MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page Healey: state, not local police, should issue gun licenses
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: CPT Chaos

By Steve Leblanc, Associated Press Writer | October 17, 2006

BOSTON --Kerry Healey said if she's elected governor she would move to strip local police chiefs of the right to issue gun licenses and instead transfer the authority to a statewide panel -- a proposal rejected by Democratic opponent Deval Patrick
Anyone who wants a license to carry or own a gun now has to approach their local police chief. Healey said that puts too much power in the hands of local officials at the expense of individuals seeking legal access to guns.
"My proposal would be to elevate that decision to a state body so that citizens of the commonwealth across the state could have the same standards applied to their applications to carry or possess a gun," Healey said.
Healey made the statement as the state's top gun rights advocacy group, the Gun Owners Action League, endorsed Healey in the governor's race, giving her a 95 percent rating. Patrick got no rating from the group because he did not return a questionnaire.
Gun rights groups have complained in the past that allowing individual police chiefs to approve gun licenses is unfair.
Healey said there needs to be a single statewide standard.
"At this moment right now your ability to get a gun permit completely is controlled by your local police chief," she said. "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 a state level not on a local level."
Asked whether individuals with police records should be allowed to carry a gun, Healey said that that kind of issue "should be teased out and settled at a state level."
In a letter to the gun owner's league, Healey said she comes "from a hunting and fishing family and as Gov. I will remain committed to maintaining that tradition and protecting the interests of sportsmen."
Patrick running mate Tim Murray took Healey to task for refusing to release the answers to her questionaire.
"This is an issue of life and death for the men and women who protect out streets each and every day," Murray said. "We saw last night in Manchester (N.H.) a police officer shot. We need to know whether she supports police chiefs having the right to license people in their communities."
Patrick campaign spokeswoman Libby DeVecchi said Patrick "strongly supports maintaining the authority of police chiefs to use their discretion to deny a handgun license to an applicant whom they consider a danger to the community."
She said Patrick also believes that law-abiding individuals who pass a background check and are a danger to neither themselves nor the community should be able to own firearms. He also supports the existing assault weapons ban and the latest ballistics technology, she said.
Healey made the comments in response to reporters' questions at a press conference she called to cast her Democratic opponent Deval Patrick as out of step on the issue of illegal immigration.
Standing on a blustery wharf in Charlestown, Healey said Massachusetts has always welcomed immigrants, but should draw the line at those who try to enter the country by breaking the law. She said the state should reject Patrick's proposal to allow illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses, which she said would open the door to fraud and terrorism.
"This is another bad idea that's supported by Deval Patrick and his running mate Tim Murray," Healey said standing beside a giant, mock drivers license for a "Joe Illegal" from "Anytown, MA."
"Massachusetts will become a haven for illegal immigrants and our taxpayers will have to absorb the cost," she said.
A spokeswoman for Patrick said Healey's own record on illegal immigration is spotty and blamed the administration for ignoring the problem of hiring practices in Massachusetts.
"The Romney Healey administration has given contracts to companies that hire undocumented workers. Kerry Healey is trying to talk tough on an issue, but it's the usual empty rhetoric," said DeVecchi.
Healey said Tuesday that if she's elected governor she would require all companies doing business with the state to provide proof that their workers are in the country legally.
Under questioning from reporters, Healey revised her own proposal on driver's licenses. Healey had said immigrants in the country legally should be able to get licenses, but she has also said voters should be required to produce driver's licenses before casting ballots.
On Tuesday Healey said she envisioned a new kind of driver's licenses which would indicate whether the holder is a citizen and able to vote, or is a legal immigrant.
The drivers' license issue may ultimately be a moot point for the next governor.
The federal Real ID Act of 2005, which grew out of a recommendation by the Sept. 11 commission, requires states by 2008 to verify documents such as birth certificates, Social Security cards and passports when people apply for driver's licenses.

Posted by: kwflatbed

The NRA has also endorsed Healy.

