Posted: 12/9/2004 5:43:56 AM EDT
|
From ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2004/12/09/news/news01.txt Chief toughens pistol policy: Quincy gun licenses harder to get with more restrictive rules By CHRISTOPHER WALKER The Patriot Ledger QUINCY - City residents seeking a license to carry a gun are facing tougher scrutiny from Police Chief Robert Crowley, who says people need to have a good reason to pack a pistol. ‘‘There has to be a need, a legitimate and specific purpose. Why do you need to carry a gun?'' said Crowley, who took over the department in July. ‘‘If there is a reason, then you're qualified. I'm looking at the specifics of every individual case.'' Crowley says his approach isn't an overhaul of the police department's permitting policy, acknowledging only that his style ‘‘may be a little more restrictive'' than his predecessors. But complaints about the chief's policy have spread swiftly. James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, said his office has received ‘‘a lot'' of complaints from people trying to renew licenses or get a new one in Quincy. The Braintree Rifle and Pistol Club criticized Crowley in its latest newsletter, and the Quincy City Council plans to hold a hearing on the subject. Eric Goldman, president of the 2,700-member Braintree gun club, said he's taking a wait-and-see approach to Crowley's policy, noting that the critical newsletter didn't reflect the opinions of the group as a whole. He said he has only heard of a couple of specific problems in Quincy. Wallace largely blames the state law governing gun permits. The law requires that a license to carry a concealed weapon be connected to a potential threat to a person, which is ‘‘the worst possible scenario'' in which permits should be issued, he said. ‘‘You have a right to carry a firearm - you shouldn't be forced to give a reason,'' Wallace said. ‘‘Do the police need a reason to carry a gun? They're running into the same people on the street that we are. ‘‘We're getting quite a few calls from Quincy, and it's not a place you expect to get a lot of calls from.'' People denied a license to carry can appeal the police department's decision in court, and a few have done so. One was recently settled, in which the gun owner was granted a license, and one case is pending. Crowley said that anyone who has had a license to carry previously will be given a renewal if nothing - such as a criminal conviction - disqualifies the applicant. As for new applicants, Crowley said he's simply no longer going to accept generic reasons from people trying to get a license. Saying it's needed simply for ‘‘defense'' isn't good enough, Crowley said. There's nothing wrong with that kind of policy in general, according to the state Executive Office of Public Safety. Katie Ford, a spokeswoman for Public Safety Secretary Edward Flynn, said state law gives local departments ‘‘wide latitude'' when deciding who should get a license to carry. Ford said there is some anecdotal evidence suggesting that some departments have used the permitting process - including waiting periods - to discourage would-be gun carriers from getting a permit. A new state system to be implemented next year should speed up the approval process, she said. In the only case awaiting a hearing in Quincy District Court, Crowley rejected the renewal of a license to carry because the Quincy man seeking the license allegedly lied on the application about whether he'd ever been a defendant in a criminal case. Joseph Keegan, the attorney for the applicant, George Chase, said his client has held a license to carry for 17 years without incident. The criminal case against Chase was ultimately dismissed, and Chase thought the application was questioning if he had ever been convicted of a crime. ‘‘Why has there never been an issue for 17 years, but there is one now?'' said Keegan, a former Quincy police officer. ‘‘This state already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and if Quincy is going beyond that, I think we have a problem.'' Christopher Walker may be reached at [email protected]. Copyright 2004 The Patriot Ledger Transmitted Wednesday, December 08, 2004 |
|
Remember! Only the police are responsible enough to posess firearms! Quincy Police officer to face drunk driving charge 8 Quincy Police officers suspended for drinking, driving and discharging their issued firearms |
Roger, you better talk with Jim Wallace on that one! I spoke with him and he did NOT say that he was mis-quoted! I was a little more than surprised. What we can agree on is that the chief has the legal authority to DEMAND that any applicant be subject to potential threats only. Total discretion of "Suitability" by the chief (as defined in Ch. 140)definitely gives him the power to do this. BTW, at the Braintree R&P Annual meeting on Sunday, a number of people got up and spoke about 1st hand experiences with Quincy's new policy. People claim that they are being downgraded from ALP to "target only" or "target & hunting only", etc. So it is becoming a wide-spread problem there in spite of the quote from BR&P management. From what I've been told, it is true that only one person has been denied (and it appears to be justifiable for perjury on the form), but many/all are incurring the wrath of this new policy. Note: Downgrades are not considered by law as denials and thus there is no legal mechanism for appeal in the statutes. Yes, you can still sue, but not under Ch. 140. Probably under a civil rights issue, but most/all MA judges don't recognize the 2nd Amendment as a right in MA, so likelihood of winning is pretty slim. |
That is unbelieveable. I hope that cancer doesn't spread throughout the state. |
|
Yeah, and of course I live in Quincy.... and my Class A ALP expires in about 2 months. There's a good chance I'll be moving out of the state at about that same time, so I'm still debating whether or not to even bother with the renewal. On one hand I'd rather cover my ass in case my move falls through or gets delayed. On the other hand, if I do move, then why should I hand over $100 to the state for a permit I won't need? I don't know what the deal is with this new chief. I thought that this was the guy that had come up through the ranks and had been a beat cop. And yet he winds up being even more anti-gun than the political ass-kissers that usually wind up making chief for a small city department. |
There was an article posted on the MA firearms email list last week(?) that said that the Worcester chief was essentially doing the same thing, IIRC. I think the only hope for us MA residents is to live in small, relatively conservative towns... 
|
|
I have been told that the new president of the Mass Chiefs of Police Assn (MCOPA), who was sworn in at F1-Braintree last Thursday, has stated that his agenda for his term is to put into place more GUN CONTROL! So, you can expect a lot more chiefs implementing more restrictive licensing policies. BTW, this is typical of MCOPA (I think most all of their presidents have this common theme)! Think long an hard before you donate money to them each year as their extortion letter hits your SnailMail box! And NO, the sticker is NOT going to help you get out of a ticket when stopped by rank & file POs. Most working POs have NO love for MCOPA. |
...count down to FLA!