Why would there be a law that allows police chiefs to discriminate if the intention was not for them to discriminate against people?

Headline: This Is The Toughest Gun Law In America

From the Huffington Puffington Post:

they start the article with a picture of Deval Patrick, ostensibly a black man, signing a law allowing white police to deny black people (or anyone else, like women or people whose names end with a 'z') with clean records who meet all the criteria to exercise a basic right. At a time when other states are doing away with Jim Crow "may issue" permitting schemes Deval Patrick signed a law to expand them to rifles and shotguns, despite the fact that ZERO people were killed in the Bay State with rifles or shotguns for a period of several years before this law was passed

NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.
His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

That is supposed to scare you.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Indeed, permitting schemes were first invented after the 14th amendment gave black people the right to bear arms. The amendment invalidated laws saying black people could not bear arms legally so they changed the list of minorities to the phrase "unsuitable people" and let white police officers decide who that is, just like they do to this very day in MA and other blue states. All southern states recognized that "may issue" schemes are intended for and can only be used for racial and sex discrimination and have all done away with them.

source

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

Note that even though Newton and other MA police departments require them the requirement for character references is totally illegal, there is a law that the police cannot make up additional requirements but for some reason they do and get away with it. The Boston Police even illegally require a live shooting test, you are required to be proficient with a pistol before you are allowed to have a pistol and of course the only place in MA that you can actually rent a gun to practice for the test with is inaccessible using public transportation from Boston. That ought to keep the poor people from being able to pass the test, eh? Note also that it is the local police chief in your town, 351 of them, all white men, not the licensing officer who makes the decision, police chiefs are unelected bureaucrats.

If the police come to believe an applicant is a possible threat to public safety, they can refuse to grant the permit. And that is what happened in the case of this man from Newton.

That's unusual, typically they believe someone is a possible threat to public safety because they are black, Hispanic or a woman.

Police records showed eight visits to his home from 2008 to 2012, each time in response to calls from family members concerned about his behavior. On one occasion, according to the police account, the man had punched a picture frame and lacerated his hand; another time, he had been wielding a knife and threatening to commit suicide. Officers took the man into protective custody after three of the visits, the reports said, and at nearly all of them he was intoxicated.

so let me get this right, this crazy fuck is running around doing violence with knives and without and somehow taking away his right to a legal gun is going to keep him and others safe? He can still buy knives legally and is running loose but don't worry, he can't have a legal gun. Why have the police not had this guy committed? Being committed would make him ineligible to own a legal gun under federal law and of course actually protect him and the public, unlike letting him go without doing anything.

This December, following a procedure that Massachusetts law lays out, Newton’s chief filed a five-page memo with a state district court. It summarized the incident reports, one by one, and concluded that the man “had exhibited or engaged in behavior that could potentially create a risk to public safety.”
The man, who declined to comment for this article and whose name HuffPost is not publishing, challenged the police decision in court, as the law allows applicants to do. A written filing stated that he has completed treatment for alcohol addiction, as a physician independently confirmed. It also said that he has a steady job and noted that there have been no incidents since 2012.

note that in this case the law allows a man to try to prove his innocence after his rights are stripped from him.

It’s crazy that some states just give out these guns with very few requirements.William Evans, Boston Police Commissioner

It is? That's funny, NH, ME and VT don't require any permits and their gun homicide rates are much lower than MA, what is crazy is requiring permits to exercise a basic right.

A district judge considered the argument and, a few weeks later, upheld the police department’s decision. The man from Newton is now appealing that decision. But whether or not he ultimately gets his permit, his story illustrates just how aggressively Massachusetts regulates gun ownership. No other state requires a permit for any kind of gun purchase while also giving police some discretion to deny those permits.

And yet NH and VT which border us and require no permits to purchase or carry firearms have much lower rates of gun homicide. He will of course never get his permit, the courts here are stacked with judges who don't support gun rights and the police have unlimited funds to pay their lawyers to drag cases out until the person gives up.

The combination could help explain why the state’s mortality rate from firearms incidents is relatively low, according to some experts who have studied these types of laws. That makes the Massachusetts permit system a potential model for legislation in other states, or even the country as a whole, at a time when the massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida, has put gun violence back on the political agenda.

What a crock, note the phrase "mortality rate from firearms", they are talking about suicides here, they say that because they can't say, "the homicide rate from firearms" because MA does not have the lowest, several constitutional carry states have much lower firearms homicide rates.

But replicating the Massachusetts program would require persuading or overcoming resistance from gun rights advocates, starting with the members of the National Rifle Association who are meeting in Dallas this weekend. They are convinced that permit systems like the one in Massachusetts do little to deter violence, while doing a lot to undermine the Second Amendment.