Posted by: djgj200

I'm surprised, as far as I knew, the NRA wants nothing to do with MA with GOAL screwing everything up. I know a couple people that work for GOAL, on a personal level they are very nice, friendly people. From a political stand point, they don't take into consideration the interests of other law-abiding gun owners. It pisses me off when I see gun control legislation proposed and I see GOAL is standing right behind it. I think they are anti-gun group in disguise.

I just heard last Saturday that Healey's husband is a big hunter and fisherman but she didn't want to use that in her campaign because more pressure may be put on certain issues and may cause her to lose sportsmen that were on her side. Less than a week later it comes out. MSP, if thats who is going to pick up the responsibility, don't interact with people on a local level, they're out on the highways and people they stop could be from anywhere. Being a local PO gives you more knowledge about certain people in the city through more interaction and then allows the local Chief to make better decisions on whether or not to deny someone a FID card or LTC. I think Healey is making the wrong move on this issue.

Remember, gun control is holding the gun with two hands.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Kid when are you going to learn to keep your mouth shut about things
you know nothing about.

I am a life endowment member of the NRA and they are endorsing Healy.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

I am a life endowment member of the NRA and they are endorsing Healy.

Well I hope this is the beginning of what we'll see of the NRA in MA. The NRA sent out stats which I bet you got showing The Brady Campaign rating MA an A- for gun control (infringing upon the 2nd Amendment). That is the highest rating anyone got, there was a state or two that was rated that high.

I spoke with an NRA Rep. in Feb. at the Big E and he said NRA is staying as far away from MA with GOAL screwing up everything in this state. You go tell that Rep. he doesn't know what he's talking about.

As far as I am concerned, GOAL out of MA.

Posted by: lofu

As a local cop from a decent size city, who is against most forms of gun control, I have absolutely no problem with this idea. As it stands right now there is not enough accountability for the appointing authority. If he or she says no, that is pretty much it. At least if there were a statewide board we would have some uniforimty as to who is issued a license and what type of license they are issued.

Posted by: kwflatbed

Endorsed canadates in red now shut the f--k up you are nothing but a bullshit artist and a complete asshole.

Posted by: djgj200

Gun control doesn't work. You ever hear of that thing called the black market. Yea, that's why gun control doesn't work. Guns are ALWAYS going to get in the hands of people that aren't supposed to have them.

I use two hands when holding my gun, that's all the gun control I need.

Posted by: mikemac64

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPT Chaos

"This is an issue of life and death for the men and women who protect out streets each and every day," Murray said. "We saw last night in Manchester (N.H.) a police officer shot. We need to know whether she supports police chiefs having the right to license people in their communities."

I am sure the local Police Chief is revoking the suspected shooters LTC as we speak......

Posted by: MM1799

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

MSP, if thats who is going to pick up the responsibility, don't interact with people on a local level, they're out on the highways and people they stop could be from anywhere.

Take a ride to B or C Troop. Work with vfas, cat, gang units.. etc, etc. I'd bet they argue with you on that whole "only on the highway" crap.

I agree with lofu. Take the authority from individuals and allow a 3rd party panel to decide. The process and the requirements should be clear and it should be voted 'yes/no'.

Posted by: gooday

Who cares as long as it dont take as long to get. My buddy lives in Boston and it was one hell of a prosses for him and he is L.E.

Posted by: Mikey682

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

MSP, if thats who is going to pick up the responsibility, don't interact with people on a local level, they're out on the highways and people they stop could be from anywhere. Being a local PO gives you more knowledge about certain people in the city through more interaction and then allows the local Chief to make better decisions on whether or not to deny someone a FID card or LTC. I think Healey is making the wrong move on this issue.

Remember, gun control is holding the gun with two hands.

You are a retard. When you get your driver's license, take a ride west and look for MSP Cruisers parked outside peoples houses investigating B&E's, domestics, house alarms, and all that other "highway" stuff. Check one certain house in the Berkshires and you might see where my boot was lodged in the wall when a pissed off resident tried to kick my ass at a domestic.
And to further inform you of your ingorance, Healey wants a state board to issue the licenses, not the MSP. It was a pretty long article though, so I can't blame you for skipping over the first paragraph and looking for pictures and stuff.

