Mass police chiefs in a tizzy

"Massachusetts police chiefs rally for right to control long-gun permits | Fox News "

Political hacks who think like elitist's and socialists. Sad. Gives LE a bad name.
Most of these Chief's were never really street cops, just brown nose's from day one.

NY Sheriffs, who are elected and serve at the discretion of the voters have come out against NY's UNsafe Law.
In addition, I believe 55 of 62 Counties in NYS have denounced officially the UN safe Law.
As one would expect the State Police Superintendant and NYC Police Commissioner support the UNsafe Law.


The New York Sheriffs Association has filed a friends of the court brief supporting the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association's (NYRSPA) legal challenge against Governor Cuomo's NY SAFE Act. "The brief bolsters the litigants' arguments that the Act is unlawful on Second Amendment and other legal grounds, while offering the unique perspective of law enforcement on this issue." http://putnamsheriff.com/news/sheriff-smith-backs-legal-challenge-state-gun-control-law
Last month the Albany Police Officers Union also came out publically stating that they believe the NY SAFE Act "violates fundamental constitutional rights" and "will not deter criminals." They state that it places "unfair burdens on law abiding citizen gun owners" by banning certain firearms that were "heretofore possessed and used lawfully for the defense of life, liberty, and property." Capitol Confidential » Albany police union blasts SAFE Act as ?foolish?
The NYRSPA lawsuit filed in federal court challenges several aspects of the NY SAFE Act. One of the most ludicrous aspects of the new act is the requirement that legal gun owners can load no more than 7 rounds into a magazine that potentially holds 10 . Even in self-defense, 7 rounds is now the limit set by the act for law abiding citizens. However, at a range for target practice, 10 rounds can be loaded.
 
Last edited:
Way back in the early 60's, I can't remember what, my future bro in law committed a youthful indiscretion. Stupid teenage trick. Got probation, 6 months and the records were sealed. In 68, after high school, he enlisted in the Marines, spent 2 years in Nam, came home, went to work, got married and raised kids, the whole yada.

At the same time, he applied for and received the needed paperwork to buy a rifle and hunt. Fast forward to 2002 and out of the clear blue he was denied. New lawdog unsealed his records and used that to deny him the needed paperwork to allow him to own a firearm.

Naw, that Chicken S. sheriff and others like him doesn't need this authority.
 
Any activity that requires permission is a privilege, not a right. Any requirement for permission to keep and bears arms is an infringement on the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Most of us understand that no rights are absolute, and that some regulation is necessary (i.e.: convicted felons, mentally incompetent, habitual drug users, children, etc). The pendulum will always be in motion, moving to both sides of center, with some demanding greater regulation than others are willing to accept, and corrections will always be in process via the ballot box and the courthouse.

This pretty well defines the issue of gun control, and Massachussetts provides an excellent example of the excesses that invariably follow. The debate will never be over. We can never assume that any small victory will be the end of the battle. Even if efforts toward gun control result in open rebellion (as they did on April 19, 1775 at Concord and Lexington), just as soon as the rebellion is completed there will be those who demand that the new government control the keeping and bearing of arms. Count on it.
 
I moved from that state 32 years ago to WV. Spent 34 years in CT and MA, don't regret but the fact that my parents are buried so far away. Lots of good memories, constant gun issues weren't one of them.
 
I grew up in Mass and thank God at the time my uncle was the Police Chief. Made life a lot easier. Left Assachusetts years ago and never looked back. Moved to the Gun Shine State and worked in enforcement and now a retired LEO enjoying the warm South.
 
It was in fact, "The Usual Suspects" when it came to the chiefs rallying.

What finally ended up happening is that the chiefs got discretion for FID cards, but they have to petition the District Court for permission to deny an FID. Said petition must contain the reasons for denial and are subject to judicial review.

Additionally, if they deny a License to Carry, they must specify in writing the reason for the denial. Denials may be appealed in District Court.

