Continuation of and follow-up to last weeks
rant news story. :evilgrin:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x99076
The controversy keeps on unfolding and hopefully it won't go away...
"License too scary
By Rick Holland/ Staff Writer
Thursday, February 10, 2005"
"When budding U.S. Army doctor Lt. Kang Lu made headlines over being denied a gun license last week, at first he thought he was being singled out for some reason.
But when Lu appears in Brookline District Court next week, appealing the denial decision, he may be joined by a growing number of citizens who will testify to rude treatment and superfluous reasons for denials at the hands of Brookline Police Sgt. Michael Raskin.
Lu, who applied to upgrade his existing gun license in 2003, has filed an appeal to be granted a license to carry a firearm. He and his attorney, Jesse Cohen, have alleged arbitrary reasons cited by the Brookline Police Department in not only denying the license upgrade, but revoking his existing hunting and target practice gun license in June 2003.
Paul Theodos, a retired Boston Police officer and Searle Avenue homeowner, said Raskin made it clear upfront that that he would not be approved for a license to carry a gun when he applied in September 2002.
" set up a very hostile environment when I was filling out the license application," said Theodos. "He basically told me there was no way I'd get a license to carry, and that I should apply for a hunting or target practice license instead."
Theodos, who says he is a veteran of "1,000 felony arrests" in his career as a cop, told the TAB a hunting gun license was essentially worthless to him."
Rest of article...
If there's any ray of sunshine to this whole disturbing affair, it's that a fellow (retired) cop was denied a concealed carry license (it also casts doubt on Lus suggestion of racial bias).
If a Chief of Police adopts a policy of denying a permit to law abiding lesser citizens, then it's only proper that he deny "a retired Boston Police officer" the same right "privilege".
However, Chief O'Leary (and Sgt. Raskin), should take their agenda a step further and deny carry permits to active duty police officers as well. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Note: Under MA law, law enforcement officers are exempt from many of the gun control and firearms laws in this State.
There is no licensing requirement for police officers while serving on active duty to carry a firearm (otherwise known as "carrying on the badge").
Without a proper permit, they cannot legally carry a firearm on their person while off-duty... the whole "as a police office I'm on duty 24hrs a day" is just the sort of rhetoric Jack Webb would respond with. However, as a condition of employment, most municipalities and/or Police Chiefs, require that their officers have a valid MA carry permit. Brookline requires it's officers to have a valid MA permit as a condition of employment.
Chief O'Leary should put his money where his mouth is and either: take steps through his superiors to drop the licensing requirement for his department so that Brookline Police Officers who are residents of Brookline can only carry while on duty. This would enable him to deny those police officers the same cherished MA carry permit that he has been denying others.
Or he should...
Approve all requests for a license submitted by a law abiding individual.
Living in MA is such an experince to be shared! :grr:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