So all they have to do is persuade people who are correct that they are wrong. Piece of cake.

Tight Gun Regulations Are A Massachusetts Tradition
Massachusetts has required that gun owners get permits since 1968, although initially the state approved permits automatically for anybody without major crime convictions or other disqualifying factors. In the parlance of gun control, it was a “shall issue” system rather than a “may issue” system, in which officials or law enforcement would have had leeway to deny licenses in certain circumstances.

Circumstances including the applicant being black, Hispanic or a woman. Also those permits all said "good for life" until Mitt Romney made them all expire. That's how much you can trust the state of MA with your gun rights.

That changed in 1998, when state lawmakers gave police broad discretion to withhold handgun licenses for people who were, in the police department’s judgment, “unsuitable.”

The Nazis did the same thing, years before they passed laws specifically denying gun ownership to Jewish people they passed permitting requirements to deny those who were "unsuitable" which they used to disarm all the Jews and other people they later liquidated. Remember that there are 351 police departments and that all of their leaders are white men.

In 2014, following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Massachusetts lawmakers, led by House Speaker Robert DeLeo, strengthened its gun laws yet again, expanding police discretion so that it applied to rifles and shotguns, too.

Note that there were a total of 0 rifle or shotgun homicides for like 3 years before they passed that racist law. Does it really make our gun laws "stronger" to deny people their rights based on race or gender?

The permit process for rifles and shotguns is slightly different than the process for handguns, but they lead to the same basic result: Today, police can deny ownership of any kind of firearm, subject to court review. That made Massachusetts unique. The other two states with police discretion over ownership, New Jersey and New York, apply that method only to handguns.

Well, not any kind of firearm, only legally purchased ones. All of the middle school kids in Worcester tell me that they could get a gun in 20 minutes with a text.

The 2014 law also clarified, somewhat, when and how police in Massachusetts should use their discretion. By law, the police can restrict a license or deny one outright anytime they have credible evidence that somebody may pose a threat to public safety.

Or if the person is black or Hispanic or a woman.

The “credible” part is supposed to keep the police from acting arbitrarily; police actually have to file papers with a local court justifying denials. The “may” part is supposed to make it clear that the police can limit or withhold a license anytime they believe a mere threat exists. They don’t have to wait until they are certain or even nearly certain an applicant would use a gun for crime or self-harm.

Once again the person must prove they are innocent after their rights are stripped without any due process by unaccountable unelected bureaucrats with unlimited legal resources to fight the case. Should you win in district court the police will just appeal again and again, they have lawyers on staff.

One way to think of the system is that it places the burden of proof for denying a license on the police while making it clear that the proof does not have to be overwhelming. And, although the state still does not specify exactly what constitutes a threat and what doesn’t, that’s precisely the sort of judgment call best left to city and town officials, supporters of the law say.

LOL who better to decide who may exercise their basic liberties than your local police chief using undefined terms? Another way to think of the system is that they make it so expensive and difficult that most poor people, which includes a lot of minorities and women, don't even attempt to apply.

“Gun violence is usually local, among people who know each other,” John Rosenthal, co-founder of the organization Stop Handgun Violence and a longtime advocate for tighter gun laws, said in an interview with HuffPost.

Um yeah, it is usually gang bangers who know each other, with illegal pistols, not legal shotguns.

“Who better than the local police chief to issue renewable licenses and be able to have that discretion every six years?”

Anyone!!! Or better yet if someone meets all the legal requirements to exercise a basic civil right, nobody should have the discretion to deny it to them. And why should they have to be renewed? The police can and will rescind them if anything comes up so why the hoop? The reason for it is to try to reduce the number of legal gun owners by making it expensive and a pain in the ass to keep your license.

Many experts agree. “Local police chiefs typically know more about the people in their community than does a national computer,” David Hemenway, a well-respected gun violence researcher at Harvard, told The Trace.

Hemingway is Bloomberg's stoolie and "The Trace" is bloombergs anti gun rights propaganda outlet! Some expert. Yeah, local police chiefs know if someone is Hispanic or black.

In Small Towns And Big Cities, Police Look For The Same Things
Even with the new system in place, the vast majority of people who apply for licenses get them, according to a 2017 evaluation that a panel of experts conducted for the state’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. But 1 to 3 percent do not, depending on the year, the panel determined.

