Glidden turns Masschussetts cops into felons | Page 3 | MassCops

Glidden turns Masschussetts cops into felons

Discussion in 'Law Review' started by [email protected], Feb 3, 2011.


Is your Chief enforcing this new interpretation of the law?

Poll closed Feb 17, 2011.
  1. yes

    0 vote(s)
  2. no

    0 vote(s)
  3. dont know

    0 vote(s)
  4. continuing as before

    0 vote(s)
  1. Killjoy

    Killjoy Zombie Hunter

    When it comes down to it, Glidden is just one man with an opinion. He has no authority to pass laws, prosecute people, give legally binding judgments or rulings, nor does he even possess a juris doctorate. People are certainly entitled to opinions, the problem comes when some people's opinions are taken as gospel by those too stupid or lazy to form their own informed opinion. Glidden has rendered a highly restrictive interpretation of a current law, probably the most restrictive interpretation one could give. Many would argue, as they have done here, that his opinion is overly narrow and restrictive. His reasons probably are the reason why so many of our management type are ineffective leaders: doing nothing will never get you into trouble. By taking the narrowest, most restrictive interpretation of the law, he encourages management types to, in essence, do nothing. Don't stick your neck out for your officers and you'll never get into trouble. It is a philosophy that most of our management types will familiar to them and easy to enact.

    But in opposition to a manager, a leader would go out on a limb for his people, to do what is best for them and his department. A leader would trust his own instincts and common sense rather than to be controlled by their fears. Its just sad that so many of our managers aren't leaders.
  2. tango4

    tango4 MassCops Member

    I agree with Killjoy 100%. Lets take it one step further. Solidarity!
  3. Inspector71

    Inspector71 Duke of Campus Police

    At least tango is a SOLID NUT!!!!!:tounge_smile:
  4. tango4

    tango4 MassCops Member

    Check out ATF Regulation Section 925(a)(1) of the GCA on Sales To Law Enforcement Officers.

    "If a law enforcement officer is issued a certification letter on the agency's letterhead, signed by a person in authority within the agency stating the officer will use the firearms in performance of official duties and that a records check reveals that the purchasing officer has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, the officer specified in the certification may purchase a firearm from a licensee REGARDLESS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE OFFICER RESIDES, OR IN WHICH THE AGENCY IS LOCATED."

    This seems to contradict any opinion that is currently being thrown around locally regarding our rights to purchase firearms as law enforcement!
  5. mpd61

    mpd61 Retired Fed, Active Special

    So when is your meeting with Ron, Martha, and Deval scheduled for? Don't go alone whatever you do...
  6. tango4

    tango4 MassCops Member

    There are some really negative cops on this forum. No wonder I lost my Quinn Bill!:stomp:
  7. Delta784

    Delta784 Guest

    At most, you lost 1/2 of the Quinn Bill, since the law is still on the books for those who were enrolled before the cutoff date (which I assume includes you, since you allegedly have more time on the street than several of us combined), but it just isn't being fully funded by the state. Your municipality is still on the hook for their half.

    And you wonder why some people are questioning if you're actually a cop?
  8. niteowl1970

    niteowl1970 Moderator Staff Member

    Not negative... Just well informed.
  9. tango4

    tango4 MassCops Member

    You could have fooled me. Nothing but paranoia....
  10. OfficerObie59

    OfficerObie59 Public Trough Feeder

    I disagree completely; the reg you cite is irrelvent to this conversation.

    Putting aside any constituional infringements that could later be argued under 2nd AMD incorporation via McDonald, the Federal law creates a ceiling, not a floor. There is no direct conflict prompting preemption (overrule by the Supremacy Clause) because the state is acting within the minimum standards set by federal law.

    For illustration of this issue only, say the Federal Government were to make a law that allowed NHTSA to make a rgulation which said "All new vehicles sold in the United States must be painted a primary color". A state is then implicitly preempted from making a law mandating that all new cars must be green. It can also pass a law saying that people may buy new green cars, but the law would have no effect.

    However, a state could pass AND ENFORCE law saying all new cars must be painted either red, blue, or yellow, to which there would be no federal conflict. That would be fine since the law is more restrictive than the federal one.

    Here, Glidden is arguing the statutory Massachusetts AWB prevents private purchases, sales, and POSSESSION of "assualt weapons" to and by LEO's--not whether they can be sold as in the federal reg you cited. As for handguns, assuming you were correct and all dealers decided to abide by the EOPSS list when selling to LEO's, any restriction on what's sold works within that federal regulation--the state regulations are simply more strict (i.e., you can only have new red cars).
  11. CJIS

    CJIS MassCops Member

    I have always found the area is what is considered "Official Duties" to be fuzzy.

    I have yet to have someone explain to me in 100% certainty what an "Offical Duty" is in order to have a firearm sold to me as a Police Officer.

    I've brought these questions up with others and most of them too can't say yay or nay as to "offical duties"

    Is going to a range to brush out on your marksmanship to get a better qualifying score considered an official duty?

    Is carrying off duty and stopping a felony in progress with that firearm considered an "Official duty"?

    If Dept. policy says I may or must carry off duty is that considered an "Offical duty"?

