Joint Compendium of Exhibits

Transcription

Case 1:13-cv-10246-FDS Document 35 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 2
CHRISTOPHER DAVIS; WILLIAM J.
THOMPSON, JR.; WILSON LOBAO; ROBERT
CAPONE; and COMMONWEALTH SECOND
AMENDMENT, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
-againstRICHARD C. GRIMES, in his Official Capacity as
Chief of the Weymouth Police Department; and
ROBERT L. CHAMPAGNE, in his Official
Capacity as Chief of the Peabody Police
Department,
Defendants,
-andCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Intervenor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
) 1:13-cv-10246
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JOINT COMPENDIUM OF EXHIBITS
A. Amended Complaint
B. Chief Grimes’s Answer
C. Chief Champagne’s Answer
D. Chief Grimes’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories
E. Chief Champagne’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories
F. Plaintiffs’ Response to Chief Grimes’s Interrogatories
G. Plaintiffs’ Response to Chief Champagne’s Interrogatories
H. R. Capone LTC
I. R. Capone LTC application form
J. R. Capone LTC letter
Case 1:13-cv-10246-FDS Document 35 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 2
K. R. Capone e-mail
L. C. Davis LTC
M. C. Davis LTC application form
N. C. Davis LTC application in MIRCS
O. C. Davis LTC letter
P. C. Davis letter (second)
Q. C. Davis letter (from J. Mullin)
R. W. Lobao LTC
S. W. Lobao LTC application form
T. W. Lobao LTC letter
U. W. Thompson LTC
V. W. Thompson LTC application in MIRCS
W. Weymouth PD LTC instruction page (DAVIS00016)
X. Weymouth PD LTC instruction page (DAVIS00060)
Y. Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) Letter
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on 1 July 2013.
/s/ David D. Jensen
David D. Jensen, Esq.
Case
Case1:13-cv-10246-FDS
1:13-cv-10246-FDS Document
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page1 1ofof1313
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
-against)
)
RICHARD C. GRIMES, in his Official Capacity as )
Chief of the Weymouth Police Department; NEIL
)
F. OULLETTE, in his Official Capacity as Chief of )
the Danvers Police Department; ROBERT L.
)
CHAMPAGNE, in his Official Capacity as Chief of )
the Peabody Police Department; and GARY J.
)
GEMME, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the
)
Worcester Police Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
THOMPSON, JR.; RANDY COLE, JR.; WILSON
LOBAO; ROBERT CAPONE; RYAN
SHAUGHNESSY; and COMMONWEALTH
SECOND AMENDMENT, INC.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:13-cv-10246
PRELIMINARY EQUITABLE
RELIEF REQUESTED
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER DAVIS; WILLIAM J. THOMPSON, JR.; RANDY COLE,
JR.;
WILSON
LOBAO;
ROBERT
CAPONE;
RYAN
SHAUGHNESSY;
and
COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, INC., as and for their Complaint against
Defendants RICHARD C. GRIMES; NEIL F. OULLETTE; ROBERT L. CHAMPAGNE; and
GARY J. GEMME, allege as follows:
1.
This suit challenges Defendants’ imposition of “sporting,” “hunting,” and/or
“target” restrictions on handgun licenses.
These restrictions prevent Plaintiffs from using
handguns for the purpose self-protection, which contravenes “the right of the people to keep and
bear arms” that the Second Amendment secures.
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page2 2ofof1313
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,
2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because, inter
alia, they acted under the color of laws, policies, customs, and/or practices of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and/or within the geographic confines of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
4.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
5.
The Eastern Division is appropriate pursuant to LR 40.1(D)(1)(b) because all of
the parties reside in the District and a majority reside in the Eastern Division.
PARTIES
6.
Plaintiff Christopher Davis is a citizen and resident of Massachusetts residing in
the Town of Weymouth, Norfolk County.
7.
Plaintiff William J. Thompson, Jr. is a citizen and resident of Massachusetts
residing in the Town of Halifax, Plymouth County.
8.
Plaintiff Randy Cole, Jr. is a citizen and resident of Massachusetts residing in the
Town of Danvers, Essex County.
9.
Plaintiff Wilson Lobao is a citizen and resident of Massachusetts residing in the
Town of Peabody, Essex County.
10.
Plaintiff Robert Capone is a citizen and resident of Massachusetts residing in the
Town of Peabody, Essex County.
11.
Plaintiff Ryan Shaughnessy is a citizen and resident of Massachusetts residing in
the City of Worcester, Worcester County.
-2-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page3 3ofof1313
12.
Plaintiff Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (“Comm2A”) is a non-profit
corporation organized under Massachusetts law with its principal place of business in Natick,
Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
13.
Defendant Richard C. Grimes (“Chief Grimes”) is sued in his official capacity as
Chief of the Weymouth Police Department (Norfolk County), responsible for issuing handgun
licenses pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131. As detailed herein, Defendant Chief Grimes has
enforced the challenged laws, customs, and practices against Plaintiffs and is in fact presently
enforcing the challenged laws, customs, and practices against Plaintiffs.
14.
Defendant Neil F. Oullette (“Chief Oullette”) is sued in his official capacity as
Chief of the Danvers Police Department (Essex County), responsible for issuing handgun
licenses pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131. As detailed herein, Defendant Chief Oullette has
15.
