Posted on 02/09/2009 3:01:39 AM PST by marktwain
State Police Lt. Richard Bolduc of Sandwich smiled as he left Barnstable District Court on Wednesday.
If a judge dismisses a felony charge against him for improperly storing his service weapon, he might as well laugh at the justice system.
Because if Judge Joan Lynch throws the case out, it would send the message that police are above the law.
Here are the facts of the case, according to the Sandwich police:
On June 25, Bolduc left his house and his service sidearm in an unlocked bureau. Bolduc's 12-year-old son took the gun, pointed it at a 5-year-old neighbor and pulled the trigger. The gun was not loaded, but police said they found a loaded clip in the same drawer as the firearm.
Imagine if the gun were loaded.
This careless and dangerous behavior by a law enforcement officer not only violates state police policy, it violates Massachusetts law, which requires firearms to be locked in a cabinet when not in the gun owner's possession. It also requires trigger locks.
Of course, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. If a judge or jury finds that these are not the facts, then Bolduc should be cleared of wrongdoing. But the case should not be dismissed, as the defense attorney has requested, based on a Supreme Court ruling that came a day after the alleged offense.
In District of Columbia vs. Heller, the nation's highest court declared as unconstitutional a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and struck down a requirement for guns to be locked or disassembled when they are stored.
Judge Lynch indicated Wednesday that she was leaning toward defense attorney Daniel O'Malley's argument that Bolduc's case be dismissed, but she took the motion under advisement.
In his majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense..."
But Scalia also wrote that the majority's opinion does not "suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents."
O'Malley, however, seems to have forgotten or ignored that key part of the high court's decision.
He said on Wednesday that requiring a gun to be locked "cancels out the ability to defend one's self." A gun owner would have to ask an intruder to wait until he unlocked his gun. "It's impractical, it's illogical and it flies in the face of the (Supreme Court) ruling." O'Malley said.
However, prosecutor Matthew Kelley pointed out that Bolduc wasn't even home at the time his son took the gun. He also said the Supreme Court decision allowed "wiggle room" for laws that prevent accidents.
"Are you allowed to have a whole arsenal of machine guns?" Kelley said. "Is there no law the commonwealth can have to protect the public?"
Massachusetts' strict gun-control laws work. The number of firearms-related deaths in Massachusetts is only 3.4 per 100,000 people. Only Hawaii has fewer deaths caused by guns. States with fewer gun-control laws have much higher death rates by guns.
Law enforcement officers across the country are some of the strongest advocates for gun control, including background checks and child safety locks. If only Lt. Bolduc listened to some of his own peers.
There is also the logical red herring of "States with fewer gun-control laws have much higher death rates by guns." It is the same as saying "States with fewer cars have higher death rates by cars", or "States with fewer hospitals have higher death rates by hospitals".
Actually, it's not the same at all. See my correction below:
It is the same as saying "States with fewer car traffic control laws have higher death rates by cars", or "States with fewer hospitalsmedical regulations have higher death rates by hospitals".
Now they are saying the same thing. And there is no logical red-herring.
"On June 25, Bolduc left his house and his service sidearm in an unlocked bureau. Bolduc's 12-year-old son took the gun, pointed it at a 5-year-old neighbor and pulled the trigger. The gun was not loaded, but police said they found a loaded clip in the same drawer as the firearm."
There's a ton o'$h!t not given here.
How long has the cop been a cop?
I'm led to believe a seasoned cop left his house in the care of a 12 year old who in turn invited a 5 year old neighbor over (boy/girl?) and they went into Dad's bedroom (where's Mom?) to ... uhhhh ... play with a gun?
No, I didn't read the article.
The logical red herring is in the simplification of claiming that there is a causal relationship between the “death rates” and the number of laws. Intellectually and academically honest evaluations of gun control laws are few and far between. In case after case, and in particular when so called journalists cite data, they cherry pick the facts to support their opinion. Washington D.C., which until recently has had a near total ban on guns, should therefor have near zero “gun deaths” during the period of total ban. The actual facts will show they have among the highest.
