEVER going to be a federally guaranteed right. Not even if we had 7 of the 9 justices being "conservative."

I could see the court invalidating magazine size limitations (maybe) or excessive fees for licenses (probably will happen) but right to carry? No way in Hell.

All of which means that until the people of this state want class-A ALPs to be the rule, it's not going to happen except at the Chief's discretion. Since I think changing the culture here is about as likely as a snowball's chances in Hell, I'm moving. This state can rot in Hell for all I care. I've been stuck here for 8 years, so I understand people have a hard time just dropping everything in leaving, but IMO every Mass. gun-owner should just leave the damn place and take their businesses and tax dollars elsewhere.

If 2259 passes without so many changes it becomes useless, I will be utterly amazed. And even more so if Deval or any other governor here doesn't veto it.

As to the Chiefs themselves, if the town council is adamantly in favor of ALPs, the chief is going to issue them. If they don't like the idea, he's not. And then of course there are just plain old power freaks, but IMO they are the minority of the ALP deniers.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

even when adequately armed some aren't prepared to fight back

The citizenry has been taught for years to never resist any crime except perhaps a rape, and that you should simply do as you are told and let the professionals handle it. It's hard to overcome years of conditioning on the spur of the moment. In fact, the paperwork given to armed off duty LEOs (pre 9/11) cautioned them to never interfere with any situation on board unless requested to do so by a member of the flight crew.

 

[cekim]

Not sure that this contradicts what I stated.

You were saying that the LO was "removed" from "the street". Not the case in the example I gave...

I think the broader problem is that, somewhat understandably, they think about either:

a. random inept resident with a gun...
OR
b. "what if" the gun gets stolen?

They know/think they are the ones who will have to face the business end of that gun. It's hard to argue statistics with someone who sees the "exceptions" on a daily basis. They don't see all the people who aren't inept and aren't pointing guns at them.

 

[cekim]

The citizenry has been taught for years to never resist any crime except perhaps a rape, and that you should simply do as you are told and let the professionals handle it.

Sadly even rape.

This is taught not only about crime, but about most forms of self reliance.

You are not permitted to express anger or frustration at school. You are not permitted to glare at other kids, write mean things in your notebook about them or shun them from your circle of friends. All human interaction is presumed to be funneled through an omnipotent state-sponsored 3rd party.

In school, this process is robbing kids of both actual coping skills with their own emotions as well as an unrealistic expectation of what "normal" thoughts are. It's ok to feel angry, the issue is what you do with it. It _shouldn't_ be a crime to show that emotion on your face, but I assure you the school system punishes this. If you don't go to school with your lithium/prozac/lobotomy face on, you can expect to spend some time with school counselors if anyone else files a "hurt feelings report" caused by your facial expression.

 

[pernox]

The problem you keep banging your head against is that until McDonald there was no federally protected right to own a firearm for self defense that applied to the states.
You can cry all you want to over what "should" be, but point of fact is that the constitution means what the judges and previous case law say it means, not what you or I think it should mean. If the state issues Bs as shall-issue and does away with class A's 100% I doubt a federal court is going to strike it down. Right to carry is NEVER going to be a federally guaranteed right. Not even if we had 7 of the 9 justices being "conservative."

The problem is not that I'm banging my head on a wall or crying about anything, it's that we're arguing two different principles. You're arguing case law and court processes, and I'm arguing Right and Wrong. The point is that, and nothing more. Chiefs who abuse their power even when acting under the full protection of law are still morally reprehensible in their perversion of their own authority and need to have their actions curtailed by a vigilant public. Regardless of whether or not they operate under the law, their actions in denying citizens the right to defend themselves with what tools they deem necessary is contrary to the whole idea of what a government and system of Police is supposed to be; namely a protector of the people's Liberty. We can agree, I believe, that the public has not been all that vigilant over the last hundred years.

The Fed does not have to guarantee me my rights in order for them to exist. It's nice to live in a country where we can, theoretically, force the government to protect our rights.. But when they stop doing so, it does not take away our rights, it merely leaves them for us to protect without the help of the government until such time as a government with our best wishes at heart can be reinstated. We are unfortunately at a time where an exceedingly large effort will need to be made either diplomatically or otherwise to re-create a government that is actually "for the people."

Quote from John Adams comes to mind.

I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.

 

[Len-2A Training]

You were saying that the LO was "removed" from "the street". Not the case in the example I gave...

Either you misunderstood what I posted and/or I didn't do a good job of explaining myself.

Chiefs ride the desk and rarely see the street. Lts. typically do the same, but are a bit closer to reality.

Policies are not made by LOs, even if they are Lts. Now that I think about it, I've been told that THREE Lts (three different towns) who were LOs did NOT make the PD policy on LTCs . . . they were just charged with implementing them and being the "public face" of the PD to the applicant.

 

[cekim]

Either you misunderstood what I posted and/or I didn't do a good job of explaining myself.

Chiefs ride the desk and rarely see the street. Lts. typically do the same, but are a bit closer to reality.