Defendant Robert L. Champagne (“Chief Champagne”) is sued in his official
capacity as Chief of the Peabody Police Department (Essex County), responsible for issuing
handgun licenses pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131. As detailed herein, Defendant Chief
Champagne has enforced the challenged laws, customs, and practices against Plaintiffs and is in
fact presently enforcing the challenged laws, customs, and practices against Plaintiffs.
16.
Defendant Gary J. Gemme (“Chief Gemme”) is sued in his official capacity as
Chief of the Worcester Police Department (Worcester County), responsible for issuing handgun
licenses pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131. As detailed herein, Defendant Chief Gemme has
-3-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page4 4ofof1313
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
17.
The Second Amendment provides:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
U.S. Const. amend. II.
18.
The Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry
weapons in case of confrontation.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008).
19.
The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry
operable handguns in non-sensitive public places for the purpose of self-defense.
20.
The Second Amendment “is fully applicable against the States.” McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010).
21.
The States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns within
constitutional parameters; to prohibit the carry of handguns in specific, narrowly defined
sensitive places; to prohibit carrying arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment
protection; and, to disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals from possessing guns.
However, States may not deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry handguns for protection.
22.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a State
shall not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Under the
Equal Protection Clause, “classifications affecting fundamental rights are given the most
exacting scrutiny.” Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988).
MASSACHUSETTS HANDGUN LICENSING LAWS
23.
It is unlawful to possess, use, or carry a handgun unless one holds a License to
Carry Firearms (“LTC”) issued pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131. See M.G.L. ch. 269, § 10(a);
M.G.L. ch. 140, §§ 129B-129C.
-4-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page5 5ofof1313
24.
Under M.G.L. ch. 140, §§ 121, 131(d) Massachusetts residents apply for LTC’s
from the police chief of the town or city where they reside or have a place of business.
25.
A person seeking an LTC must meet requirements related to age, criminal
background, mental fitness, drug and alcohol abuse, and active arrest warrants and domestic
violence restraining orders. See M.G.L. ch. 140, §§ 131(d)(i)-(vii). A person must complete
training. See id. at § 131P. Finally, a person must be found to be a “suitable person” before any
LTC can be issued. See id. § 131(d). This case does not concern any of these requirements.
26.
LTC’s are “designated Class A or Class B.” M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131. A Class A
LTC authorizes a person to possess a handgun and to carry it in operable (loaded) condition,
either concealed or in open view. See M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131(a). A Class B LTC authorizes a
person to possess a handgun (capable of holding no more than 10 rounds of ammunition) and to
carry that handgun loaded and in open view (but not concealed). See M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131(b).
This case does not concern the differences between Class A and Class B LTC’s.
27.
In either case (Class A or Class B) Massachusetts law authorizes local licensing
officials to impose “restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of” guns as they
“deem[ ] proper.” M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131(a)-(b).
28.
A local official’s decision to impose restrictions on an individual’s LTC will be
upheld so long as it is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Ruggiero v.
Police Comm’r of Boston, 18 Mass. App. 256, 259, 464 N.E.2d 104, 107 (1984).
29.
Some Massachusetts localities flatly refuse to issue LTC’s without restriction to
“sporting,” “target,” “hunting,” or other similar purposes. Other Massachusetts localities refuse
to issues LTC’s without restrictions unless applicants establish (to the particular locality’s
satisfaction) that they have a particularly pronounced “need” to carry a gun.
-5-
Other
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page6 6ofof1313
Massachusetts localities apply a more ad hoc policy under which some applicants receive
unrestricted LTC’s, and others do not, but without any apparent difference in circumstances.
Some localities normally impose sporting-type restrictions, but issue unrestricted LTC’s to
people who have obtained them in the past. About half of all Massachusetts localities (not party
to this lawsuit) generally issue LTC’s without restrictions to private citizens who request them.
30.
Carrying, using, or possessing a handgun in violation of the restrictions placed on
an LTC is grounds for suspension or revocation of the LTC and a fine of $1,000 to $10,000. See
M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131(a), (b).
31.
Massachusetts’ LTC scheme results in otherwise-qualified, law-abiding citizens
of Massachusetts being denied the right to carry a firearm for self-defense, while other, similarly
situated residents of Massachusetts are permitted to exercise their right to bear arms to protect
themselves.
For example, neighboring localities may adopt different policies regarding
unrestricted LTC’s, resulting in a citizen’s right to bear arms being dependent on whether he
lives in one locality or the other. One citizen may be denied the right to carry a firearm for selfdefense because local licensing officials refuse to issue unrestricted LTC’s, while an otherwise
indistinguishable neighbor may be able to obtain an unrestricted LTC if he happens to have a
place of business in a locality that does issue unrestricted licenses. A woman may obtain an
unrestricted LTC from a local licensing official while her husband cannot, solely because he has
already been issued a restricted LTC by licensing officials in their former home locality, and
those officials refuse to revoke his license to allow him to reapply to officials in his new home.
These examples are not fanciful; on information and belief, they all describe scenarios that have
taken place under Massachusetts’ LTC scheme and, indeed, some of these irrational and arbitrary
results have been experienced by the Plaintiffs themselves.
-6-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page7 7ofof1313
DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS
CHIEF GRIMES AND THE WEYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT
32.