The intellectually dishonest will say well, the total ban is only “one” gun law (total ban) vs. twenty laws for some other chosen area, but it's still dishonest in stating that guns cause crime, or gun laws save lives.
I was in a cop’s house once where he hung his holster and gun on a post just inside the basement door. I guess he didn’t think his little kids could get to it?
So what you are saying then, is the fallacy claims causation whereas at best it can only claim correlation, true?
We have so many laws one can hardly avoid breaking at least some of them. Were people all law abiding we could do with just 20 - The Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments.
I was in a man's house once where his shotguns were on a rack on his wall, and his handgun was in a drawer by his dresser, all with appropriate ammunition next to them.
Oh, wait, that was my Dad's house.
I guess things have changed.
There is a statisical correlation that is far more directly related to causation that is, as usual, going unspoken.
“I guess things have changed. “
Yes it has. There’s virtually no firearms training for our youth anymore.
I’ll have to agree with you on that. ;-) Too few parents are teaching their kids to properly use firearms.
An off duty officer left his Glock unattended on a table during a Super Bowl party and a guest thought it would be OK to play with it
When I hit my teenage years and some of my friends had firearms in their homes, I was always surprised at how little some of them knew about basic firearm safety. Four rules will keep you safe, even if you don't know anything else:
1. They're all loaded.
2. Every time you pick it up, check it, even if you set it down five seconds ago.
3. Even after checking it, NEVER point it at anything if you'd be upset if that object had a bullet hole in it.
4. Keep the gun away from bozos who don't know how to handle a firearm.
There are others, finger off trigger except when preparing to fire, etc., but those four will keep you, your friends, and your television safe.
Reason # 499 not to live in a socialist utopia like Taxachusetts.
Partially. But the main premise, that “gun deaths” are related to gun laws is false. Washington D.C. has high “death rates”, but theoretically should have had practically none during the pre supreme court ruling because they had an almost total ban on firearms. The reason probably being that they have a high crime rate, again probably because they have a large amount of criminals. Also, “gun death” numbers always include suicides, another factor which has nothing to do with regulations.
The truth is closer to some areas have a lot of guns, relatively little regulation, and few problems because they have a population that is more rural, less criminal, etc.
I have 4 loaded weapons in my house and a 15 yo son. The guns are strategically placed for defense and they are never touched except maybe once a week or so to throw some lead down the barrel.
My son has 2 bb guns and a .22 semi rifle.
Proper education and familiarity are the keys to wise gun ownership.
Well, there it is!
I'm petitioning my lawmakers to enact more gun-control laws.
That's the ticket!
Yep!
And next week I'll turn in all my guns.
Not!
Who the hell is the idiotic so-called journalist that wrote this dripping treacle?
Stupid!
So what?
I lay my holstered .357 on the coffee table.
My 1911 sits on the magazine rack next to my recliner.
I lay my 12 gauge on the kitchen counter.
I've got ammo and guns all over the house.
What's the big deal?
My children are (were) taught that a gun is for KILLING other people and that we shoot the guns in practice in order to become proficient in using the gun to KILL people and that a gun is not to be touched unless one is absolutely positively sure of what one is doing.
My children were also taught to field strip and clean every weapon I had at the time.
One of them went on to become an amateur gunsmith, building and modifying his guns and those of friends.
I never had a single incident of any mishandling of a gun in my household.
One son dropped a pistol once.
He never dropped one again, after having to walk around cradling it with both hands held out in front of himself, for about three hours.
Education efforts and strict enforcement of rules, not scare tactics, are the keystone of gun safety.
And for those anal-retentive parents that say they'd never allow their children into my home under those circumstances...I say good...'cause if you ain't got the sense to teach 'em how to handle and respect a gun, as well as to respect other peoples property, then I don't want them in my home in the first place.
"Professor Darwin, paging Professor Darwin, please pick up the white courtesy phone"
(JK)
Although tragic, and certainly unwise and unprofessional, it does point out the level of basic firearms safety and handling the average American is getting. (which is to say, none)
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.