    Or is an "Official duty" only when I am on the clock?
  12. mpd61

    mpd61 Retired Fed, Active Special

    Go shit in your hat! With all that street time, it's obvious you should retire
    and fade away
  13. tango4

    tango4 MassCops Member

    Unfortunately for mpd61, I still have a few good years left. His remarks are totally uncalled for and I'm surprised that the moderators allowed it to be posted.

    The intent of this blog was to gather information and support regarding our rights to purchase firearms as police officers. A few readers succumbed to paranoia and questioned my position as a police officer among other things. I shouldn't have to provide proof of employment to anyone.

    This issue was brought to a head because of a couple of incidents which occurred last week involving the ability of law enforcement officers to purchase firearms. This prompted me to go to this forum to obtain information and support to preserve our rights. Unfortunately, the response received from some members has been extremely disappointing and sometimes outright ignorant, such as the last reply by mpd61.
  14. sgthoskins

    sgthoskins Teufelhunden

    Does your husband know you're out of the kitchen and posting emo bullshit on the internet?
  15. OfficerObie59

    OfficerObie59 Public Trough Feeder

    Um, no, it wasn't.

    The purpose of this thread was to discuss a new interpretation of the MA Assault Weapons Ban by Ron Glidden that, if implimented, would instantly make any police officer that posesses a post-ban weapon a felon. That's quite a bit different than if you buy a 4th Gen Glock and then Interstate stops selling them to LEO's.

    Purchase is a separate issue, and probably should have been discussed in a separate thread. I wasn't going to get into the differences between the AWB and MA Handgun regulations--two different issues entirely--even though it was evidenced you seemed to merge the two as the same idea.

    You come in here like gang busters with what everyone else sees as a bad idea, particularly as a nOOb user no one knows, you're gonna get called on it. Perhaps you don't have the institutional memory that some of the others do, but a couple years ago, there was a write-up in a major-Boston area newspaper about some comments a user here made while expressing a political view on--well, guns.

    So please excuse us if we're "paranoid" about your motives, though I think we have plenty of reason to be skeptical.
  16. FAPD

    FAPD MassCops Member


    Remarks from mpd61 and others that were "uncalled for", "disappointing" and "ignorant"? Yeah I can see that too. And where does Obie get off being articulate about history and legal precedent? I really wouldn't know though. I probably don't have 10% of your vast experience that you refered to earlier. On the other hand;
  17. tango4

    tango4 MassCops Member

    My original thread was in a separate thread and appears to have been merged into this Glidden thread by, I'm assuming a moderator.

    Although the AWB ban and the EOPS handgun list may be 2 separate issues, they still fall under our rights as LEO to own and purchase firearms.

    My apologies to anyone who thought I was either working for the Boston Globe or Martha Coakley. And I didn't vote for Deval Patrick either.

    Although I have wrote this before, the purpose of this thread was for informational purposes only. Its very easy to attack someone sitting at a keyboard.
  18. 263FPD

    263FPD MassCops Angel

    mpd61 is selling a Bushmaster Lower in another thread. I am certain that he will not require tou to produce a department letterhead. Your LTC and LE ID will surely be enough.
  19. sgthoskins

    sgthoskins Teufelhunden

    What you see is what you get, I'll call you an emo clambag to your face.
  20. tango4

    tango4 MassCops Member

    You thin skinned guys are getting awfully insulting now. I don't think I'm going to read this forum anymore. Maybe I'll ask SPAM for their support!
  21. 7costanza

    7costanza Supporting Member

    SPAM...? Here ya go...

    [nomedia=""]YouTube - Monty Python - Spam[/nomedia]
  22. 263FPD

    263FPD MassCops Angel

    Please reconsider. You bring so much to the table here. We don't want to see you go. Please, please stay.

    Why is your status star still showing green? Please don't leave.:wavespin:
  23. tango4

    tango4 MassCops Member

    Thats it. Now they're using my beloved Marine Corps against me. I'm going over to Facebook!!!
  24. 263FPD

    263FPD MassCops Angel


    Is it afe to delete you?????
  25. CJIS

    CJIS MassCops Member

    For now lets just forget Opinions and Rumors regarding to the purchase of firearms to LEOs.

    I Look at this,

    When the CHSB gets the information about the firearm and the purchaser from the Dealer over the Phone and from the Computer or from a filled out FA10 form, wouldn't it be at that point where they (CHSB\EOPS) say no this firearm cannot be sold\transfered?

    Correct me if I am wrong but I would think CHSB\EOPS would be the ones to make the final decision if the sale\transfer is good or not.

    If I do a transfer and my Dealer gets the Ok From the woman\man over the phone that pretty much tells me there is no problem.

    Now I have dealt with the CHSB Firearms Division before (not LEO transfer related) and the staff there seems to know all the laws and regs. I once had a woman who 90% sure of something but put me on hold and checked with her boss just in case. A min later she told me the answer.


Share This Page

Search tags for this page
books by ron glidden
chief of police ron glidden

chief ron glidden

chief ron gliddon gun rights mass
chief ronald glidden
law enforcement guide to fireamrs law chief glidden
mass eops legal dept
police chief ron glidden

ron glidden

ron glidden author
ron glidden bio
ron glidden chief
ron glidden firearms laws
todd glidden massachusetts state police linkedin