Plaintiff Christopher Davis previously lived in Foxborough, Massachusetts and
held a Class B LTC issued by the Foxborough Police Department. (Mr. Davis had applied for a
Class A LTC, but the Foxborough Police Department had issued him a Class B LTC, instead.)
This Foxborough Class B LTC carried no restrictions. Mr. Davis moved to Weymouth in 2007
and continued to hold his unrestricted Class B LTC for its full duration.
33.
When Mr. Davis’s LTC was due to expire, he applied for a new LTC from Chief
Grimes of the Weymouth Police Department in 2008. Mr. Davis applied for an LTC of Class A.
Mr. Davis met all applicable requirements for issuance of an LTC.
34.
At the time he submitted his application, Mr. Davis specifically requested that
Chief Grimes issue him an LTC that did not carry restrictions. Officer Brian King, who accepted
Mr. Davis’s application, stated that the town’s policy was to only issue unrestricted licenses to
law enforcement and military personnel and businesses owners.
35.
On July 3, 2012 Chief Grimes issued Mr. Davis a Class A LTC carrying the
restriction of “Target & Hunting.”
36.
Plaintiff William J. Thompson, Jr. applied for a Class A LTC from Chief Grimes
in 2007. Mr. Thompson met all applicable requirements for issuance of an LTC.
37.
On April 2, 2008 Chief Grimes or his designee issued Mr. Thompson a Class A
LTC with the restriction of “Target & Hunting.”
38.
Mr. Thompson and his wife (Marissa) then moved about 20 miles to Halifax,
Massachusetts. Mrs. Thompson applied for an LTC from the Halifax Police Department, and
received a Class A LTC with no restrictions.
-7-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page8 8ofof1313
39.
Mr. Thompson then applied for an LTC from the Halifax Police Department, and
the licensing officer said that he would issue Mr. Thompson a Class A LTC that carried no
restrictions. However, the Halifax Police Department could not issue the LTC unless Mr.
Thompson’s Weymouth-issued LTC was first expired. The Halifax Police Department contacted
the Weymouth Police Department, but Chief Grimes refused to expire Mr. Thompson’s LTC.
As a result, Mr. Thompson remains subject to the restrictions of his Weymouth-issued LTC.
CHIEF OULLETTE AND THE DANVERS POLICE DEPARTMENT
40.
In 2011 Plaintiff Randy Cole, Jr. applied for a Class A LTC from Chief Oullette
of the Danvers Police Department in Danvers, Massachusetts. Mr. Cole met all applicable
requirements for issuance of an LTC.
41.
On June 8, 2011 Chief Oullette issued Mr. Cole a Class B LTC with the
42.
In both September and December of 2012, Mr. Cole requested that Chief Oullette
remove the restrictions from his license and issue him a license of Class A. Chief Oullette
refused to take either action.
CHIEF CHAMPAGNE AND THE PEABODY POLICE DEPARTMENT
43.
In 2008 Plaintiff Wilson Lobao applied for a Class A LTC from Chief
Champagne of the Peabody Police Department in Peabody, Massachusetts. Mr. Lobao met all
applicable requirements for issuance of an LTC.
44.
At the time that Mr. Lobao submitted his application, personnel told him that the
Chief “doesn’t like to issue” unrestricted Class A LTC’s.
45.
On December 5, 2008 Chief Champagne issued Mr. Lobao a Class B LTC with
the restriction of “Target & Hunting.”
-8-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page9 9ofof1313
46.
In 2012 Plaintiff Robert Capone applied for a Class A LTC from Chief
Champagne. Mr. Capone met all applicable requirements for issuance of an LTC.
47.
On July 19, 2012 Chief Champagne issued Mr. Capone a Class A LTC with the
48.
Mr. Capone thereafter asked to have the “Target & Hunting” restriction removed.
Personnel in the Police Department told him that Chief Champagne’s policy is to issue all firsttime applicants restricted licenses, but that Chief Champagne might remove the restrictions when
Mr. Capone renewed his LTC in about 6 years.
CHIEF GEMME AND THE WORCESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
49.
In 2009 Plaintiff Ryan Shaughnessy applied for a Class A LTC from Chief
Gemme of the Worcester Police Department in Worcester, Massachusetts. Mr. Shaughnessy met
all applicable requirements for issuance of an LTC.
50.
On May 4, 2009 Chief Gemme or his designee issued Mr. Shaughnessy a Class A
LTC with the restriction of “Sporting & Target.”
INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFFS
51.
The restriction of the above individual Plaintiffs’ LTC’s to “target,” “hunting,”
and/or “sporting” purposes precludes these Plaintiffs from possessing, using, or carrying
handguns for the purpose of self-protection. But for these Plaintiffs’ fear that their LTC’s would
be suspended or revoked and/or that they would be fined, each of these Plaintiffs would possess,
use, and carry a handgun for the purpose of self-protection.
52.
Plaintiff Comm2A is a nonprofit organization recognized under § 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code. The purposes of Comm2A include education, research, publishing, and
legal action focusing on the constitutional right of the people to possess and carry firearms.
-9-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page1010ofof1313
53.
Comm2A expends significant resources assisting people who receive restricted
LTC’s under the authority of M.G.L. c. 140, § 131(a)-(b), including specifically people receiving
restricted licenses from the Danvers Police Department, the Peabody Police Department, the
Weymouth Police Department, and the Worcester Police Department.