This percentage varies widely, here in MA we even have a map of what towns discriminate against people and which do not, funny how this article leaves that out and makes the false claim that things are the same in white towns and diverse cities here.

source

That number doesn’t account for the people who don’t even try to get licenses, because they know police would not grant them. And even among those residents who get licenses, many will have restrictions on how they may use their guns. They might not have freedom to carry a firearm outside the home, for example, except for transporting it to firing ranges or hunting grounds. (This is one way in the Massachusetts practice is more typical. Many states give the police discretion over who gets to carry a gun outside of the home.)

Technically they were supposed to stop issuing restricted licenses, but they still do. "the people who don’t even try to get licenses, because they know police would not grant them" AKA the poor, blacks, Hispanics and women. That's called a chilling effect, usually it is considered a bad thing when it comes to civil rights. It's a lie to say "many states" it is more accurate to say "a handful of blue states" retain these Jim Crow era laws, like Hawaii:

Don’t believe that Hawaii’s gun laws have their roots in racism? Let’s compare:
“That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a license therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.” –North Carolina statute, 1840, as quoted in Clayton Cramer’s paper The Racist Roots of Gun Control.
“Any person, not authorized by law, who carries concealed upon the person’s self or within any vehicle used or occupied by the person or who is found armed with any dirk, dagger, blackjack, slug shot, billy, metal knuckles, pistol, or other deadly or dangerous weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be immediately arrested without warrant by any sheriff, police officer, or other officer or person.” — Hawaii Revised Statutes, § 134-51

read more

In general, police from rural parts of Massachusetts are a lot less likely to issue restrictions than the departments in cities and surrounding suburbs, according to a compilation of 2016 statistics by Commonwealth Second Amendment, which advocates for gun rights. Police say such differentials are largely a byproduct of the very different way departments operate depending on the size and closeness of their communities.

Police love to lie, in reality it is based on the brownness of their communities. Use this tool from the census and you can see how race and ethnicity correlate very closely with the red and green map above.

The ones who get our attention are the ones we’ve had to see before, to come to their houses, with incidents that don’t rise up to arrests but tell us, ‘Hey, something is not right here.'Lu-Ann Czapala, Ware Police Department
“Most people we know one way or another ― it’s a neighbor, or a neighbor’s friend or co-worker, or somebody you deal with on the job,” Lu-Ann Czapala, the firearms officer in Ware, said during an interview at the city’s headquarters. Ware, a former mill town in the rural area between Worcester and Springfield, has a population just shy of 10,000. “Very few people who come in and apply have anything in their background that would cause a problem.”
That’s not to say it never happens. “The ones who get our attention,” Czapala said, “are the ones we’ve had to see before, to come to their houses, with incidents that don’t rise up to arrests but tell us, ‘Hey, something is not right here. Gee, we’ve been to this house so many times.’”

Ware is a "green" town, they don't often discriminate, and a total of 74 black people live there.

And, in that respect, the process is quite similar to Newton’s. The big difference is that George McManus, the lieutenant who handles firearms permits there, may have to investigate applicants ― by, for example, calling neighbors or family. That’s because, in a city whose population is just under 90,000, McManus is less likely than Czapala to know the applicant personally.
McManus said investigating incident reports is especially important for revealing histories of domestic violence, because even repeated visits can result in no formal charges and, thus, no automatic disqualifications for gun ownership even under the unusually tight standards Massachusetts has in place.

In other words people who have not been convicted or even charged with a crime can have their rights removed. The huffy-po laments that rights are not removed automatically based on "incident reports".

It’s not surprising he would say that. In a 2013 survey, Massachusetts police departments said incidents of domestic violence were among the most likely reasons for them to restrict or deny a license, or to suspend one they had approved.

So they have people out there who have committed acts of domestic violence so heinous they should be denied gun rights but not bad enough to actually arrest them for? how does that work? How does letting those people run free keep anyone safe from them?

At the same time, McManus said, police officers work hard to distinguish between “somebody arrested for disorderly conduct when he was in college, on a Friday night, 15 years ago, versus somebody who has a record of being involved with domestic situations with his significant other.”
McManus, who has been handling Newton’s permits for two years, says that is one reason every license rejection during his tenure has held up in court. “That goes to show that the chief does put a lot of thought into his denials,” McManus said.

Aw, the unelected unaccountable bureaucrat, at least this one out of the 351 in MA who all have different feelings on the matter, puts a lot of thought into who he takes basic liberties from, that's nice he says that. These assholes will suggest that Newton, MA has low gun crime due to the strict rules for gun permits and never mention the median home price for properties in Newton was $815,000, street gang members can't afford to live there.

What The Evidence Shows ― And Doesn’t Show
Gun homicides and suicides still happen in Massachusetts, in part because people without licenses still manage to get guns. But gun violence happens a lot less frequently than it does in most states.

