Police Chief uses Internet postings to deny firearms license.

[-..__...]

Interesting development here.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Not only are our 2nd Amendment Rights under attack, but now the Swampscott Police has placed our 1st Amendment Rights in jeopardy as well.

The language from the actual letter of denial reads as follows:

"Applicant appears to be overly anxious and unreasonably impatient with the time required for the licensing process. On-line postings suggest a lack of maturity and an inappropriate preoccupation with firearms and the circumstance surrounding the use of deadly force."

This is not a joke! This is for real!

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=86489

Apparently, this person was denied a "may issue" firearms permit, and in MA, a permit is required to simply purchase and posses both firearms and ammo (CCW isn't even an issue here), based on online comments and for no other reason.

At least according to the tin pot dictator involved, there were no "statutory" issues involved (not a prohibited person), nor is there any claim of threatening posts or intent to cause harm.

Even if any second amendment issues were removed from or uninvolved this case, it speaks pretty poorly of just how easily our (your), 1st amendment rights can be violated by those with the means and authority to do so.

And for the record, (having lived in the Kommonwealth of MA for over 50 years), I have no doubt that this particular incident is genuine and accurate.

[paulsby]

1. as a former MA cop, i heartily agree

it gives WAY too much power to the local police chiefs.

imagine if our voting rights were subject to the whim of the local police chief based on our internet postings!

[bowens43]

2. there is no first amanendment issue here

and we certainly need to more thoroughly scrutinise those who feel the need to arm themselves.

[-..__...]

4. Sure there is.

If a government entity creates an atmosphere of fear and/or distrust that what you, I or anyone else posts online could result
in a denial of a right or repercussions (excluding illegal and threatening comments), then it serves the same purpose.

we certainly need to more thoroughly scrutinise those who feel the need to arm themselves.

No single person should ever have the discretion or authority to make that decision on a fundamental right without due process.

[SteveM]

7. "May issue" is a page, straight out of the Jim Crow South...

Leaving to the discretion of local authorities a right guaranteed by the Constitution is itself unconstitutional.

www.georgiacarry.org Do a local search for the Heller Brief, submitted to SCOTUS in the Heller decision, and get a fine summary of the racist roots of gun-control. Subterfuge if not outright bans were the order of the day. And who were banned from possessing firearms?

"Negroes."

[rd_kent]

8. "we certainly need to more thoroughly scrutinise those who feel the need to arm themselves"- WTF?

We do? Really? For what reason? Who are you to decide if a persons reason for wanting to own a gun is appropriate. The Constitutional right to own one is not good enough?

[benEzra]

9. He's being punished for complaining that the PD was foot-dragging...

and at least in MY state, taking the time to learn about self-defense law is a requirement for obtaining a handgun carry license, not a disqualification.

If a police or regulatory agency can punish you without due process for criticizing their lack of professionalism, that's a bad thing, not a good thing.

[slackmaster]

10. Why do gun ban proponents pay so much attention to their perception of peoples' feelings and needs?

Neither of which are of any legitimate concern to anyone other than the individual who has them.

[taurus145]

13. You must have the proper feeling

in order for them to count. Our feelings about 2A rights evidently don't count.

[taurus145]

12. What part of "infringed" don't you understand?

How about we bring back literacy tests for voters?

What about a requirement that one must pass English 101 to write anything for publication?

I doubt that you'd stand for any test before allowing the exercise of any other right. Why firearms?

Any restriction on firearm ownership is an infringement.

[Callisto32]

29. "chilling effect, first amendment"

Google it.

typo fixed

[yodoobo]

3. Its difficult to judge based on the limited information

But if the guy identified himself online and made postings that he was itching to kill someone, then we should be thankful that his license was denied.

I'd have to reserve judgment till I see the actual postings.

[-..__...]

5. Had he done that.

The chief involved would have stated that as a reason for denial and the poster involved would have been subject to arrest.

[tburnsten]

22. Then check out the forum

And he didn't say he was itching to kill someone, the chief of police never claimed that was the reason for the denial, he said the reason for the denial was being "anxious to get the firearm" and "interested in self-defense", as if someone buying a gun for the first time should just never even consider the possibility that he or she may someday be in an awful situation where the only way out is defensive use of their firearm.

Go read the postings, there are lots of them on there but it's a pretty quick read, I don't plan on reading all of them but I'm about four pages in or so right now.

[tularetom]

6. Happens here in CA as well

I know of at least one sheriff who passes out CCW permits in return for campaign contributions. (and denying them to his political opponents).

[spin]

11. Can't let "those people" carry firearms. (n/t)

[SteveM]

14. So, THAT'S how Feinstein got her CCW! (nt)

[iverglas]

16. do you live in a banana republic?

I was just replying to a post in which I was asked why gun control didn't have more eloquent advocates.

And people can't even get it together to fire / stop electing (however these people get their jobs) blatantly corrupt officials like this? Not even to get started on poeple actually fighting universal health care.