Although there are those who will disagree, I think overall the bill went from being disaster for gun owners to a net win. The most onerous provisions were removed, Class B licenses are being phased out, PDs must issue a receipt at the time a renewal application is issued. Renewals must be processed within 90 days and permits are valid during that process.
A FID is no longer required to buy or possess chemical defense sprays, although only FFLs can sell it. :confused:

To me at least, the biggest losses were FID suitability and the draconian increase in penalties for improper storage. Also, carrying a firearm on a college or school campus is now arrestable.

The most important thing with this whole episode is that gun owners organized and rallied to fight an unfair bill. That seems to have taken the legislators and gun grabbers by surprise. We made enough noise to force the legislators to amend the bill at least three times to make it less restrictive.

The word is that neither the House nor the Senate want to bring this up again in the near future. Gun control has suddenly become controversial in MA, much to the surprise of the anti gun forces.

The key now is to not let our guard down.

I'm not sure of the facts, but it is my understanding that it was just a handful of Chiefs.
 
To me at least, the biggest losses were FID suitability and the draconian increase in penalties for improper storage.
I agree. The penalties for "improper storage" went from utterly ridiculous to totally insane. Can you imagine... 12 years in prison for even momentarily leaving an unloaded gun out of its locked safe without a trigger lock on it. It blows my mind. :rolleyes: And as it is turning out lately, improper storage is becoming the charge of choice against any gun owner the police wish to arrest, licensed and legit or not. :confused:

And now it is effective "may issue" for both the LTC and FID. Hopefully, the constitutionality of it will be challenged. Rights are no longer rights when you've got to beg and plea for permission to exercise them. :mad:
 
Here, in Ohio, CCW permits are issued by county sheriff's who are elected. Law abiding citizens usually have no problem getting a permit. There are no restrictions on long guns other than Class III requirements. As of now, I'm glad I live here. I wish you all the same freedoms!
 
Ironically, and probably unintentionally, the FID becoming may issue removes one of the arguments used in the past to defend may issue for LTCs.

I expect more litigation to follow.

Unabashed plug to follow. I urge my fellow MA residents to support Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A.org). Where GOAL does a great job lobbying in MA, Comm2A attacks the problem by litigation.

I agree. The penalties for "improper storage" went from utterly ridiculous to totally insane. Can you imagine... 12 years in prison for even momentarily leaving an unloaded gun out of its locked safe without a trigger lock on it. It blows my mind. :rolleyes: And as it is turning out lately, improper storage is becoming the charge of choice against any gun owner the police wish to arrest, licensed and legit or not. :confused:

And now it is effective "may issue" for both the LTC and FID. Hopefully, the constitutionality of it will be challenged. Rights are no longer rights when you've got to beg and plea for permission to exercise them. :mad:
 
Acts of 2014, Chapter 284 (Mass Gun Bill)

Some positive things:
FID: Chiefs must petition the court to deny someone an FID. Within a defined timeline if no decision is rendered the chief must issue the FID

Pepper Spray: Under the old law, a permit was required to buy and pssess pepper spray. Under the new, a permit is not required for someone 18 or older. 15-17 year olds must still have an FID card to possess.

The Class B license to carry was eliminated. Now, there is only one class of LTC. Chiefs now have to put denials in writing so that the burden of proof is on the police chief to defend in District Court. For the first time, gun owners can appeal their LTC restrictions in District Court.

People who voluntarily seek mental health will not be listed as a prohibited person. BTW, the word in the bill "unsuitable" was replaced with "prohibited". this also applies to voluntary help for alcohol and drug abuse.

Lost or Stolen Firearms: A person who reports in good faith the theft of firearms or loss of such will have protection so the licensing authority cannot consider them a prohibited person.

The law contains a lot of changes some good, like the above, and some not so good. But thanks to organizations like G.O.A.L in MA and others, it was prevented from being utterly disastrous.

I put the name of the bill in the title in case anyone wants to research it on their own.
 
My county has a very pro gun Sheriff and that is why this Nov. he is getting my vote once more. Don't know what kind of man we will get when he retires. Most LEO's are O K with CC, or at least the ones I have talked to.
 
Back
Top