StokeyBob: Question; Why wasn't he charged on this new crime when he was a minor.

Answer; Because it wasn't even a law then.

Did you even RTFA?

This isn't about him being charged with a new crime. This is about a crime he was charged with when he was 15, and apparently either pled guilty to or was convicted of in juvenile court.

When he was 15 he was convicted in Juvenile courts.

The record of the conviction was sealed when he became an adult. He lived his like like it never happened.

A change in state law unsealed the record for purposes of concealed weapons permits. Thus, the office that had to approve his permit all of a sudden sees he has a criminal record and has to deny the permit.

That's the new law, a law that unsealed a conviction from his past, not something that retroactively made something illegal.

Free hint: In the USA you cannot make something a crime retroactively. The Ex Post Facto clause to the US Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3). Taxes and administrative regulations can be ex post facto, but not criminal laws.

Though he seems relatively harmless for a cop, his first and last duty is to the law, right?

Time to perform your last duty to the Party.

I can't get too worked up when a guy who's made a career of enforcing laws, many of which are patently unjust, happens to be himself hurt by one.

Maybe he should take this opportunity to go back to school and become a civil rights lawyer.

Silverstaff,

Na. I didn't read the article.

Still this sounds like a load of bull. Speaking from my heart mind you.

Thanks for the Ex Post Facto thing. I fired up the Googler to refresh my memory on it.

Annnnd it still sounds like a load of bull to drop on him.

Oh wait I did read the article.

And it still sounds like a load of bull to drop on him. Is a thirty year sentence an unusual punishment for the crime he committed as a minor?

gromitcu: Benjimin_Dover: gromitcu: Why does he even need to apply for a permit? Doesn't LEOSA (new window) cover him regardless?

LEOSA applies if the person meets the all the requirements from the link you posted. One of the requirements is...

4. be authorized by the agency to carry a firearm,

...so his superiors allowing him to carry "on the badge" would be needed.

FTFA: "Chief Steven Carl is allowing Wareham to carry a firearm "on the badge," which means he can have a gun while on duty.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy.... that's already been addressed....

I was just pointing out that he now by way of the LEOSA can carry off duty as well due to the on duty allowance of his agency.

The law is an ass.

"Good! That's the law! The law is the law! He ain't special!"

/authoritarian jackhole

Fat Old Broad: Where did you get that awesome list? If we can just come up with a few more we can make a bingo board!

List is here: http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

Thankyou and bookmarked for future reference.

AbbeySomeone: Would this have happened if he were white and came from a monied family?

It would not have happened... because he wouldn't have become a cop.

Or was that some kind of trick question?

Cyclometh: Spicy_McHaggus: gromitcu: Why does he even need to apply for a permit? Doesn't LEOSA (new window) cover him regardless?

Thats what I thought. Ive been a police officer for 6 years now and I have never had to have a permit to carry off duty. Springfield XDM 40 on the badge, S&W Bodyguard 380 off duty, every day. Its a scary feeling seeing someone youve fought with before at the grocery store, park, whatever. If my department told me I couldnt carry off duty I would leave because they obviously arent taking my safety into consideration. People at school love me. They know if theres a campus shooting itll end when he tries to come in my room.

Hah, that's how you get a flamewar started! Nicely done, 9/10.


Like Johnny Flame. A true pro. :)

lennavan: ArkAngel: lennavan: Don't Troll Me Bro!: We shouldn't punish people who get away with it for 28 years

An interesting perspective. I tried really hard to decide wither I agree or not but then I read this one: "Recently, his license to carry a firearm when he is off duty was denied... The lack of his firearms permit has not affected his job."

And the best I can come up with is "whoopdy farking doo."

So you'd be fine with permanently losing a Constitutionally-guaranteed right because of something stupid you did when you were 15?

Yep.

I'll do you one further - I'm okay with life in prison for 15 year olds who commit heinous crimes.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - A central Missouri teenager who confessed to strangling, cutting and stabbing a 9-year-old girl because she wanted to know how it felt to kill someone was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Bustamante was 15 years old when she confessed to strangling Elizabeth, repeatedly stabbing her in the chest and slicing the girl's throat. She led police to the shallow grave where she had concealed Elizabeth's body under a blanket of leaves in the woods behind their neighborhood.

Did you see a picture of that chick? Holy cow man. Like something straight out of a horror movie.

Maybe the way he should fight the case against him is on the truthfulness of the witness.

First they were going to seal his record.

Then they weren't.

First there is no evidence against him.

Then there is.

What are the odds they would start telling the truth now?

Don't Troll Me Bro!: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

Gentlemen (we are planning on getting rid of what whole women's suffrage thing soon) I present to you, the 2012 Republican party platform!

FTFA: "There's an awful lot of police officers in a lot of communities that will be affected by this - model police officers."

Hilarious. Some kind of a tragedy for the police when laws which apply to citizens are applied equally to them? I'd bet a year's wages the police unions will see the law is changed in a way that doesn't make the papers.

So we've successfully taken away a gun from a cop...
Meanwhile any two bit crook can buy any firearm, in any quantity, on the black market.

I see our continued ban on technology is having the usual nonsensical outcome.
/The scary part is that people who create legal snafu's like this spend their entire careers writing law.

this is why a lot of us just move out of MA, dumb laws.... really its common sense that a sworn officer (cop) shouldn't need any other permit to carry. that's so dumb... that's MA for you.

....now, I do have to wonder about this mysterious unknown "crime" committed at age 15, a felony? maybe violent? did this guy rape or kill someone? we aren't entitled apparently to know more about that but if he killed or raped at 15 he doesn't need to be a cop.

casual disregard: This is total bullcrap. Somebody wanted to hurt this man and sieved his past to find even the tiniest piece of dirt to do it. That's just awful.

No this is a case of some hoplophobic Democrat politician's effort to "be tough on "gun crime:"" and find any excuse to disarm the maximum number of victims. He got the idea from Bloomberg making felonies of parking tickets and J-walking in order to render as many people as possible defenseless. The next step is to make living in Mass a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. Even though the sentence is never applied it still removes their gun rights because it "could be"

If it required the consideration of violent crimes, father raping, mother killing, littering or creating a nuisance and ignoring anything else it MIGHT be realistic. But it doesn't and isn't. Gara, they are calling you.

KeeptheChief: What a Farker's conundrum!

The "forgive the criminal record" people now find themselves siding with a police officer. Someone's brain may splode today.

As amusing as that would be, this cop doesn't exactly have a questionable past, aside from some event when he was 15. He's been a cop for longer than not, so why should this broad law affect him, or anyone without an adult record.

We have records sealed because we realize kids and teens do stupid stuff.

medic2731: Last time I checked, an officer of the law is ALWAYS on duty, or "on the badge". Therefore this should be a moot point.

If adorable myth were true, a cop could never have a beer or he'd be "drinking on duty"

AndreMA: If adorable myth were true, a cop could never have a beer or he'd be "drinking on duty"

That, and the police department wouldn't be able to distance itself from a cop when gets arrested for DUI, soliciting minor for sex, assault, etc.

A cop gets arrested after showing up at a meeting with a 13 year old for sex? His off-duty conduct shouldn't be allowed to tarnish...(boilerplate follows).

The on-duty/off-duty distinction exists solely for the benefit and of the police department.