You do know that no English or Canadian or Australian community would put up with such things for two seconds?

As usual, assuming they're true; I know, not a really safe assumption. And the fact that people bleat about them on the internet and nothing about them is done in the real world doesn't actually lend credibility to the claims ...

[tburnsten]

23. "no" English or Canadian or Australian community? Really?

Apparently you have forgotten how stigmatized guns are in your own three favorite countries as well as some parts of the US. Most people in LA county just don't care, and they all take it for granted already that if you own or want a gun you must be either a cop or a crook.

[iverglas]

25. apparently you can't follow a simple conversation

There was a subject of the discussion you have inserted yourself into.

I replied to a post that said this:

I know of at least one sheriff who passes out CCW permits in return for campaign contributions. (and denying them to his political opponents).

The subject I was addressing was corruption on the part of public officials. Not the first thing to do with how "stigmatized" you want to chatter about guns being somewhere. (I just love it when you people anthropomorphize firearms, while yammering out of the other sides of your mouths about how guns don't do nuttin but people who disagree with you ascribe magical powers to them. Always looks the other way around, to me.)

Do feel free to try again.

There are constant allegations/whines in this forum about corruption in the firearms licensing process.

Find me an example of any such corruption in Canada, the UK, or Australia, or whatever comparable country you might like. Of course, if you prefer to compare the US to Mexico or Russia or some such place, on the issue of corruption on the part of public officials, you can go ahead and do that.

[tburnsten]

28. Well it's a public forum so if you have an issue with me taking part in the debate

find a private forum to debate in, or use only private messages

[iverglas]

30. I'll ask again

Can you not follow a simple conversation?

In this instance, the issue was not your taking part in the debate -- it was your complete failure to say anything relevant to the post you "replied" to.

Next.

[tburnsten]

32. You claimed England, Canada, and Australia

do not have ANY instances of corruption comparable to the Sherriff of LA County selling concealed weapons permits for influence, votes, favors, what-have-you. I find that absurd, that was my post, I absolutely followed "the conversation", my response was to the moronic statement that England, Australia, and Canada together do not have a single instance of major corruption.

Next.

[iverglas]

34. "I find that absurd", you say

Well, I find you absurder.

If you have something to offer to let the rest of the world know what you base your finding on, I continue to be sure that you will offer it.


the moronic statement that England, Australia, and Canada together do not have a single instance of major corruption.

If you can find that statement in this thread, do give me a link to it.

MY statement (put interrogatively) was:

You do know that no English or Canadian or Australian community would put up with such things for two seconds?

SUCH THINGS being the practice described in the thread to which I replied: the delivery of a service that the public official was legally authorized and mandated to provide to individuals in their jurisdiction, "in return for campaign contributions (and denying them to his political opponents)".

Seeing it at all? Would you like me to copy it out a few more times?

I know it's a tough concept, but when I wrote that post, I wrote it ABOUT SOMETHING, specifically: what was said in the post I replied to.

If you think about it, you may start to grasp that concept.

[tburnsten]

44. You didn't say anything materially different than what I responded to

You are just quibbling over your exact wording. No worries, I am sure most DU'ers are capable of reading what you said, and what I said, and determining what I said, and what you said, regardless of your smoke and mirrors.

[petronius]

36. Wasn't that one of the many things that brought down Carona in Orange County?

Although I think he was taking it a step further - giving out badges as well as permits...

[iverglas]

41. why don't you tell us?

You must have google wherever you are. I'd love to hear the story.

Meanwhile, looks like he might have a fine successor (or is that race over?).

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/10/orange-county-teabagger-gun-nut.html

Nope, still going:

http://www.billhuntforsheriff2010.com/

Oh look! The crazed Ron Paul-head is endorsed by none other than MARY ROSH!!!


edit

Why do I think you have more than a passing acquaintance with this race maybe ...

[iverglas]

42. here we goes

http://www.ocregister.com/news/hutchens-119262-margarita-law.html

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA – Orange County’s sheriff and a challenger who plans to seek the office in 2010 clashed over concealed weapons policy at a forum Thursday.

... After taking office Hutchens implemented a stricter policy on concealed weapons in response to charges that former Sheriff Mike Carona gave out permits as political favors.

... "I believe that your constitutional rights should be protected," Hunt said to the crowd of between 60 to 80 people. "My policy will be if you apply and are not prohibited by law from having a CCW, I'll give it to you."

Hutchens said she instituted a stricter policy because state law requires it, not because she opposes the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

... Under state law, local sheriffs and police chiefs have discretion to hand out licenses to carry a concealed weapon based on "good cause."

format fixed

[iverglas]

15. I know of a woman who might have cheered this decision

She would now, but she's dead. She was shot by this guy. Nobody paid any attention to his blog until they were both dead.







That's him, just hanging out in mummy and daddy's rec room, being inappropriately preoccupied playing with his guns.