54.
Supporters of Comm2A have received restricted LTC’s pursuant to M.G.L. ch.
140, § 131(a)-(b) and are injured in their inability to carry handguns for protection.
55.
In addition, both supporters of Comm2A and members of the general public have
contacted Comm2A as a result of the restriction of their LTC’s. Comm2A has expended time,
energy, and money to consult with and provide assistance to these individuals, and particularly
with regard to issues surrounding their inability to exercise the right of armed self-protection.
56.
Comm2A would not expend its organizational resources to respond to the
demands of its supporters and of the general public regarding the restriction of their LTC’s by
the Defendants if Defendants did not impose restrictions in the first instance. Comm2A would
instead use its organizational resources to pursue other organizational priorities.
57.
All of the Plaintiffs’ injuries are irreparable because people are entitled to enjoy
their constitutional rights in fact.
COUNT I
(U.S. CONST., AMENDS. II & XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
58.
Massachusetts’ LTC licensing scheme, and in particular M.G.L. ch. 140,
§ 131(a)-(b) & (d), vests local licensing officials with the authority to impose restrictions on
LTC’s as they “deem[ ] proper.”
59.
Defendants have exercised this authority by issuing Plaintiffs LTC’s that prohibit
them from carrying and using handguns for the purpose of self-defense and have thereby
deprived Plaintiffs of their right to keep and bear arms.
-10-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page1111ofof1313
60.
Defendants have further exercised this authority by adopting policies, customs,
and/or practices of generally issuing LTC’s with “sporting,” “hunting,” and/or “target”
restrictions that prohibit carrying or using handguns for the purpose of self-defense.
61.
Defendants have thereby infringed Plaintiffs’ rights under the Second
Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Defendants have
damaged Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT II
(U.S. CONST., AMENDS. II & XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
62.
Massachusetts’ LTC licensing scheme, and in particular M.G.L. ch. 140,
§ 131(a)-(b) & (d), vests local licensing officials with the authority to impose restrictions on
LTC’s as they “deem[ ] proper.”
63.
Defendants have exercised this authority such that the ability of law-abiding
citizens of Massachusetts to exercise their fundamental right to bear arms often turns on arbitrary
considerations, such as whether an individual resides on the correct side of a local boundary line,
has a place of business in a locality that issues unrestricted LTC’s, was able to obtain an
unrestricted LTC at some point in the past, or has held a restricted LTC for some period of time.
64.
The aforesaid statute, and Defendants’ implementation of this statute, violates
Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and their Fourteenth Amendment
rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, and damages Plaintiffs in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
-11-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page1212ofof1313
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
i.
declaratory judgment that M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131(a)-(b) & (d) violate the
Second Amendment to the extent they allow Defendants to prohibit
qualified private citizens from carrying loaded and operable handguns for
self-protection by restricting licenses to carry handguns to “sporting,”
“target,” “hunting,” and similar purposes;
ii.
declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policies, customs, and/or practices
implementing M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131(a)-(b) & (d) violate the Second
Amendment to the extent they allow Defendants to prohibit qualified
private citizens from carrying loaded and operable handguns for selfprotection by restricting licenses to carry handguns to “sporting,” “target,”
“hunting,” and similar purposes;
iii.
declaratory judgment that M.G.L. ch. 140, § 131(a)-(b) & (d) violate the
Equal Protection Clause to the extent they allow similarly situated, lawabiding citizens to be treated differently for purposes of exercising their
fundamental right to carry a loaded and operable handgun for selfprotection, in a manner not sufficiently tailored to a sufficiently important
government interest;
iv.
injunctive relief directing Defendants and their officers, agents, servants,
employees, and all persons in concert or participation with them who
receive notice of this injunction, to issue to Plaintiffs Christopher Davis;
William J. Thompson, Jr.; Randy Cole, Jr.; Wilson Lobao; Robert Capone;
and Ryan Shaughnessy LTC’s that do not carry “hunting,” “target,” or
“sporting” restrictions, nor any other similar restrictions that would
preclude the carry and use of handguns for self-protection;
v.
injunctive relief precluding Defendants and their officers, agents, servants,
employees, and all persons in concert or participation with them who
receive notice of this injunction, from issuing LTC’s with “hunting,”
“target,” or “sporting” restrictions, or with any other similar restriction
that would preclude the use of handguns for self-protection;
vi.
such other and further relief, including further and/or preliminary
injunctive relief, as may be necessary to effectuate the Court’s judgment
or otherwise grant relief, or as the Court otherwise deems just and
equitable; and
vii.
attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
-12-
Case
Document35-1
6 Filed
Filed02/10/13
07/01/13 Page
Page1313ofof1313
Dated: February 10, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
THE PLAINTIFFS,
By their attorneys,
/s/ Patrick M. Groulx
Patrick M. Groulx, Esq.
BBO No. 673394
POLIS LEGAL
P.O. Box 760656
Melrose, MA 02176
Tel: 978.549.3124
Fax: 617.500.9955
[email protected]
DAVID JENSEN PLLC
111 John Street, Suite 230
New York, New York 10038
Tel: 212.380.6615
Fax: 917.591.1318
[email protected]
Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice Pending
-13-
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page11ofof99
__________________________________________
)
)
THOMPSON, JR.; RANDY COLE, JR.; WILSON )
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
-against)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-cv-10246
)
Chief of the Weymouth Police Department; NEIL )
)
)
GEMME, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the )
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
CHIEF RICHARD GRIMES’S ANSWER TO THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND JURY DEMAND
1.