In part?! As if any significant portion of gun crime is committed by people with licenses! That's why they bring in the red herring of suicide again. Here in MA ropes and belts are the number one means of completed suicide, yet there are no permits required for belts.

Adjusted for age and population, the gun fatality rate in Massachusetts for 2016 was the lowest in the U.S. And that’s how it’s been for most of the last 30 years, although sometimes another state, like Hawaii, ends up with a slightly lower rate.
Just how much that low rate has to do with the state’s gun laws is a matter of ongoing debate, even among experts. Pretty much any legitimate study is going to rely on assumptions that will be open to valid criticism; separating out cause and effect can be virtually impossible. But the available research provides a good reason to think Massachusetts laws in general and the permit system in particular have made violence less likely.

It does? What reason is that? Of course VT,NH , states with the loosest gun laws in the country that border MA, vie for the record for the lowest rates of gun homicide. Should we think their gun laws and lack of permits have something to do with that?

Some of the most widely cited work, by Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University, has focused on two states that have had similar, albeit weaker, permit schemes: Missouri, which got rid of its license program a decade ago, and Connecticut, which added one in the 1990s. Using a variety of methods designed to estimate what might have happened if those states hadn’t changed their laws, Webster and his colleagues concluded that getting rid of gun licenses in Missouri led to more gun violence, while introducing licenses in Connecticut led to less.
Additional research, including a study the Journal of Urban Health published last month, has shown that gun crimes in states with permit schemes tend to involve guns that criminals obtained more easily elsewhere.
That suggests the laws are at the very least forcing would-be perpetrators to change their behavior. It also suggests permit systems could have a bigger effect on violence if more states had them.

No it doesn't

Police officials in Massachusetts make that argument all the time. “It’s crazy that some states just give out these guns with very few requirements,” William Evans, commissioner of the Boston police and a champion of tighter gun laws, said in an interview.
“We have tough gun laws here, and to me it makes a difference,” Evans said. “But if we had them nationally, if other states had universal background checks and strong licensing like our state does, there would be less violence.”

Yeah, it makes a difference to the female BPD officer who they denied a carry permit to, despite her clean record. There is not one shred of evidence for this cops claim that giving police the ability to discriminate against people leads to less "violence".

It’s Not Clear How A Court Challenge Would Go
The other big question about the Massachusetts system is the constitutional one. The Supreme Court, in a controversial 2008 ruling known as D.C. v. Heller, upheld the government’s ability to regulate firearm possession and usage. But it also recognized, for the first time, a constitutional right to gun ownership.
To Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League and outspoken critic of Massachusetts regulations, the state’s licensing system clearly infringes on that right. “We always have to be careful about how much authority we give to law enforcement,” Wallace said. “Their jobs ― God bless them ― is to enforce the law, not decide on somebody’s civil rights.”
Jason Guida, an attorney and former state firearms official who now represents people appealing license denials, has a similar view. “Once we go down the road of giving police discretion, we are not just stepping on the other side of that line, we are jumping over it and dancing.”
Guida represents that man from Newton who is appealing his license denial, and he thinks the case is an example of how the law gives police too much authority. When the man wrote a letter requesting the gun permit, he addressed his history with police head-on, Guida noted. The incidents all occurred during a difficult period in his life, the man wrote, and since that time he has stayed dry, gotten a steady job and even done volunteer work at a local food bank. He also promised to use the gun lawfully, saying he wanted it only for bird hunting and target practice.
“Most of my clients have never been convicted, never even been charged with a crime, but a chief has decided that they are not safe with firearms,” Guida said. “That’s the rub right here, how Massachusetts may have gone beyond what the Second Amendment allows.”

Just imagine if you needed permission from a local police chief to exercise any of your civil rights:
sorry sir you don't have a right to remain silent, the police chief does not feel that you are suitable to exercise that right, you are going to have to incriminate yourself, he authorized cruel and unusual punishment and a suspension of due process

And yet that is exactly what is happening here, and it's no small thing, this is a matter of life and death for those people who actually need guns for self defense. I knew a woman who applied after being the victim of a break in and the police gave her the run around for an entire year before giving her her permit. Thank God she was not fleeing an abusive spouse or domestic violence and that the home invaders didn't return.

Supporters of the Massachusetts law see things differently. Public safety is a constitutionally permissible reason for restricting gun ownership, they say, and local police are ideally situated to make that call, at least initially.
“In the context of gun rights, where the Supreme Court has said limitations based on public safety principles are appropriate, we want law enforcement to make those decisions, because they are the ones on the ground, who see the behavior,” Hannah Shearer, a staff attorney at the Giffords Law Center, said.

