Posted on 12/24/2004 11:19:51 PM PST by neverdem
WOBURN, Mass., Dec. 24 - When Massachusetts this month became the first state to install an electronic instant-check system complete with a fingerprint scanner for gun licenses and gun purchases, the impact was quickly apparent.
On Wednesday, for example, moments after a court placed a woman's husband under a restraining order, a notice about the order popped up on a new computer terminal at the police station here. Given that information, the Woburn police went to the man's house and confiscated his guns, all 13 of them.
The computer is part of the record-check system and allows the police and gun stores to learn right away if a person can legally own or buy a firearm. The system provides instant updates on arrest warrants, restraining orders and convictions, and it links fingerprint scanners and computers at gun stores and police departments with a central database.
Under Massachusetts law, anyone wanting to buy a gun must first obtain a license from the local police department. Now, when a person applies for the license or goes to buy a gun, his fingerprints can be checked electronically to verify his identity.
"This is a quantum leap in improving public safety and also making it quicker for people to buy a firearm," said Edward A. Flynn, the Massachusetts secretary of public safety. The new computer system was developed by the state's Criminal History Systems Board, part of Mr. Flynn's office.
Philip Mahoney, the police chief in Woburn, a city of 38,000 people just north of Boston, said the new system was particularly valuable because "we get notified in real time about any new restraining orders, warrants and arrests."
Under the old system, based on paper records maintained at individual police stations and gun shops, Mr. Mahoney said, "we might not be notified at all if someone was put under a restraining order."
In the case this week, Mr. Mahoney said: "We were able to go to the individual's house immediately after the restraining order was issued, which is the most dangerous time for a batterer. It's a time when the victim is probably moving out, and the risk of violence is highest."
The new Massachusetts electronic system is in addition to the federal requirement that a gun buyer undergo an instant background check. That check is completed by telephone before the gun is sold, with a clerk in the gun store calling the F.B.I. or a state police agency.
Many of the same records are searched in both checks, but the national instant background check is not as up to date as the new Massachusetts system, particularly for restraining orders, and does not require fingerprint verification.
Mr. Flynn said his office was working with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to try to consolidate the two checks in Massachusetts.
So far there has been no outcry against the new system from gun owners or the state's gun stores.
"Basically, it's all the same information we had to submit before, so this is not more intrusive," said Carl Ingrao, the owner of Four Seasons Firearms in Woburn. His business is the largest gun store in Massachusetts and was used in a pilot project testing the system beginning last June.
"I haven't had any negative comments from customers whatsoever, and I've sold over 2,000 firearms since the system went into effect," Mr. Ingrao said.
"The computer is actually quicker, more efficient and less expensive for the dealer," he said, because under the old paper system each form cost 50 cents, not including the postage for mailing a copy to the Criminal History Systems Board. Mr. Ingrao says he believes the new system will save him about $2,000 a year.
The electronic system is also faster because once a purchaser's identity is confirmed by the fingerprint scan, the computer automatically fills in the buyer's address, date of birth, height, weight and hair and eye color. That data comes from the gun license application.
"A few months ago, they had to take the system down for a day for a software upgrade, and we had to go back to filling out all the old paperwork," Mr. Ingrao said. "My clerks were saying, 'Hey, the computer is better.' "
Gun owners and the gun industry have often complained that background checks are onerous because they take too much time and prevent people from just walking in and buying a gun when they want to. Mr. Flynn said the new system was an effort to answer that criticism by speeding the process.
By law, police departments in Massachusetts have had 45 days to issue a firearms license. But with the instant check system, the police should be able to issue the license in 24 to 48 hours, Mr. Flynn said, and then a customer with a license will be able to buy a gun in a few minutes.
So far, computer terminals linked to the system have been installed in 159 of the state's 351 police departments and at the four largest gun dealers. The goal is to have them installed in all departments and gun stores by next June, Mr. Flynn said.
A customer at Four Seasons Firearms who collects handguns said he had no objection to the electronic system "because I have nothing to hide."
The customer, who declined to be identified, echoing the concerns of many gun owners about their privacy, added: "The law-abiding gun owners are always put on the defensive when some nut shoots someone. The media makes us out to be the bad guys, but we are just following the law."
This was the law, I believe, that Bob Barr claimed the Republicans didn't know was in there when they passed it. Course they haven't done a thing to repeal it, wouldn't want to seem anti-woman, you know. Constitutional law doesn't matter in the least to them, only their image as portrayed on TV. That's how "constitutional democracy" works in the age of television, that accounts for the homogenization of politics throughout the West.
Under current "edicts", it only applies if the restraining order is issued to "protect" a domestic partener.
Chuckie Schumer and others are trying to change it to apply to ANY restraining order. You hypothetical situation is exactly what the gun grabbers have in mind.
I thought cops were exempt.
They can beat their wives and still carry guns on the job.
Damn sick when any disgruntled arse hole can obtain a trumped up restraining order, and totally destroy onother's life.
BTTT
From what I understand, in many places, a "restraining order" is SOP for any divorce proceeding.
Many are issued as a result of "ex parte" hearings, in which the accused is not even present, and doesn't even get to face his accuser.
If this dumb shmuk had been threatening this woman in some manor as to cause her to file for the writ in the first place, then maybe he was a menace to society
Many women use false claims of abuse as a way to get more money out of a divorce, or to "get back" at their husband. Many others use it as a threat (i.e., do this ,or I call 911). It happens all the time.