The defendant does not respond to the first sentence contained in Paragraph 1 of the
plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as it is not a statement of fact. The defendant denies the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2.
The defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint.
3.
The defendant admits that the Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant Richard C.
Grimes.
4.
Complaint.
5.
Complaint.
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page22ofof99
Parties
6.
Complaint.
7.
The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
and therefore leave the plaintiffs to prove same.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
The defendant admits the allegation contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 13 of the
plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint to the extent Chief Grimes or his designee is responsible
for issuing handgun licenses for residents of the Town of Weymouth. The defendant
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint.
14.
15.
16.
-2-
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page33ofof99
Constitutional Provisions
17.
The defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint.
18.
The defendant admits that Paragraph 18 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains a
partial quotation from District of Columbia v. Heller.
19.
Paragraph 19 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains a legal conclusion not
requiring a responsive pleading. Nonetheless, the defendant denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 19 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
20.
correct quotation from McDonald v. Chicago.
21.
requiring a responsive pleading. Nonetheless, the defendant admits the allegations
22.
plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The defendant admits that the second sentence of
Paragraph 22 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains a partial quotation from
Clark v. Jeter.
Massachusetts Handgun Licensing Laws
23.
Amended Complaint.
24.
Amended Complaint.
25.
Amended Complaint.
26.
Amended Complaint.
27.
Amended Complaint.
28.
The defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 set forth the correct legal
standard for an appeal of a decision of a local gun licensing official.
-3-
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page44ofof99
29.
30.
Amended Complaint.
31.
The defendant denies the allegation contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 31 of the
plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 31 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and therefore leave the plaintiffs to
prove same.
Defendants’ Application of the Statute Against the Plaintiffs
Chief Grimes and the Weymouth Police Department
32.
truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
that Mr. Davis moved to Weymouth in 2007 or whether he applied for a Class A LTC
from the Foxborough Police Department. The defendant admits the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
33.
The defendant admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 33 of the plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint that Mr. Davis applied for a new LTC from Chief Grimes of the Weymouth
Police Department; however, he did so in 2012, not 2008. The defendant admits the
34.
The defendant denies the allegation contained in Paragraph 34 of the plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint that Mr. Davis specifically requested that Chief Grimes issue him an LTC that
did not carry restrictions. The defendant admits the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 34 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
35.
Amended Complaint.
36.
Complaint that Plaintiff William J. Thompson, Jr. applied for a Class A LTC in 2007;
however, he did not make this application to Chief Grimes. The defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
37.
Complaint that one of Chief Grimes’s predecessors or his designees issued Mr.
Thompson a Class A LTC with these restrictions.
-4-
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page55ofof99
38.
39.
truth of the allegations contained in the first two sentences of Paragraph 39 of the
plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and therefore leave the plaintiffs to prove same. The
defendant admits the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint, but further states that Chief Grimes’s “refusal” to expire Mr.
Thompson’s LTC was based on the absence of any such express authority in Chapter
140.
Chief Oullette and the Danvers Police Department
40.
41.
42.
Chief Champagne and the Peabody Police Department
43.
44.
45.
46.
-5-
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page66ofof99
47.
48.
Chief Gemme and the Worcester Police Department
49.
50.
Injury to the Plaintiffs
51.
The defendant denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 51 of
prove same.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
-6-
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page77ofof99
57.
contained in Paragraph 57 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
COUNT I
(U.S. Const., Amends. II & XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
58.
Amended Complaint.
59.
The defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of the plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint.
60.
truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 with regard to what the “Defendants”
have done, and deny these allegations as they pertain to Chief Grimes.
61.
Amended Complaint.
COUNT II
62.
Amended Complaint.
63.
have done, and deny these allegations as they pertain to Chief Grimes.
64.
Amended Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. lacks standing to prosecute these
claims.
-7-
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page88ofof99
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff Christopher Davis has failed to exhaust his statutory remedies.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Chief Richard Grimes has exercised his authority in a manner consistent with M.G.L. c.
140, § 131.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not entitle any of the
plaintiffs to an unrestricted license to carry firearms or to possess and use a machine gun.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiffs’ claims are without merit because the statutory scheme under M.G.L.
c. 140, §131, did not and do not violate any of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have not suffered any actual deprivation of any rights secured by the
federal or state constitutions or statutes.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff Davis’s claim fails to identify specific instances where similarly situated persons
within the Town of Weymouth were treated more favorably or even differently than him by the
defendant Richard C. Grimes.
-8-
Case
Document35-2
15 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page99ofof99
JURY DEMAND
The defendant requests a trial by jury.
The Defendant,
RICHARD C. GRIMES, in his Official Capacity as
Chief of the Weymouth Police Department,
By his attorneys
PIERCE, DAVIS & PERRITANO, LLP
/s/ Adam Simms
John J. Davis, BBO #115890
Adam Simms, BBO #632617
90 Canal Street
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 350-0950
[email protected]
[email protected]
I hereby certify that the foregoing, Chief Richard Grimes’s Answer to the Amended
Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Jury Demand, filed through the Electronic Case Filing
System, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of
Electronic Filing and that a paper copy shall be served upon those indicated as non-registered
participants on March 7, 2013.