That's funny, I don't see the part about "public safety" in the constitution. This gives the power to make some people second class citizens with very little oversight or recourse.

Most of my clients have never been convicted, never even been charged with a crime, but a chief has decided that they are not safe with firearms."Jason Guida, an attorney who represents applicants appealing license denials
There is also the appeals process, which can serve as a safeguard for constitutional rights. Although police discretion over gun ownership can be “constitutionally problematic,” says Adam Winkler, a UCLA constitutional law professor, “if more than 90 percent of applicants are getting permits, there is an appeals process in place and government has to provide actual evidence that’s reviewed by a neutral arbiter, that seems to me a system that the courts might uphold.”
“No right is absolute ― Heller makes that clear,” Winkler, who is the author of the book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, added. “If the question is ‘Should there be enough discretion to target certain behaviors that fall short of criminal conviction but are highly probative of danger from firearms?’ a court is likely to say that kind of review is acceptable.”

Then let's take it to the Supreme Court and find out!

What’s Coming Next In Washington ― And In Massachusetts
In Washington, a handful of lawmakers have held up the Massachusetts system as a prototype for the rest of the country. One of them is the state’s junior Democratic senator, Ed Markey, who has sponsored a bill that would give states strong financial incentives to introduce their own licensing programs.

So taxpayer dollars to implement a racist policy that has not been shown to have any effect on gun crime. Markey is a blithering idiot, he once claimed Martha Coakley was "in bed with the NRA"!

“The involvement of police chiefs in the licensing process is key,” Markey said at a news conference in March, when he formally unveiled the proposal. “We can’t overstate that enough.” Democratic lawmakers from other states with their own variations on permit systems, including Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey, have introduced similar measures.
Those lawmakers have a lot of work to do. Gun violence is getting more political attention than at any time since 2013, and the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings, which not coincidentally is the last time Congress came close to passing meaningful gun legislation.

Oh right, who can forget that gun control is the DNC's 2018 midterm campaign strategy? So they have work to do because it is getting "political attention" AKA media attention from the DNC/ MSM media.

And if the odds of enacting significant new measures now are long, they will improve if supporters of tighter gun laws win more seats in Congress, starting with this year’s midterm elections.
But most of the focus so far has been on banning assault-style weapons or extending background checks to private sales, the two ideas that have gotten the most attention in the past. Although many experts believe these measures can also help, there’s reason to think that they would work best in combination with a full-fledged permit system that involved police discretion.

No there isn't! There is reason to believe that there will be a whole lot of discrimination and a chilling effect from policy. At best a permitting scheme for guns is like a poll tax or poll test for voting, designed to make it harder for poor minorities to exercise their rights, this is a law to disenfranchise people who meet every requirement for gun ownership.

State lawmakers in Massachusetts appear to agree. The state already has a ban on many assault-style weapons, and it already applies its laws to all sales, not just those that licensed dealers make. That’s actually one reason advocates think a permit system could win over some gun rights advocates. It spares private dealers the administrative hassle of performing background checks; all they have to do is check for the state-issued permit.

Whoops, there is another lie, lawmakers didn't ban "assault style weapons" the idiot AG decided by fiat that all the ARs and AKs that people had legally bought, that have never been used in a crime here, were all illegal and their owners felons. MAs permit system does not mean you don't still have to take a NICS check, that's another lie. You still have a NICS check even after you get your permit every single time you buy a gun and the dealers then have to deal with the stupid state of MA system, it is a huge pain in the ass for them.

Now many of the same lawmakers responsible for the 2014 law are looking to build on it. They are pushing for a “red flag” law in which family members could ask judges to issue emergency restraining orders when they fear a loved one is about to commit an act of violence. These orders would automatically suspend any existing gun licenses and allow police to seize weapons.

And then what? take away their guns and then everyone goes home? then they are not a threat anymore? These laws seem great if you are a domestic abuser and your victim arms herself. Note that the police can already suspend your license at anytime, this is more redundant nonsense.

Although this would be a separate policy from the permitting system, the underlying impulse is the same: to identify people likely to hurt themselves or others and keep guns out of their hands before it happens.

So they can use illegal guns or home depot trucks instead?

What is the point?! Oh that's right, to whittle down the number of legal gun owners by making it difficult and expensive to own them legally and to make so hard for minorities and the poor that they don't even bother. If you want to be free from gun crime, move to VT.

Thanks for reading, please click the vote and resteem buttons and leave your comments, how does this make you feel?

If you have a car check out my recent post:

Are Rain-X wipers any good?