Out of control Police Chief.

[-..__...]

Just one more shining example of why all firearms permits should be granted on a "shall issue" basis (or to use a Bradyism... "force" the police to issue the permit).

"Gemme gets Tough on Guns: Rules for Licensing Made More Stringent"

"WORCESTER - Revisions that Police Chief Gary J. Gemme has made to the Police Department's gun-licensing policy have made it one of the most stringent in the state, the chief said, calling it an effort to limit who is eligible to obtain a gun license in Worcester.

The chief said he was motivated by recent instances in which people with clean records were able to obtain a gun but then were seen with known gang leaders, leaving police to wonder who is in control of the weapon and the reason for which it is being used.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives has said it has seen more cases of such "straw" people obtaining a gun to provide it to someone who is precluded, for various reasons, from having a license. Chief Gemme has said his policy, released last week, redefines a "suitable" person, one of the criteria state law leaves to local licensing authorities to define."

8<---- Snip

"Chief Gemme said his new policy narrows the definition of a "suitable" person.

Under his plan, an applicant can be disqualified if he or she:

Has been arrested for a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than two years;

(Note: simply being arrested with no conviction or finding of guilt will result in the permit being denied)

Has been arrested for any felony or any incident involving physical violence or threats to commit physical violence;

(Again; no finding of guilt necessary).

Has been involved in a domestic violence incident that results in the issuance of a temporary or permanent restraining order against him or her;

Has had any drug arrest, including marijuana;

Does not have a job;

(Being unemployed makes a person untrustworthy or unsuitable...:wtf:)

Has been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or has multiple minor alcohol-related arrests;

(More B.S. Under current MA law, if a person had been convicted of a DUI on or after May 27, 1994, then it becomes an automatic disqualifyer for a firearms permit. Reason is that after that date, the max penalty for a 1st time DUI was increased to 2 1/2 years. However, what Gemme is doing here is using his broad discretionary powers to use any DUI conviction to deny the permit... regardless of how long ago it was)

Has had any past or present affiliation, association or cohabitation with any person or group with a known criminal history.

(Having a poor choice of friends or associates is a crime now... even if the affiliation was in the past?)

Moreover, the chief said he will ask applicants their intended use of the weapon, rather than allowing them to check off a box saying it's for "all lawful purposes."

Under the chief's plan, the only allowed purposes will be:

Sporting, for which the gun can be used only at shooting and target clubs;

Target practice, for which it can be used only at a shooting club or facility;

Hunting, for which a license will only be issued for a large- capacity rifle and a shotgun;

Personal protection, in which case the applicant must specify the reason he fears injury to himself or his property."


More...


One final note for those unfamiliar with the ridiculous, over bearing MA firearms laws:

A permit is required to purchase, posses and own any firearm.

A permit to own a "non-large capacity longarm" requires an FID which is "shall issue" (meaning if there are no disqualifiers, the Chief
is forced has to issue it).

A permit to purchase, posses and own a "large capacity longarm" and/or a "non-large capacity handgun" requires a MA Class B LTC (License to Carry).

A permit to "purchase, posses and own" a large capacity longarm" and/or
a "large capacity handgun" requires a MA Class A LTC.

A Class A LTC is also the permit required for carrying a concealed firearm; otherwise known as "For All Lawful Purposes" or ALP.

Both the Class A and Class B permits are "may issue".

Normally, the Police Chief uses his discretionary powers with regards to issuing licenses for ALP (depends on the Chief). The license usually has restrictions placed on it such as "for sporting or target use only).

Under Gemmes new policy, he is denying or going beyond what is fair practice in issuing permits simply to buy, own or purchase "assault" type firearms and handguns.

Welcome to the Gulag...

[Jack_DeLeon]

1. Something tells me that his idea of a suitable person would be...

an upper middle class or above WASP.

[-..__...]

3. Almost forgot these little nuggets.

Speaking of "suitable" people...

"Under the chief's plan, only active and retired law enforcement holders may say the weapon will be used for "all lawful purposes."

I guess "equal protection" under the law doesn't apply in Worcester.
:puke:

"The policy applies to first-time applicants and applicants for license renewals".

So, overnight a person who was once previously "suitable", is now someone
not to be trusted?

[Warpy]

4. You've never been to Worcester, I see

Trust me, you don't want most of the people in that town carrying guns.

[-..__...]

5. Been there a number of times...

Mostly to the Civic Center. I've been to citys and towns in MA that were much worse off.

I don't get what you're implying here; that everyone in Worcester is either a criminal or has some nefarious reason for owning a handgun?

The Chiefs policy will have no effect on criminals or other unsavory charecters... it's just a travesty of justice against law abiding citizens.

[RoeBear]

10. Describe "most of the people in that town"

I'd be very interested to know what you're getting at.

[alwynsw]

13. Probably the buffalo farm.

Those bison can be mighty testy.

[bluestateguy]

2. I would just quietly ignore those laws

Unconstitutional laws are null and void in the United States, and I do not need the government's permission to defend myself.

[MrSandman]

6. So much for the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments...nt

[vpigrad]

7. His job is to protect the public, and...

he is doing that job. Good for him for standing-up to the repukes.

[-..__...]

8. "standing-up to the repukes".

Gimme a break.

Did you even read my original post? This is happening in Massachusetts.

What makes you think the "repukes" are even an issue or weigh in on Gemme's policy decision? The asshat isn't even an elected official.

"Doing his job"?!?...

Part of his job is upholding the Constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Constitution.

"Doing his job"?!?...

I guess that would include busting up an anti-war protest or gay rights march?

This isn't about politics, "protecting the public", reducing crime or the safety of police officers.

