Police balk at firearm policy

FALMOUTH - A police officer's right to carry a firearm - and who sanctions that right - is the subject of a legal dispute that has left an officer's career in the balance.

Falmouth Police Chief David Cusolito says he is asserting his authority to continue the policy of at least three chiefs before him that requires all officers to have a state-issued license to carry a firearm.

But Falmouth patrolmen say they have an intrinsic right to carry a gun by virtue of their badge, a right also sanctioned by state law. They say there has never been an official policy requiring a gun permit in Falmouth.

In July, the Falmouth Police Federation filed a complaint with the state Labor Relations Commission arguing that Cusolito's edict is prohibited by their contract. With a commission hearing scheduled for November, the future of one officer will be determined.

Falmouth District Court Judge Gregory Williams is expected to rule on an appeal this week in the case of Falmouth Patrolman Robert Ronayne, a 30-year veteran and former officer of the year whose license to carry a gun was permanently revoked in July.

Ronayne, who lives in Pocasset, allegedly allowed a known felon to handle his personal firearm and was shot in the shoulder when the gun accidentally went off. Bourne Police Chief John Ford quickly revoked Ronayne's gun permit.

Without it, Ronayne is on paid administrative leave pending Williams' decision and a disciplinary hearing to be conducted by Falmouth Town Administrator Robert Whritenour on Friday.

Ultimately, if his permit is not restored, Ronayne is out of a job. Drew Framson, president of the Falmouth Police Patrolmen's Federation, said he would be disappointed if one accident spells the end of an otherwise exemplary 30-year career.

The issue has been on the boiler plate at the Falmouth department for some time. Framson said it was discussed during contract negotiations last year, but there was no agreement other than to continue talking about it.

Union files complaint That is why the union filed a "complaint of prohibitive practice." Framson said requiring the gun permit makes officers' jobs too vulnerable, particularly in domestic disputes. He said in the case of a false accusation resulting in a restraining order, a gun permit is immediately revoked and an officer is out of a job.

If they are "carrying on their badge," they can continue to work and turn in their service revolver at the end of a shift he said.

Falmouth Police Patrolmen's Federation attorney Douglas Louison said he believes requiring a license to carry is redundant and in Falmouth represents a change of conditions not sanctioned by a contract. Requiring a permit is duplication he said, because the qualifications a person must have to be a police officer are more stringent than any civilian applying for a gun permit.

However "carrying on the badge" an officer is not subject to the regular review of his or her suitability to carry a firearm.

"Being a suitable person can mean a lot of things," Louison said. "By virtue of being a police officer they are certainly held to being a suitable person." If not, he said, civil service laws provide for ways to discipline or dismiss an unsuitable officer. "Civil service laws police the police," Louison said.

Last year, Cusolito said he was made aware of several officers who had allowed the license to lapse and sent out letters to nine members of the department asking them to renew their permits.

Cusolito said he attempted in vain to "codify" the gun permit policy by including it in the patrolman's contract last year along with several other requirements he said are obviously necessary for the job, including having a driver's license.

Similar decisions In Mashpee, Police Chief Maurice Cooper said his department has required officers to have a license to carry since the 1970s. It is not however a part of the department's contract with the patrolman's union.

"Our clear recommendation to police departments is that they require all police officers to have a license to carry firearms as a condition of employment," said Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association general counsel John M. Collins. "The overwhelming number of departments require officers to have a license to carry. Only a handful don't."

Labor relations lawyer Philip Collins represents Falmouth and also the town of Franklin, where in 1999, the police chief faced an issue similar to the Ronayne case.

Collins could not comment on the ongoing Ronayne issue. But he said in Franklin the chief was forced to terminate an officer who lost his gun license after the state passed a stringent gun control law in 1998 that revealed the officer's juvenile record.

Collins said requiring a gun permit as a condition of employment does not need to be in a union contract.

"If a police department like Franklin wants to require a license to carry, there is nothing to stop them from doing that," he said.

However "carrying on the badge" an officer is not subject to the regular review of his or her suitability to carry a firearm.

This gives the bureaucrats a back-door method of getting rid an officer for political reasons.

More cops who think that the law that they gleefully enforce on the rest of us shouldn't apply to them.

Restraining order, lose your job.
No license, lose your job.
Give your gun to a felon, lose your job.

The police chief violates just one of those rules after gleefully firing other officers, he loses his job.

I'm not sure that getting rid of this particular officer is a bad thing. What was he thinking?

That's what Internal Affairs is for. If he is a bad cop, investigate him, gather evidence and prosecute/terminate him.

This is a back-door method fraught with potential for political abuse.

Framson said requiring the gun permit makes officers' jobs too vulnerable, particularly in domestic disputes. He said in the case of a false accusation resulting in a restraining order, a gun permit is immediately revoked and an officer is out of a job.

But that's just fine for the rest of us "little people".

How typical of the People's RepubliK of Taxachussetts.

The job is totally based on politics. Police enforce political laws, derive their power from political institutions, Police Chiefs are political appointees. Also, every job has an internal political dimension. Furthermore, through unionization, and I would hope common decency, police officers are way more protected then the majority of people in their relationship to the boss.

But, in this case, what is to be expected? Each and every year the various legislatures in their "wisdom" pass more and more laws, which fall upon the shoulders of police to enforce. Not only does this increase the burden, but also it further makes the police the enemy of his fellow citizens. This seems to be of no concern to elected officials, or police spokesmen.

In this case, the officer made a mistake. But who wouldn't over 30 years? But then a lot of people do and these mistakes, errors, idiocies have all been criminalized and otherwise fairly OK people have a conviction and a record and lose licenses too.

I hope he doesn't lose his job.

Like any socialist republic, which Massachusetts is, there is no trust between anyone. You are not trusted with a gun, even if you are back from a year in Afghanistan. You are not trusted to maintain your car, build your boat, and build wire or plumb a house. Everything and anything must be licenses, inspected, codified, documented, formed, permitted and on and on. The "you may's and shall not's" in the various offices of the state mandarins go on for hundreds of thousand of pages of small print and difficult language. Suspected violations of any word, in any sentence in any paragraph on any page will have you before a judge, often at the point of a gun with cuffed hands and shackled feet. Whereupon you will be told that if you turn over everything you own and have worked for to a "lawyer", a person in most cases you have never met, he will defend you from the judge and prosecutor who are all the lawyers best friends. This is called justice.

Nothing destroys morale better than a commanding officer who tells his troops he doesn't trust them.

What if no one else trust the guy who doesn't seem to know how to handle his gun?

"...in the case of a false accusation resulting in a restraining order, a gun permit is immediately revoked and an officer is out of a job."

Tough sh*t.
It's terrible when the police have to live by the same laws as "the common people," isn't it?

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.