Previous Post
Next Post


The Massachusetts Coalition of Police may not know how to Photoshop their logo onto a squad car, but there’s no question that they oppose Massachusetts Bill 4121, An Act relative to the reduction of gun violence. The NRA claims the bill would “empower police chiefs with discretion in licensing owners for shotguns and rifles, ban the private sale of firearms except through a licensed gun dealer, grant authority to the state Attorney General to remove certain firearms from the approved ‘firearms roster’ and require gun owners to provide a list of all firearms they currently own to the state with each renewal of their license.” Yes, well, none of that bothers the cop coalition. Here’s what sticks in their craw . . .

Press release:

The Massachusetts Coalition of Police submitted written testimony to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security in opposition of House Bill 4121 An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence. Our reasoning is that we do not agree with the change in what can disqualify you for a license to carry a firearm in this bill. In the current legislation, if you are convicted of a misdemeanor that carries a punishment of two years or more, you are disqualified. In this bill it reduces that time to one year. This could negatively impact some of our members who had previously qualified and had no issues in the past. In some cases it could potentially terminate employment. This is the one issue within the bill that has an effect on our membership’s employment. There may be other issues that you do not agree with, or agree with in the bill. In any case, you should call your local State Representative and let them know that you are not in favor of this bill.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Not surprising…..they are circling the wagons to protect the corrupt within their own ranks. As a resident of the looney tune state of Taxachusetts, I really don’t care what is used to kill this ridiculous bill, so long as it is indeed killed.

    Now, let’s have the cops “test” smart gun technology before it is forced on the rest of the population!

  2. Whew! I was scared for a minute there. When I read the title, I thought the police union might oppose civilian disarmament, because it’s immoral and impractical. Now I see it’s because they’re worried that some of their deputized law enforcement members with misdemeanor convictions might lose their jobs.

    • Indeed. The Bard knew wit.

      The only thing here is that the people involved aren’t smart enough to be engineers. I seriously doubt they’d make it through the first semester.

      • A petard is a small breaching bomb from the 1500’s. The engeneer was the bomb expert/placer, so it really means to be blown up by your own making.

  3. @ Slappy

    Ah, unfortunately, CA must lay claim to being the “Looney Tunes” state…in more ways than one.

    We all wish it weren’t so; we’d be more than happy to relinquish that moniker and reputation to you folks out in “Taxachusetts” but for now at least, we’re stuck with it and I don’t see relief coming any time soon.

  4. I almost hope they make rifles and shotguns may issue; this would end up at the SCOTUS and get slapped down faster than you can say heller. It could even be the once and for all shall issue/may issue case we have been waiting for.

    • SCOTUS isn’t taking any more 2A cases. That should be clear after it refused to hear Drake v. Jerejian.

      • They’re waiting for either Shew v. Malloy or whatever the one in NYS is going to be called.

        • You can’t get much more slam dunk than the Drake case. As a NJ gun owner, I’ve been following that one from behind enemy lines. Drake may be the most recent name, but others have included kidnapping victims and night shift tow truck drivers in places where the cops won’t even bother going without 2 squad cars with 2 guys in each car. If 4 people with guns are hesitant to go to an area, how is that not good enough reason for one person to carry?

          Until SCOTUS gets another nominee or two from the red side of the aisle, there will be no more 2nd Amendment decisions.

        • “They’re waiting for (X case that won’t bubble up for another 2 years)” is a common refrain these days.

        • SuperiorPosture said, “Until SCOTUS gets another nominee or two from the red side of the aisle, there will be no more 2nd Amendment decisions.”

          Justice Scalia and the other conservative justices are looking out for the gun-rights side. They allowed the SCOTUS to try the case on straw purchases that they decided last week, and the result/decision was very anti-gun. We should all hope that they can prevent any more 2A cases coming before the court, until we get another red-side justice to push the court back to 2A favorable. Right now the SCOTUS is not on our side.

  5. So, they want a “carve out” for their members. Special rules for special people and all that.

  6. Hah, I read the title and said to myself ‘let me guess, it effects them too’. Sure enough I was right, but it’s even worse because they’re trying to protect bad cops.

    • Not necessarily. The list of “crimes” that could result in DQ (i.e 1 year misdemeanor) is ~2000. These include things like bathing in a public water fountain. Yes, really. Also, the way the bill is written, you do not need to have actually served a year, only that the crime calls for up to a year. So if a cop in his youth got drunk and jumped in a fountain, and got convicted, (say disorderly conduct, public drunkeness) and say performed community service, he/she would STILL be DQ’ed. Check out the fourth speaking group video from this thread

      • Oh I agree with you, make no mistake. But they’re not opposing the law because it effects everyone, just that it’s going to effect them and their jobs.