The guy is an abusive POS interjecting his own opinion into public policy.

He needs a good swift kick to the head... not admiration.

[vpigrad]

9. Sigh

> This is happening in Massachusetts.

I never said it didn't. Why would you post something like that? Why are you trying to infer something other than what I posted? Nice agenda there.

> What makes you think the "repukes" are even an issue

It sounds like they're the ones fighting for a more violent society. How often do you hear party members doing that? Not very often. It's almost always the repukes.

> busting up an anti-war protest or gay rights march

WTF does a protest or parade have to do with tools of violence?

> He needs a good swift kick to the head

Do you always react so violently?

[alwynsw]

12. Take a deep breath.

standing-up to the repukes

This is happening in Massachusetts.

Last I heard, MA was solidly Dem.

What makes you think the "repukes" are even an issue

I'll skip your reply and refer you to my comment above. (You know, the one about MA being solidly Dem.)

busting up an anti-war protest or gay rights march

WTF does a protest or parade have to do with tools of violence?

It's all about freedom(s). This yo-yo wants to eliminate 2A rights in "his" town. What's next: control of or elimination of any other actions activities Chief Gemme personally dislikes or disapproves of? Maybe providing traffic control for a gay rights or abortion rights, or (enter a topic here) march will inconvenience him and his department enough that he will deny a permit or arrest the participants.

He needs a good swift kick to the head

Do you always react so violently?

Where do I begin? Expressions, colloquialisms, etc. - manner of speaking. If you do a little checking, this one goes back to the days when horses were our main mode of personal transportation - as in a horse kick to the head - similar to the modern "knock some sense into someone. All that aside, words are not violent. Words and the reader's interpretation of them may incite violence, but in and of themselves words are neutral. Every word written or spoken is not intended to be taken literally.

Get a grip. Chief Gemme is abusing his position to deny many citizens their constitutional rights. No more, no less. IMO he should be fired, terminated, sacked, downsized, let go, dismissed, canned, put out on the street, tossed out on his ear (don't want any confusion about my thoughts here) for refusing to do this portion of his job.

on edit: Now that the HTML is fixed: What baloney have you been swallowing that would make you refer to firearms as tools of violence. I agree wholeheartedly with the tool description. The violence part lies solely with the user. That being said, sometimes violence is a good thing. The violent death of an attacker who is in the process of threatening, injuring, or killing another human being is a good thing in my book. The sometimes necessary violent overthrow of despots is also a good thing. Of course, I'm assuming that you mean that violence in and of itself is a bad thing. As the song goes, "It ain't necessarily so."

[-..__...]

14. You have way too much faith in the "powers that be".

"I never said it didn't. Why would you post something like that?"

Just verifying that you comprehend the situation. Why would you post something about "standing up to the repukes" when their influence
here is next to zero?

"Why are you trying to infer something other than what I posted? Nice agenda there."

Unlike Chief Gemmes agenda...

"It sounds like they're the ones fighting for a more violent society."

Sounds like something someone with an agenda would post... that firearms ownership = violence (firearms serve no legitimate purpose or
that anyone who owns them must have violent tendencies or desires).

"How often do you hear party members doing that? Not very often. It's almost always the repukes."

The number one ally of MA gun owners is a Dem... Sen. Stephen M.Brewer.

GOAL (Gun Owners Action League), rates 52 MA State Legislators as an A+,or 98%-95% when it comes firearms legislation.

(Edited to add GOAL link).

I suppose they're all supportive of more violence in society?

"WTF does a protest or parade have to do with tools of violence?"

WTF does not having a job have to do with denying a firearms permit to an otherwise law abiding person?

WTF does having never been convicted in a courtroom of any crime have to do with denial of a right? And just to play devils advocate here a bit, lets call it a "privilege" instead of a right.

If this Chief can overstep his bounds and use his discretion to deny
one right or privilege in his jurisdiction, what's stopping him from denying others rights and privileges?

His decision has nothing to do with public safety, nor will it prevent or reduce firearms related crime in Worcester... and he damn well knows it.

If he was anti-gay or anti-choice and he used similar discretion to deny or infringe upon gay or pro-choice rights or privileges, you'd be screaming for his blood.


"Do you always react so violently?"

:eyes:

[MrSandman]

15. But does he represent the core values?

The number one ally of MA gun owners is a Dem... Sen. Stephen M.Brewer.

[-..__...]

16. I had that info a few minutes ago.

Damned if I can find it again (it was one of those "Candidates on the Issues" type websites).

Edited: Never mind... I found it http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS022803

He's from Western MA (meaning rural). I'd describe him as leaning a bit towards the moderate side.

High marks for environmental issues (sides with hunters?).

Described as being "pro-life" (in MA that usually means Catholic).

He's no Jarret Barrios, then again; he's no Zell Miller or former Speaker of the House Tom Finneran (rabidly anti-choice and anti-gay).

[MrSandman]

17. Our pro-RKBA Rep kind of avoids ...

Advertising on those. I guess i'd have to check the record.

http://www.rahall.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=8215&type=News

[Romulus]

11. another sad story, but not surprising in light of history

It's another example of why firearms owners are suspicious of "licensing schemes."

Look at what happened in DC, Chicago, and the Chicago Suburbs, not to mention Jamaica, UK, CAN, Brazil, SoAf, ad nauseum.

First, it was a matter of simply getting a licensing bottleneck enacted on firearms ownership. Licensing was sold as only "enforcing the laws on the books," and "ensuring that prohibited people were unable to legally acquire firearms, thus discouraging criminal behaviour."

Then, the licensing requirements were cranked down tighter and tighter, until one day NO ONE got a license, or at least only government employees and their friends got them. "Prohibited people" became 99% of the population.