Policies are not made by LOs, even if they are Lts. Now that I think about it, I've been told that THREE Lts (three different towns) who were LOs did NOT make the PD policy on LTCs . . . they were just charged with implementing them and being the "public face" of the PD to the applicant.

Ahh, true... The Chief drives policy in all instances of which I am aware. Hard to say for sure, but I get the impression that some LO's have more or less latitude on the formation and/or implementation of the policy.

I'd say at this point though that many chiefs spent enough time "on the street" in a situation similar enough to what we see now that while I can't argue that they may be isolated by the day-to-day running of the department in some cases, I don't think they are as detached as you might suggest.

Things haven't changed all that much. The media exaggerates the rate (and even the direction) of change... trends/drugs come and go, but since the late 80's I wouldn't say that much as changed...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'd say at this point though that many chiefs spent enough time "on the street" in a situation similar enough to what we see now that while I can't argue that they may be isolated by the day-to-day running of the department in some cases, I don't think they are as detached as you might suggest.

You'd be surprised!

I had more than one argument with my late Chief (personal friend) about officer safety issues. He did a lot of yelling and pontificating as I told him that his excuses (for no cages, etc.) weren't based in reality. From what I've been told, he was a street cop for a handful of years before being appointed chief. My current chief told us to do some things that would expose his FT POs to high risk and we (PT'rs) might have caught a bullet in the back (from a FT PO) if we followed his advice. Basically I told him that he was out of his mind with that advise. [It's nice when you are essentially a volunteer and don't have to rely on it for a paycheck . . . you can be brutally honest without any serious repercussions . . . something the FT'rs can't afford to do.]

I've said this to a number of FT POs and had them agree with me . . . that to be a chief, they perform a lobotomy when they make the appointment!! They seem to be forced to forget everything they learned on the street when they make that transition to a politicrat.

 

[GSG]

Their compliance with requests for ALP shouldn't be looked at as a Great Big Deal, but rather as the actions of a Chief that "gets it" regarding his role in the community; that being an official who helps make sure that persons' liberty isn't trodden upon by anyone (including themselves) and the lawful punishment of those who do the trodding.

I'm not even suggesting that the green town chiefs "get it." I'm saying that when a new chief is appointed to a department, there's a million and a half policies for him to review, ones like use of force policies (which are regularly challenged in civil & criminal court), department budgeting, scheduling 100's of employees for 24/7/365 work, equipment maintenance/procurement...

LTC issues are a huge deal to a lot of gun owners in MA, but unless the chief has strong feelings about it already or the local papers made him look like a moron for issuing him an LTC to someone who did something stupid with it, chances are he won't care. Sticking with the same LTC policy as the last chief had or setting some generic "No ALP for 1st year of having the LTC" or just not getting around to writing a policy in the first place so that the licensing officer is left with the state's minimum standards could be the result of the chief's busy schedule, or like I said, total indifference. They have bigger things to worry about most of the time.

This most likely happened because the passengers thought it was a regular hijacking and not the suicide mission that it was. If they had known they were going to be killed no matter what there would have been more resistance as there was on the flight over PA in which the passengers knew what their fate was going to be.

I agree with what Rob Boudrie said, people are being told to go with the flow and give the bad guy whatever they want and they won't be hurt. Some people are so afraid of death or injury that they won't even consider putting themselves at risk of harm, even when inaction is guaranteed to get them hurt worse.

When bullets started flying at the Jonesboro school shooting Shannon Wright was the only person who reacted; she used her body to shield a child from gunfire and died from the wounds she suffered. She was a military medic, constantly trained to "protect the patient, protect the patient," so when the SHTF she did exactly what she had prepared and trained to do. Everyone else froze up and did nothing, because they had prepared for the situation with...nothing.

If you do not actively prepare to fight both mentally and physically, having metal in your pants or hands won't increase your odds of survival.

They know/think they are the ones who will have to face the business end of that gun. It's hard to argue statistics with someone who sees the "exceptions" on a daily basis. They don't see all the people who aren't inept and aren't pointing guns at them.

They will also have to be the 1st one on scene if your child accidentally shoots themselves with your improperly stored gun, if you shoot your wife during an argument, or if a store clerk sees your holster while you reach for your wallet and makes a panicked MWAG 911 call. Obviously these things will all happen whether or not the person involved has a piece of white plastic in their wallet, but as you said, it can be hard to overcome their immediate world view, especially when they have discretion.

Policies are not made by LOs, even if they are Lts. Now that I think about it, I've been told that THREE Lts (three different towns) who were LOs did NOT make the PD policy on LTCs . . . they were just charged with implementing them and being the "public face" of the PD to the applicant.

This was the distinction I missed in your above post.

Ahh, true... The Chief drives policy in all instances of which I am aware. Hard to say for sure, but I get the impression that some LO's have more or less latitude on the formation and/or implementation of the policy.

I know of one red town in Mass. that remained red for quite some time even after different CLEO's because the licensing officer had so much leeway.