At a later date, he took them to Dawson College in Montreal and shot some people. One died and two spent a long time in hospital with major head injuries, police shot him.

He had his guns perfectly legally -- even the ones that are restricted in Canada, because he joined a gun club.

Some people really ought not to have guns. Really.

[eqfan592]

17. Sad story.

But it's still not a good foundation for any sort of policy change. You can't preemptively treat people like criminals. If he did in fact make threatening comments on his blog, then it's unfortunate nobody reported it to the proper authorities. But this is not relevant to the case in the OP, as it does not appear the person made any actual threatening comments, and instead simply vented about the slow processing time on the part of the Sheriffs department.

[iverglas]

18. nope

He didn't make any threatening comments. Minor indications of psychological problems (not all narcissists, e.g., commit mass murder), no threats.

So it is relevant to the case in the OP, not that I would suggest the person in the OP is likely to become a mass murderer. Few people are. Unfortunately, we can't spot 'em ahead of time.

I don't know what the person in the OP actually said, or what other info the issuing authority may have had, since no one has told us.

Denying someone access to firearms isn't "preemptively treat people like criminals". It isn't punishment. No more than denying someone access to anthrax is.

[-..__...]

19. Yep, that thar boy was pushing the envelope alright.

But somehow he Kimveer Gill managed to evade scrutiny or 'someone to keep an eye out for' all around.

So... despite your much vaunted health care system, one managed to fall through the cracks.
:shrug:

It happens, but how often does it happen that people should be denied a right or held to scrutiny and condemned by one official?

The attitude towards the police and authority here on DU is hardly supportive or trusting.

I'll say that a lot of times it does go overboard and beyond hatred and mistrust, but there is an element of truth to it all.

Would you, I, or anyone else want our rights hanging in the balance by a Sheriff Joe Arpaio type?

Maybe it's acceptable up in your neck of the woods, but down here, that kind of shit doesn't fly.

BTW... it's improper, poor etiquette and against DU rules to hotlink pictures Copyright issues and Bandwidth Theft on other websites.

:smoke:

[iverglas]

20. your attentions are desperately needed

BTW... it's improper, poor etiquette and against DU rules to hotlink pictures Copyright issues and Bandwidth Theft on other websites.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=275972&mesg_id=276045

Shall I start compiling a to-do list for you?

[-..__...]

38. 'Whaaa... why are you picking on me, Pipo did it too!

Well my dear, I didn't catch Pipo now did I?

I wouldn't have even caught your transgression if you had provided a clue as to whom the charming young
man in the picture was (I had to check the photo properties to find out).

Not that it's any sweat off my balls about either of you "hotlinking". :shrug:

But, then again... I can't ever recall Pipo being an anal fuddy-duddy about posting rules and improper content being posted
in the Gungeon.

Don't come crying to me if one of these days you get Goatse'd' or Tub Girl'd.

[iverglas]

39. really?

But, then again... I can't ever recall Pipo being an anal fuddy-duddy about posting rules and improper content being posted
in the Gungeon.

Somebody here was just saying something about having the guts to say what one means, too.

Presumably you mean something. If I gave a shit, I'd wonder what it was.

[tburnsten]

24. This guy was not a member of vampirefreaks.com

and all he did was criticize the chief of police (issuing authority) for a lack of professionalism for dragging out the application process to an unneccessary length, and also was looking into the legal ramifications of self-defense shooting. That's an extremely serious topic and anyone who owns or is thinking about buying a gun needs to take the time to learn at least the basic information about it, kind of like someone buying a car needs to learn about the ramifications of driving while fatigued or in inclement weather.


You really love bringing out that Matrix-wannabe psychopath, but comparing this guy to him is wrong.

[iverglas]

26. if you know something we don't know

do feel free to bring it to the discussion.

So far, all I've seen is an anonymous person's post on an internet discussion board. Your allegation that all he did was criticize the chief of police (issuing authority) for a lack of professionalism for dragging out the application process to an unneccessary length, and also was looking into the legal ramifications of self-defense shooting, but I'll be waiting for some primary sources, myself.

[tburnsten]

27. Read the thread and the OP

[iverglas]

31. jump in a lake

As long as we're issuing directives.

You have anything to say that responds to what I said in the post you "replied" to, or do you just like seeing your name in pixels?

[tburnsten]

33. Take a short walk

off a long cliff

[iverglas]

35. snork

The saying is: Take a short walk off a long pier.

"A long cliff" ... :wtf:

[TPaine7]

37. Snork, Snork

The saying is: "Take a LONG walk on a SHORT pier."

Get someone to explain the logic to you.

[iverglas]

40. there I was

trying so hard to figure out wtf that cliff business was, I neglected to notice the reversal of the instructions that I had heard my daddy issue about when your daddy was in short pants, I imagine.

Whatever would I do without you, son?

[TPaine7]

45. When correcting others, Ancient One,

it's a good idea to be right yourself.

[tburnsten]

43. It's fundamentally similiar

But without the cushy landing

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.