Posted by: SOT

I think the first step should be a change to SHALL ISSUE. Then give it to the State Police, NOT the review board. Firearms licenses are law enforcement issues, the board is not a law enforcement agency, hence should have NOTHING to do with the actual original issue. As an oversite board, yeah OK...but not as the primary authority.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM1799

Take a ride to B or C Troop. Work with vfas, cat, gang units.. etc, etc. I'd bet they argue with you on that whole "only on the highway" crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikey682

Take a ride west and look for MSP Cruisers parked outside peoples houses investigating B&E's, domestics, house alarms, and all that other "highway" stuff. Check one certain house in the Berkshires and you might see where my boot was lodged in the wall when a pissed off resident tried to kick my ass at a domestic.
And to further inform you of your ingorance, Healey wants a state board to issue the licenses, not the MSP. It was a pretty long article though, so I can't blame you for skipping over the first paragraph and looking for pictures and stuff.

Sorry, I didn't take into consideration the specialized units and never realized MSP's role in the west.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT_II

I think the first step should be a change to SHALL ISSUE. Then give it to the State Police, NOT the review board. Firearms licenses are law enforcement issues, the board is not a law enforcement agency, hence should have NOTHING to do with the actual original issue. As an oversite board, yeah OK...but not as the primary authority.

I have to agree with that. You have to be finger printed, background check, etc. which is all law enforcement stuff to begin with. Now that would mean non-law enforcement will being doing stuff that should be done by law enforcement??? If that's what is going to come of this, I don't like that idea.

After I thought about it, the licenses are state licenses so I guess they should be the one's that issue them. But then again you can get your fishing and hunting licenses at your city/town hall. So now I'm back to square one saying it should be left to a local level. If this turns out to be on a state level if Healey gets elected, I better not have to go to Boston or someplace ridiculous just to get a damn application and then have to go back out there to get processed, etc. Why should non-LE be doing everything LE should be doing to begin with, such as the fingerprinting. If that's the case, the only way I would go along with it is they drop the fee back down to $25 from $100 for all the inconvenience its going to cause everyone. I know a lot of details aren't released on this yet and I am doing a lot of speculation but this is where I stand at the moment.

Posted by: kwflatbed

"Sorry, I didn't take into consideration the specialized units and never realized MSP's role in the west."

That is why you need to listen,read,learn and keep your mouth shut.

Posted by: djgj200

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

"Sorry, I didn't take into consideration the specialized units and never realized MSP's role in the west."

That is why you need to listen,read,learn and keep your mouth shut.

Still doesn't change my view on the situation.

BTW don't you have another 50 million articles to post today. You're wasting time replying to all my posts. Times a-wasting, better get back to "work".

Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:

Originally Posted by djgj200

Still doesn't change my view on the situation.

BTW don't you have another 50 million articles to post today. You're wasting time replying to all my posts. Times a-wasting, better get back to "work".

Why don't you go back and sit in Daddys lap, and you can ask him all about
how things work in the real world,that is if he has any clue.

"The apple never falls to far from the tree."

Posted by: djgj200

Considering how I've read on this board how hard it is to get an FID or LTC in certain towns, this is good news for those law-abiding citizens that should be allowed to get a license. Like I said, I am hoping this isn't going to lead to an inconvenience by making us travel into Boston or some other place that is a bit of a trek. If she does that, than she better drop the fee back down to $25 from the ridiculous $100 its at now. I am anxious for details on how this would be set up, which probably won't come out until after she gets elected (if she gets elected).

I read in the paper today that more women are backing Patrick over Healey. The Globe said that Romney has some doubts about Healey winning the election. I hope this isn't true. God damnit, November 7th can't come soon enough. All of this uncertainty!

Posted by: jrc1179

Healey really needs to stop blowing the MSP. What is her deal. All her adds involving law enforcement all have shots of her with the MSP. Its kind of Pathetic.