/s/ Adam Simms
Adam Simms
-9-
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page11ofof99
__________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
-against)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-cv-10246
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
CHIEF ROBERT L. CHAMPAGNE’S ANSWER TO THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND JURY DEMAND
1.
The defendant does not respond to the first sentence contained in Paragraph 1 of the
plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as it is not a statement of fact. The defendant denies the
Jurisdiction and Venue
2.
Complaint.
3.
The defendant admits that the Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant Robert L.
Champagne.
4.
Complaint.
5.
Complaint.
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page22ofof99
Parties
6.
7.
8.
9.
Complaint.
10.
Amended Complaint.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The defendant admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 15 of
the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The defendant denies the remaining allegations
16.
-2-
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page33ofof99
Constitutional Provisions
17.
Amended Complaint.
18.
partial quotation from District of Columbia v. Heller.
19.
20.
correct quotation from McDonald v. Chicago.
21.
requiring a responsive pleading. Nonetheless, the defendant admits the allegations
22.
plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The defendant admits that the second sentence of
Paragraph 22 of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains a partial quotation from
Clark v. Jeter.
Massachusetts Handgun Licensing Laws
23.
Amended Complaint.
24.
Amended Complaint.
25.
Amended Complaint.
26.
Amended Complaint.
27.
Amended Complaint.
28.
The defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 set forth the correct legal
standard for an appeal of a decision of a local gun licensing official.
-3-
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page44ofof99
29.
30.
Amended Complaint.
31.
The defendant denies the allegation contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 31 of the
prove same.
Defendants’ Application of the Statute Against the Plaintiffs
Chief Grimes and the Weymouth Police Department
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
-4-
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page55ofof99
39.
Chief Oullette and the Danvers Police Department
40.
41.
42.
Chief Champagne and the Peabody Police Department
43.
Amended Complaint.
44.
45.
Amended Complaint.
46.
prove same.
47.
Amended Complaint.
48.
plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. The defendant denies the remaining allegations
-5-
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page66ofof99
Chief Gemme and the Worcester Police Department
49.
50.
Injury to the Plaintiffs
51.
The defendant denies the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 51 of
prove same.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
-6-
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page77ofof99
COUNT I
58.
Amended Complaint.
59.
Amended Complaint.
60.
have done, and deny these allegations as they pertain to Chief Champagne.
61.
Amended Complaint.
COUNT II
62.
Amended Complaint.
63.
have done, and deny these allegations as they pertain to Chief Champagne.
64.
Amended Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Insofar as Chief Champagne is concerned, plaintiffs Lobao and Capone have failed to
exhaust their statutory remedies.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
-7-
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page88ofof99
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Chief Robert L. Champagne has exercised his authority in a manner consistent with
M.G.L. c. 140, § 131.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs lack standing to prosecute these claims.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint should be dismissed for its failure to join a necessary
and indispensable party.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The defendant Robert L. Champagne’s actions were at all times justified and taken in
good faith consistent with the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not entitle any of the
plaintiffs to an unrestricted license to carry firearms or to possess and use a machine gun.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiffs’ claims are without merit because the statutory scheme under M.G.L.
c. 140, §131, did not and do not violate any of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs have not suffered any actual deprivation of any rights secured by the
federal or state constitutions or statutes.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff Cole’s claim fails to identify specific instances where similarly situated persons
within the Town of Peabody were treated more favorably or even differently than him by the
-8-
Case
Document35-3
16 Filed
Filed03/07/13
07/01/13 Page
Page99ofof99
defendant Robert L. Champagne.
JURY DEMAND
The defendant requests a trial by jury.
The Defendant,
ROBERT L. CHAMPAGNE, in his Official
Capacity as Chief of the Peabody Police
Department,
By his attorneys
/s/ Adam Simms
John J. Davis, BBO #115890
90 Canal Street
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 350-0950
[email protected]
[email protected]
I hereby certify that the foregoing, Chief Robert L. Champagne’s Answer to the
Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Jury Demand, filed through the Electronic Case
Filing System, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice
of Electronic Filing and that a paper copy shall be served upon those indicated as non-registered
participants on March 7, 2013.
/s/ Adam Simms
Adam Simms
-9-
Case 1:13-cv-10246-FDS Document 35-4 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 4
)
)
LOBAO;ROBERTCAPONE;RYAN
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
-against)
)
F. OULLETTE, in his Official Capacity as Chief of)
)
CHAMPAGNE, in his Official Capacity as Chief of)
)
)
Defendants.
)
CNIL ACTION NO. 1: 13-cv-1 0246
CHIEF RICHARD C. GRIMES'S ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
How many current LTC's have you issued (i.e. LTC's that are not expired, revoked, or
suspended)?
ANSWERNO.l
Please see the documents produced pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 26.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
What Restrictions have you placed on the LTC's identified m Interrogatory no. 1 (i.e.
"Target & Hunting")?
ANSWERN0.2
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
What activities do each of the Restrictions identified m response to Interrogatory no. 2
authorize and prohibit?