The judges and lawyers love it since it keeps them employed. The gun-grabbing cops and politicians love it since it allows the to confiscate guns.
If he was inocent he should have had a lawyer.
WTF? Tell me again what crime he is accused of?
So now two lives get ruined instead of one?
(Although I suppose that's better than *always* taking the guy to jail).
I belive that the state should just stay out of the "domestic violence" stuff. If assault or battery is committed, then deal with it as assault or battery, not some stupid "domestic violence" charge.
As much as I do not want anyone hurt by use of a fire arm, I have to agree. Anyone can put a restraining order on anyone else and have their guns confiscated. That is a little much.
No sht. It's time to feed the hogs in Mass.
GOA has a story of a guy who was moving back to Mass. He had an impeccably clean criminal record. He had previously lived in Mass and had whatever papers that were required to keep personal fire arms.
If I recall correctly, he needed to renew whatever permit he had when living there previously.
The gentleman went to the Police station willingly. He took the arms in question, along with his paperwork.
Long story short, they confiscated his personal firearms, refused his permit, started a brouhaha that ended up with him being charged with assault on a police officer.
I think there was also a video of this situation that was recorded by the cops in the waiting room.
This gentleman spent many years and dollars, fighting the phony assault charge. Getting judges to give him court orders to recover his fire arms back from the police office that refused (even under court order) to return them.
They violate your rights, confiscate your property, then act in collusion with one another to place you under criminal charges just to remove your firearms from you.
Our church has an annual Bible conference in Fall River, Ma. We stay in Rhode Island and get the He!! out of Mass. as soon as each service is over.
I don't even stop to buy gas in that Insane asylum.
Stay the he!! out of Massachusetts !!
They were even trying to make *that* illegal last year in some state (Pennsylvania, I believe).
Fortunately, some grass roots organizations up there got the word out and stopped it.
Bad policy. One enacted, the law is Hell to rescind. At the least they should now be trying to water down that bill. Put the antis on the defensive instead of us.
Even though a Life member since 1955, I turn a deaf ear when the NRA comes after me for donations for reasons like the above. On many occasions I have seen the NRA back anti-gun incumbents over pro-gun challengers - evidently because of a cockamamie "half a loaf" policy. GOA gets my donations.
My ex used to threaten me with it all the time when she wanted more money or go out with her rotten friends: She would dial 9-1 and then threaten to dial the last 1 and make up a story if I didn't do whatever she wanted.
It was horrible....
She broke into my house during the divorce and stole a firearm and my check book. I tried to get a restraining order against her, but her lawyer just said they would retaliate with one and wreck my career--both civilian and NG.
Just horrible....
"How the hell can they take someone's weapons with as little as an unproven restraining order? "
They did it to my friend here in AZ. It's not just Mass! AZ has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, too.
No due process. What a sham!
It was the first thread I ever posted to FR and it involved my first hand account of how I came very close to losing my 2A rights, after being charged with "illegal discharge", while target shooting.
This all happened when I was still a legal gun-owning resident of MA.
Unfortunately, the thread, entitled "The Disarming of America", has long been deleted from the archives. However, some long-time FReepers may remember, not only the thread but the remarks I made, to a gathering of gun owners, at both Bunker Hill and the State House, in October '98.
Maybe some of the old N.E. FReepers can fill me in as to whether GOAL, or anyone else, fought this legislation.
Regards
RE: Cops; the same rules apply to them. If they get tagged with a restraining order by a vindicative ex-wife/girlfriend (and TRUST ME guys, it is ALWAYS the chick who files for one) their guns go *poof* too. If he's a street cop he ends up working in the jail for the next year with the "B" keeps screwing him in court and/or making more false accusations. They take a hit in pay, not to mention possibly a reduction in rank, loss of overtime, etc. Restraining orders DO issue "ex-parte" and they call the guy in off the street, serve him a copy of something he didn't even know about, take his piece and send him home. Ain't that just freakin' beyoootiful? She sits home thinking "I'll show HIM!!!", we have one less cop on the street and he takes a beating. His only crime? Being STOOPID enough to marry/date a vindicative (read "typical") female. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 14th amendments are just toilet paper with this kind of stuff going on. You don't necessarily lose it forever but it is much harder to prove "innocence" in a civil court than you might think. The dimwitted whore in the black nightgown (aka "judge"<---now THERE is a misnomer) more often than not takes the "better safe than sorry" approach to protect the delicate flower of womanhood and the guy is DUST. Somewhere down the line he MIGHT get his gun back, if the cops haven't stolen/lost/destroyed/sold it. This is a good argument FOR beating the "B". Heck, if you've been tagged already, guilty or innocent, you might as well do it.
And no, I don't hate women. Most my friends are females, but I am VERY picky about the ones with whom I choose to associate. I like the ones who think women are conniving too. Believe it or not my wife actually DIDN'T do this. (Must've slipped her mind...)
Massachusetts Constitution
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.
Article XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him;...And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers,..."
Article XV. In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practiced, the parties have a right to a trial by jury;
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.
Since when can a "restraining order" and/or a law usurp, deny and disparage a constitutionally protected right?
In Massachusetts, a law against homo's being married was found to be an afront to their constitution. So, there is the precedent that no law or restraining order can afront the covenants of their constitution.
Yeah, in the case of a man. In the case of a woman, a simple complaint will do it courtesy of criminal justice system default judgement proceeding and, by the way, Violence against women act etc... as if men could not be threatened by women or their boyfriends...but go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.