Posted by: NFAfan

Been saying this all my life.

The discrimination that the current system of issue produces has been long proven. All one has to do is look at how many chief's decisions are overturned in courts. No one man should ever hold that type of power in any decision, nor should a law abiding citizen have to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars to prove a wrong decision by a chief of police. The wording of the law should also be changed to SHALL ISSUE as is the case in so many other states. A law abiding citizen should not have to prove anything to a chief of police, its up to the chief to prove (if he can) that a person is unsuitable to carry a gun.......and not just flat out deny a permit and force a lawsuit which happens in so many cases. This state's issue law is the most discriminatory in the entire country and has long since been in need of change. People are treated like criminals in one city or town and cannot enjoy the shooting sports or protect themselves or family, yet one city or town away, people are issued permits without restriction. Its unfair and should be changed immediately. The license says "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" not "The city or Town of". This issue has been abused for so long its ridiculous and when it was enacted, it should have had criminal and civil penalties involved for any chief who denied a permit to a qualified citizen. Mass chiefs are afraid of losing power....and that is the only reason they oppose a change. They can do no better job at ascertaining the background of an individual....no matter how much they say or think they can, than a state agency can. It becomes a local political football with the opposing team's (the applicant's) hands and feet tied. The potential resulting bad feelings after a lawsuit is not something that any citizen should have to have hanging over their head.
I'm glad Healey understands this and I hope it is one of her first acts as governer to change a thoroughly broken system in this state.

Posted by: Nightstalker

Police chiefs blast Healey on gun permits

Gun group endorses proposal

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.

Posted by: NFAfan

"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.

Proof positive that its all about money, power and control.
This is from someone who blatantly abused his authority by making the process more stringent than the state law calls for.
If Gemme is against it, it has to be a good idea.

Posted by: dcs2244

You beat me to it, NFA. Gemme is a political tool, as is the Mass Chiefs of Police organiziation.

"Chief"...read "political hack", in most cases...not all.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightstalker

Worcester Police Chief Gary J. Gemme

Worst. Chief. EVER.

Posted by: j809

I think that most PDs are worried about not collecting the $100 anymore. I say give the state the authority ,less hassles of all the paperwork and nonsense. And when the state denies someone the permit, let the state go to court with those people, good riddance.

Posted by: dave7336

will the Colonel of the State Police be able to tell me the difference between what the person who has no BOP, no state criminal history, and has never been pink slipped and someone who has no BOP, no state criminal history and has never been pink slipped but is known to be the town nutjob ?

Most likely the state level would look at this and say go ahead and give the license as they will be dealing with people from 351 cities and towns. They can very easily overlook certain things. With this many licenses being dealt with by the same agency, anyone who thinks that it will be quicker is sadly mistaken.

There is an appeal process for those who have been denied a license. As far as fees being decreased. I mentioned lowering fees in another thread about Romney/Healey and was told that if you want it, you should have to pay for it. When is the last time anyone has seen the state lower fees??? I am still waiting for the tax cut that the voter's selected...

Posted by: Mr.90/24

I work for MSP and I deal with as many people as I did when I was local. I understand your logic but you're wrong! MSP stands for Massachusetts State Police not Massachusetts Highway Patrol. Thanks for your opinion! Stay Safe.

Posted by: dave7336

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.90/24

I work for MSP and I deal with as many people as I did when I was local. I understand your logic but you're wrong! MSP stands for Massachusetts State Police not Massachusetts Highway Patrol. Thanks for your opinion! Stay Safe.

I am not sure if this is directed towards me or not. I never said anything about Highway Patrol. True you deal with many people, but on what level? A local department sees the same people time after time. I am sure this is true for the State Pd that are the main police agency in the smaller towns out west.

I just think that if I see the same person for 10 years and know what he/she is actually like, I may be able to have a better judgement about if that person should carry a firearm. Just like I would have no idea how someone else is an another town. If I did, I guess police departments would not have to call each other and ask if they know someone that they have stopped or behind a building. The reason they do this is because many times, that person is a frequent flyer with a particular department.