ANSWERN0.3
None - The restrictions identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2 are available to all licensing
authorities through the MIRCS system, as follows: Target & Hunting - restricts possession to
- the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of games
animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; and for the purpose of collecting (other
than machine guns). It includes travel to and from the activity location. Sporting - restricts
possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful
pursuit of games animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; for the purpose of
collecting (other than machine guns); and for recreational activities such as hiking, camping,
cross country skiing, or similar activities. It includes travel to and from the activity location.
Employment - restricts possession to business owner engaged in business activities, or to an
employee while engaged in work related activities, and maintaining proficiency, where the
employer requires carrying of a firearm (i.e. armored car, security guard, etc.). It includes travel
to and from the activity location.
INTERROGATORY NO.4
How many of the LTC's identified in response to Interrogatory no. 1 carry each of the
Restrictions identified in response to Interrogatory no. 2?
ANSWERN0.4
INTERROGATORY NO.5
Is it correct that your policy is that "New & Renewal Class A&B LTC's will be issued for
Hunting and Target only"?
ANSWERN0.5
This was the desire of a prior Chief of Police who did not want to issue any LTCs at all;
however, his desire was never actually implemented. This is not the policy of the current Chief,
Richard Grimes.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
If your response to Interrogatory no. 5 is other than an unqualified admission, state your policy
or practice for placing Restrictions on LTC's.
-2-
ANSWERN0.6
Restrictions for first time applicants are ordinarily for Hunting & Target. Unrestricted licenses
are usually for Law Enforcement, Military, and Business owners who handle large amounts of
cash. Employment is for people who are required to carry a firearm by their employer and has to
be backed by a letter from their employer stating as much. Prior to the expiration of the initial
six-year period, Chief Grimes will also consider lifting one of these restrictions where the
Applicant shows a changes of circumstance which warrants such a result.
INTERROGATORY NO.7
If your response to Interrogatory no. 5 is other than an unqualified admission, state how do you
determine what restriction(s) to place on an LTC?
ANSWERN0.7
Each license application is considered on a case by case basis and any of the above-listed criteria
is taken into account when placing restrictions on a license.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Under what circumstances (if any) would you make an exception to your policy and/or
practice for placing,Restrictions on LTC's?
ANSWERNO.S
Any exception to the policy is made on a case-by-case basis. Ordinarily, Chief Grimes requires
the Applicant have supporting documentation.
INTERROGATORY NO.9
Describe any and all changes you have made to your policies and/or practices at any time from
January 1, 2005 to the present.
ANSWERN0.9
See Answer to Interrogatory No. 5 above.
- 3-
As to objections~
Counsel for Defendattt.
RJ.CHA;lU) C. GR;l.MES,.Chiefoftbe
\'*leymouth Polk Departme t"
/r,..~-,-·--~---+-----'~~~--
Adam Simms. BBO ~3.2p 17
PUi:RCEt DA\"lS& ~ITANO, LtJ•
00 Canal Street
Boston, tvfA. 0.2ll4
(617) JS0-0950
ClUtTWtCAX:E:.OFIISVlCE
I, Adam Simms.• hereby eertif·), t~at oR tltisUdaji ofM.ay, 2013. cm1sed a true and
1H::curu.te
ofthe
dot.:ument to·be served upon all counsel ofrec:ord by first-dass
i
mail.
-4-
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
~against)
)
F. OULLETTE, in his Official Capacity as Chief of)
)
CHAMP A GNE, in his Official Capacity as Chief of)
)
)
Defendants.
)
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1: 13-cv-1 0246
CHIEF ROBERT L. CHAMPAGNE'S ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
How many current LTC's have you issued (i.e. LTC's that are not expired, revoked, or
suspended)?
ANSWERNO.l
1,633
INTERROGATORY NO.2
What Restrictions have you placed on the L TC's identified in Interrogatory no. 1 (i.e. "Target &
Hunting")?
ANSWER N0.2
Only Target & Hunting
INTERROGATORY NO.3
What activities do each of the Restrictions identified in response to Interrogatory no. 2 authorize
and prohibit?
ANSWER N0.3
Authorize license holders to own and possess firearms in their home; to transport firearms to and
from lawful destinations and once destination is reached, they can utilize the firearms as
provided by these restrictions.
INTERROGATORY NO.4
How many of the L TC's identified in response to the Interrogatory no. I carry each of the
Restrictions identified in response to Interrogatory no. 2?
ANSWER N0.4
475
INTERROGATORY NO.5
Is it correct that your policy or practice is to place Restrictions on all first-time LTC's?
ANSWER N0.5
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
If your response to Interrogatory no. 5 is other than an unqualified admission, state your policy
or practice for placing Restrictions on first-time LTC's.
ANSWERN0.6
The Peabody Police Department/Chief issues the appropriate LTC based upon the articulated
reasons and justifications requested by the applicant as outlined in the standardized list of
restrictions available to licensing authorities through MIRCS. First time applicants for LTC
Class A may be restricted for target and hunting unless first time applicant requires license to
carry for employment or business purposes and documentation can be provided. In such cases, a
first time applicant may be issued a non-restricted Class A LTC e.g., armed security or courier.
Any qualified non-exempt person who truthfully applies, receives some type of LTC or FID
card.