  7. Unless this results in a current/retired LEO carve out, I’d see their opposition to this bill as one more voice against gun control. If the bill dies, it’s dead and that’s good. Why it’s dead shouldn’t be a huge concern.

    But this being Mass, I’d expect a LEO carveout.

  8. If you ban the police from having guns…. how are they going to break into your property and kill your dog?


    • Well they still have their MRAPs and flash-bangs, so they can still play Rambo and burn babies as needed.

  9. There is a little town in northern California with a State prison where the residents like to say “you can’t tell the guards from the prisoners.” In Massachusetts, I guess you can’t tell the cops from the criminals. I don’t know, but I assume you would have had to have done something pretty bad to be sentenced to two years in jail.

    • Just like “The Old Gray Mare,” police standards in MA just ain’t what they used to be.

    • Someone I know was sentenced to 18 months for armed robbery in MA. It was also aggregated of something like that because the victim was 66. So ya, you have to so something pretty bad to get two years.

  10. Only in Massachusetts could candidates running for political office accuse their opponents of not being anti-gun enough. The reality is if the House speaker wants this bill bad enough, he will get it. Criminalizing legal gun ownership, incrementally of course, is the game in town.

  11. Must be another Republican sponsored gun control bill in a Republican-controlled state. Since there isn’t any difference between the parties and all.


    What a disgusting piece of legislation.

  12. MA charges you for everything. If this bill passes everyone will be disarmed. I don’t think I met anyone who didn’t have some sort of charge there for the Judicial Industrial Complex.(yes I’m exaggerating, sort of.)

  13. they are a police union as such they look at two things,labor issues and police issues, that’s the unions job.
    they are objecting to a part that effects their members employment. seems simple enough.

  14. Pathetic! They are more concerned that their cronies with misdemeanors who are currently cops (their blatant criminal membership as opposed to those who haven’t been caught yet) would lose their right to keep and bear arms and probably their jobs as a result.

    They give less than a damn about the rest of us having to comply with the onerous provisions of this law and of having to list and register all of our firearms with the state which, subject to licensing, and updated at renewal…and all of the implications that scheme has for those of us deemed unworthy for whatever random reasons they can come up with in the future.

    Sadly they are only concerned with protecting the criminal element in their ranks!

  15. This good… except this opposition will only last as long as it takes them to secure a generous carve out for themselves and their own. Then this will pass silently through the legislature and become law just like the SAFE act did in NY.

  16. You can be prohibited by federal law from firearm possession and still be a cop, (18 USC 925(a). Many states allow for this as well, including Mass. The hang up for MA is that the state court system has upheld practices of police departments requiring that their officers have a LTC as a condition of employment. It’s not required by state law; however, courts have upheld this as a requirement if imposed by an agency.

    And yes, there are quite a few cops in MA that are prohibited by law from possessing firearms privately. This is nothing new. This has been going on since the Gun Control Act of 1968,

  17. To all lovers of the 2nd Amendment In Massachusetts; don’t forget that Maine is only two hours drive away for most of you. Bring your guns and ammo, and settle in the north or downeast; just leave your politics at the border. The mess you are in was partly of your own making, and we don’t want any of that up here.
    There’s a reason why our murder rate is 2/3 yours, our violent crime rate is 1/3, robbery is 1/4, and aggravated assault is only 20% of yours (FBI stats for 2011), and it resides in gun cabinets and safes all over the state…

    • I live on Cape and am seriously considering moving my business to ME or southern Vermont. NH is just an extension of Boston’s North Shore so that’s out.

      • Agreed. I have been looking into Vermont also because land is cheap and the gun laws are great. The lack of jobs, huge drug trade, and nutty crunchies are turning me off though. Basically the entire border of Maine with Canada is for sale, cheaply as well, only problem there is you pretty much have to be a hermit…..wait, that sounds less and less like a problem these days.

  18. ” and require gun owners to provide a list of all firearms they currently own to the state”

    Sure… will do right away!

  19. Are these the hometown heroes whom we’re supposedly relying on to help protect us from a tyrannical federal government, or at least not actively to support said tyranny? Hmm?

    NOBODY who carries a badge is your friend. At best, at overly generous best, he’s a currently quiescent future enemy.

  20. I used to be a Deputy , I remember back when Bill Clinton had his Domestic violence bill added on to the crimes that would keep someone from owning or buying a firearm , that there were nation wide , officers seeking to get expungement s for these crimes , as quite a few officers had these on their record , you see that section is retroactive , now it appears that this is happening again in another matter . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

Comments are closed.