And once again, I did not say anything about Highway Patrol or try to demean the State Police, so I am not quite sure why that was mentioned. Either way, just my opinion and I will respect your opinion.

Stay Safe

Posted by: bbelichick

I think there are two sides to this...I definitely agree that the local Chiefs have a better feel for their citizens. However...I have seen WAY too many Chiefs that consider themselves kings. They are vindictive and act like dictators (Gemme?). They will deny first and pay for the lawsuit later.

Posted by: Mr.90/24

Okay I stand corrected Dave7336

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

I think there are two sides to this...I definitely agree that the local Chiefs have a better feel for their citizens. However...I have seen WAY too many Chiefs that consider themselves kings. They are vindictive and act like dictators (Gemme?). They will deny first and pay for the lawsuit later.

Thats news to me. The lawyers representing them(if they even use one) are salaried in most cases and it doesn't cost the chief anything. Thats one of the major problems with the current system of issuance. If there were civil or criminal penalties involved for their denials, there would be a lot fewer of them.
I also think you are mistaken about a chief having a better feel for residents of their jurisdictions. If someone has never been involved with the local police, they wouldn't know jack about them. The current system is flawed and is intimidating to applicants....thats exactly why most chiefs want it to remain in place. It is discriminatory in the worst way, catagorizing citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because of their respective cities or towns of residence and the appointed dictatorial actions of some chiefs. Why should "law abiding tax payer A" not be able to get an LTC in one city or town, yet "law abiding tax payer B" in some other town is issued an LTC without any hassles?
The system sucks and people are at the mercy of one man.....who in some cases shouldn't have the authority to clean the toilets of the buildings they work in.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFAfan

Thats news to me. The lawyers representing them(if they even use one) are salaried in most cases and it doesn't cost the chief anything.

I also think you are mistaken about a chief having a better feel for residents of their jurisdictions. If someone has never been involved with the local police, they wouldn't know jack about them.

By pay for it, I meant the judgement, not the representation.

And the Chief may not know the criminals, but the Officers in his PD should...

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

By pay for it, I meant the judgement, not the representation.

And the Chief may not know the criminals, but the Officers in his PD should...

Ok, but the problem is, the chiefs that constantly deny permits, usually continue to deny them, judgement or no judgement against them. The only person who pays is the applicant and this is WRONG. There isn't even a process for an applicant to recover legal fees.

Unless there is a civil monetary forfieture(money taken directly out of the pockets of the chief involved) or criminal penalties (which there is neither under current law) chiefs are free to continue with making denials with impunity.

As far as knowing the criminals.....it is highly unlikely that the criminals will be walking into a PD to apply for an LTC. Secondly, If said criminal has a disqualifying conviction, it will be just as visible to a state agency doing a background check as a local agency. A person is not a criminal unless they have had due process.....anything else is herese.
The current system of issue being done by a local chief and the wording of the law "MAY ISSUE" is stacked and biased against every "law abiding citizen" who applies. The burden of proof is on the apllicant to prove their suitability with the decision resting on the chief....unless money is spent by an applicant who is denied and a suit filed.
The law should be worded SHALL ISSUE and the permit should be issued by a state agency unless there is a disqualifer on the applicants record. This removes the local politics from the process and the potential for abuse by some chiefs who may believe that people shouldn't be able to carry a gun.....and there are plenty of them in MA.

Chiefs of police shouldn't and usually don't know anything about law abiding citizens. If they have not come up on their radar(so to speak) then they shouldn't be concerned with them, they should be concentrating on those who have broken the law. Its not their job to monitor the lives of good people, its their job to process those who have broken the law. Therefore, the argument that a "local chief knows better" is a falacy.

Posted by: PBC FL Cop

It seems having a uniformed system at the state level would be the best way to serve all of the Commonwealth equally, with regards to how permits are issued and what criteria is used. This would eliminate the discrepancies between individual communities and make the process uniformed.

