“There is respect for law, and then there is complicity in lawlessness.” –Rebecca MacKinnon
The Bay State sometimes lives up to their anti-second amendment reputation, “institutionally.” The laws in the Bay State for guns are restrictive. But, after many hoops jumped through, Bay State Subjects can still own, possess and carry guns in the Bay State. Despite that, some law enforcement officers, still seek to make that ability selective. Selective, because despite the law, they are lawless.
Such was the case this past July when a man, lawfully carrying a firearm stopped into the Irish Cottage for a drink after work. Police were summoned to the location for a report of a man with a firearm. Methuen Patrol Officer Joseph Rynne spoke with the cooperative patron. It was Officer Rynne’s position that he didn’t have a legal justification to go further with the matter. Lieutenant Michael Wnek and Sergeant Tod Himmer, who were at the Irish Cottage, decided to confiscate the gun anyway.
Subsequently, Methuen Police Chief Joseph Solomon found that both Wnek and Himmer had violated the department’s professional conduct and responsibility procedure when they improperly seized an otherwise lawfully possessed handgun. The man in possession of the gun while at the Irish Cottage, works as a security guard and was legally and properly licensed to carry the firearm. Chief Solomon subsequently suspended both officers without pay — Lt. Wnek for five days and Sgt. Himmer for three.
However, instead of accepting responsibility for their improper behavior, both have decided to appeal their suspensions. Jill Harmacinski of the Eagle Tribune, reported on Friday October 30, details of that hearing. The lawlessness on display is astounding.
Gary Nolan, the defense attorney, appointed for the officers by the Superior Officers Union called the suspension, “Downright shameful.” and goes on to say that, both officers were being “proactive not reactive” in an era where gun violence is a daily occurrence.
There is the first fact of anti-second amendment ranting under color of law. The attorney basically implies that to simply own or possess a handgun is to imply violence. Nolan goes on to say,
“The decision by Lt. Michael Wnek and Sgt. Tod Himmer to take the 69-year-old man’s gun and ammunition on July 12 at the Irish Cottage was a “very reasonable response to a very dangerous situation,”
Translation: Private citizens in possession of guns is dangerous. To Nolan, it is immaterial whether all requirements and laws have been observed. No guns for citizens.
Retired Tewksbury Police Chief Alfred Donovan had been hired as a special investigator by Methuen Police to independently examine Wnek and Himmers handling of this incident. Chief Donovan concluded that Lt. Wnek and Sgt. Himmer had, “improperly seized the man’s handgun” and also violated department policy regarding cell phone use.
Under state law in Massachusetts, it is not illegal for a properly licensed person to bring his or her firearm into a drinking establishment, so long as they are not intoxicated or otherwise impaired.
Chief Solomon summarily suspended Wnek and Himmer asserting in their suspension letters they had violated the department’s “professional conduct and responsibility procedure when they participated in the improper seizure of a lawfully possessed handgun.”
Chief Donovan wrote in his findings that,
“[D]espite their intentions, they represented a police department who improperly and without legal justification, seized the handgun, without a warrant and without probable cause that a crime had been committed.”
“Is it stupid for someone to consume alcohol with a loaded weapon?”
When questioned by Nolan, Donovan said the gun holder “certainly cannot drink until intoxicated or impairment” under the confines of the law.
The facts here seem clear enough that we can form some opinions. First, The citizen having a drink at the Irish cottage broke no laws. While getting the attention of Police officers there because he was in possession of a firearm, still, he broke no laws. That was not okay with the Sergeant and the Lieutenant present. They were going to confiscate the gun to be, “proactive” because their personal belief system, irrespective of the law, meant a citizen cannot possess a gun. It is not like they didn’t know what the law is, clearly, they know what the law is. They are after all, “Superior Officers.” Standard-Bearers for the junior rank and file tasked with enforcing and upholding the law in that community.
When Police Officers disregard the law, they often think they may do so with impunity and not be held for account…especially when their perception is that public opinion is weighted in their favor.
These officers acted outside the law and did so under the color of authority. They did an act that violated the lawful rights of a Bay State Citizen. Now they appeal their suspension, finding attorneys that are anti-second amendment…that is, those who believe citizens shall not be armed. Their arguments and questioning so far supports that.
I am sure this happens with more frequency in the Bay State than this one case. To those who talk about Massachusetts gun laws, don’t kid yourself. Just because there is a slim margin that afford one to carry a firearm, doesn’t mean that is going to be faithfully honored by the law enforcement community as we have witnessed here. Please stop comparing New Hampshire to the bay state…Its apples and oranges…and lawless.
