Posted on 09/16/2006 6:57:43 AM PDT by 2Am4Sure
A court upheld Quincy Police Chief Robert Crowley’s decision to deny a downtown sporting goods store a license to sell firearms in a case that further riled gun advocates already frustrated by the chief’s policies on granting permits.
Superior Court Judge Wendie Gershengorn ruled that Crowley was within his authority to deny a license to sell guns to Ronald Hidalgo, the owner of the Sportsman’s Den on Southern Artery, because of a 20-year-old assault charge and a 6-year-old restraining order.
Both cases were ultimately dropped, but a state law giving police chiefs broad discretion in deciding who is qualified for a gun permit doesn’t contradict Crowley’s reasoning, the judge ruled.
Hidalgo, who has owned the store for 10 years, filed the lawsuit last year, asserting that the chief was abusing his authority essentially because he could.
Hidalgo has a Quincy-issued licensed to carry a handgun and earned approval from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to be a gun dealer before he was shot down by Crowley.
‘‘Somebody has to explain to me how I can be perfectly suitable to carry a firearm, but I can’t sell one. I just can’t wrap my brain around that,’’ Hidalgo said.
‘‘He’s hurting me financially, taking money out of my pocket just because he wants to be the guy in charge. It’s ridiculous,’’ Hidalgo said.
Hidalgo said he doesn’t think he’ll appeal the court ruling because he has already spent $20,000 and doesn’t think he can afford to take the fight any further.
He said he’s now considering moving his business out of Quincy because of the financial strain.
Crowley’s original denial was backed by State Police, and Hidalgo filed his lawsuit challenging that ruling.
Both the State Police and the judge acknowledged that there was nothing in Hidalgo’s background that would automatically eliminate him from obtaining a gun dealer’s license. But in her ruling, Gershengorn noted that Hidalgo didn’t surrender his firearms as required by law when the restraining order was issued in 2000.
While Hidalgo testified that he didn’t know he was supposed to give up his guns and that he didn’t have any in his possession when he was served with the restraining order, the judge ruled that he had an obligation to find out what was required of him.
The restraining order expired eight days later, but Hidalgo’s actions left enough gray area to let Crowley make a decision either way on the permit, the judge ruled.
Hidalgo’s license denial last year came months after the chief angered gun advocates with a tightened policy on issuing licenses to carry firearms.
Essentially, Crowley said that residents needed a better reason than just self-defense before he would issue a license to carry handgun.
The mandate sparked outrage from gun rights advocates, hearings at the city council and a handful of lawsuits filed against Crowley in Quincy District Court.
The city has not yet lost a case involving gun permits, said First Assistant City Solicitor Robert Quinn.
‘‘The chief has to make very tough decisions on a day-to-day basis, and the courts have ruled that he’s made the right decision time after time after time,’’ said Quinn said.
This guy needs to go and should not be in any position of authority with this kind of thinking. The most basic of rights ignored and sanctioned by the armed robed ones.
**************
Not a bad idea. West of 495 he'll find a more welcoming environment.
All that is needed for a Police State.
How is it that these leftists can read the Constitution and determine that the Founding Fathers thought women should be able to get an abortion whenever they want, but then also come to the conclusion that folks can't have guns?
The ballot box is the only recourse at this point.
"But in her ruling, Gershengorn noted that Hidalgo didn’t surrender his firearms as required by law when the restraining order was issued in 2000."
Something doesn't pass the smell test here, why didn't they demand the firearms back then? Or, why aren't they arresting him now for their ignorance in 2000?
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.