With that being said, it should be expected, the state investigator would contact the chief in the respective town/city reference to the permit applicant. This would include the local police in the applicant process and allow their experience or lack thereof with the applicant to play a role in the final decision.

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBC FL Cop

It seems having a uniformed system at the state level would be the best way to serve all of the Commonwealth equally, with regards to how permits are issued and what criteria is used. This would eliminate the discrepancies between individual communities and make the process uniformed.

With that being said, it should be expected, the state investigator would contact the chief in the respective town/city reference to the permit applicant. This would include the local police in the applicant process and allow their experience or lack thereof with the applicant to play a role in the final decision.

And that is all that the law should do. It should apply a state standard to a state license, fairly and equitably among all citizens...unlike the discriminatory local system currently in place. There is too much room for personal intervention under the current system and it has been abused by some chiefs for decades.

If a chief has knowledge that may disqualify an individual, he should have to prove it and not just be in a position of authority where just his word against an applicant creates the necessity for a lawsuit in which he (the chief)has nothing to lose and an applicant is liable for the costs involved.
There should be a penalty involved to deter and or eliminate the personal and political biases that many chiefs have regarding guns and a process of monetary recovery for applicants unjustly denied. Currently there is neither.

Posted by: j809

Hey Relax NFAFan, only cops should carry guns anyway. It seems to me that you were denied a permit, because you are definitely not a cop.

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Hey Relax NFAFan, only cops should carry guns anyway.

Unfortunately, some people believe that......I know you don't.

Yes I've been denied, I sued and won. That has no bearing on whether the system is a failure. And what difference does it make if I were a cop or not? My rights don't come from a badge, nor do yours.

Posted by: j809

I just knew you'd answer within 5 minutes.

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

I just knew you'd answer within 5 minutes.

Well......I'm sitting right here. Care to discuss it over the phone in real time?

Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Hey Relax NFAFan, only cops should carry guns anyway. It seems to me that you were denied a permit, because you are definitely not a cop.

This is the attitude that they are trying to get rid of.
If you want to live under a dictatorship that is your
choice not mine.

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

This is the attitude that they are trying to get rid of.
If you want to live under a dictatorship that is your
choice not mine.

True enough....but I'm sure that j809 was just throwing a wrench into the discussion.

That line of "only cops should carry guns" is about the most unsubstantiated of them all.

Posted by: Unregistered

Quote:

Originally Posted by j809

Hey Relax NFAFan, only cops should carry guns anyway. It seems to me that you were denied a permit, because you are definitely not a cop.

I hope to Christ you are just kidding around.

Our Alice-In-Wonderland legal system has perverted our constitution into something that aids and abets the shitbags and suppresses victims and law abiding citizens alike. Believe it or not the majority of people out there are good people and their right to bear arms should not be executed via such a haphazard process. Local control need not be removed completely but the system as it stands now is need of repair.

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I agree....except that "local control" should be changed to "local input" to the process and the ultimate control of the process should be at a higher and less political level. If that is what you mean then I agree whole heartedly.

The wording "MAY ISSUE" has to go also. It is one of if not THE major contributing factor in the discrimination that too often takes place.

Posted by: kwflatbed

In my opinion i would like to see it go further to federal
just like the CDL.
Handled by the state but a federal license honored in all
states, ending all of the bullshit on CC.
One set of laws governing all and not needing to carry
a handbook for all of the different state regs.
The NRA has pushed for this for years but with all of the
Brady's,Kennedy's and Kerry's it will never happen.

Posted by: NFAfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

In my opinion i would like to see it go further to federal
just like the CDL.
Handled by the state but a federal license honored in all
states, ending all of the bullshit on CC.
One set of laws governing all and not needing to carry
a handbook for all of the different state regs.
The NRA has pushed for this for years but with all of the
Brady's,Kennedy's and Kerry's it will never happen.

Good point, I'd like to see that also. If it can be done for law enforcement officers, it SHOULD be done for everyone.
EDIT: Until that has a chance of happening, I'd at least like to see the current mess cleared up in this state.

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108