- 2-
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
How do you determine what restriction(s) to place on an LTC?
ANSWER NO.7
Again, based upon the articulated reasons or justifications requested by the applicant.
INTERROGATORY NO.8
For all first-time LTC applicants from January 1, 2010 to the present, how many have received
LTC's with no restrictions?
ANSWERN0.8
127
INTERROGATORY NO.9
What is your policy or practice for placing Restrictions on LTC's that are not first-time LTC's?
ANSWERN0.9
Renewals -typically they are issued with no restrictions unless a suitability condition exists.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Under what circumstances (if any) would you make an exception to your policies and/or
practices for placing Restrictions on LTC's?
ANSWER NO. 10
If needed for employment or business purposes. Additionally, if an applicant has a history of
being licensed unrestricted with their state or the military.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11
Describe any and all changes you have made to your policies and/or practices at any time from
January 1, 2005 to the present.
ANSWER NO. 11
Since approximately 2008, we no longer issue Class B LTC unless they are specifically
requested. We currently issue Class A LTC either with no restrictions or with certain
restrictions.
-3-
90 Canal Street
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 350-0950
[email protected]
I, Adam Simms, hereby certify that on thiJr day of May, 2013, I caused a true and
accurate copy of the foregoing document to be served u n all counsel of record by first-class
/'
mail. '
/,.,., ./ ..,.--
-4-
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
) 1:13-cv-10246
Plaintiffs,
)
)
-against)
)
)
the Danvers Police Department; and ROBERT L.
)
the Peabody Police Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
LOBAO; ROBERT CAPONE; and COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, INC.,
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO CHIEF GRIMES’S INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiffs respond to the Defendant Chief Grimes’s First Set of Interrogatories
Propounded to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notably Rules 26
and 33, and the Local Rules of this Court, as follows:
PRELIMINARY
1. These responses are for use in this action, only.
2. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend these responses as may become
necessary in the future.
3. Plaintiffs have exercised reasonable care to avoid disclosing privileged or protected
information. In the event that any privileged or protected information is inadvertently
disclosed, Plaintiffs reserve their right to demand the immediate destruction and/or return
of this information pursuant to (inter alia) Rule 26(b)(5)(B).
4. In submitting these responses Plaintiffs do not waive any evidentiary objection, privilege,
or protection, except as expressly stated in this Response (e.g. that a document is
authentic).
5. These preliminaries are asserted without prejudice to, or waiver of, the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
1. Please state whether and when you sought judicial review of the decision of Police Chief
Grimes to issue you a License to Carry Firearms (“LTC”) with certain restrictions in state
District Court, Superior Court or any other court and, if so, the results of said judicial
review.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs Christopher Davis and William Thompson did not seek judicial
review of the decision of Chief Grimes to impose restrictions on their LTC’s (save for the
claims they have asserted in the present action).
2. Please state whether and when your License to Carry has been revoked or suspended by
any gun licensing authority including, but, not limited to Police Chief Grimes and, if so,
whether you sought judicial review for purposes of having the LTC reinstated and the
results of said judicial review.
RESPONSE: No gun licensing authority has suspended or revoked the LTC’s of
Plaintiffs Christopher Davis and William Thompson.
3. Please state whether and when you have ever been subject to any of the statutory
disqualifications set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, ¶131(d).
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs Christopher Davis and William Thompson have never been
subject to any of the statutory disqualifications set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, § 131(d).
4. Please state whether and when you ever applied for a License to Carry Firearms to the
licensing authority in which you have a place of business as provided in M.G.L. c. 140, §
131(d) and, if so, the results thereof.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff Christopher Davis is a stay-at-home father. He does not have a
place of business, and he did not (and could not) apply for an LTC under this provision of
M.G.L. c. 140, § 131(d).
Plaintiff William Thompson’s place of business is currently in Braintree, Massachusetts.
Mr. Thompson did not apply in Braintree, but he did apply to the Halifax Police
Department in approximately the year 2010, after he and his wife moved to Halifax. This
application was was denied because he currently holds an LTC issued by Defendant
Chief Grimes, as alleged in the Complaint and Amended Complaint at paragraphs 38 and
39.
-2-
5. Please state in detail the basis for your contention that the “restrictions” imposed on your
LTC prevent or preclude you “from using handguns for the purpose of self-protection
. . .,” as alleged in the Complaint, ¶¶1 & 51.
RESPONSE: Sections 129B(6) and 129C of Chapter 140 of the Massachusetts General
Laws generally prohibit people, including Plaintiffs Christopher Davis and William
Thompson, from possessing handguns unless they hold LTC’s issued pursuant to M.G.L.
c. 140, § 131. In addition, M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a) generally prohibits people from
possessing handguns away from their residences or places of business unless they also
hold LTC’s. Subparts (a) and (b) of M.G.L. c. 140, § 131 provide that licensing
authorities issuing LTC’s may impose “restrictions relative to the possession, use or
carrying of [handguns] as [they] deem proper.” Both subparts also provide that
“violation” of a restriction is “cause” for suspension or revocation of a LTC, and also for
the imposition of a monetary fine. Chief Grimes’s imposition of “Target & Hunting”
restrictions on Mr. Davis’s and Mr. Thompson’s LTC’s prevents them from using
handguns for the purpose of self-protection, except to the extent that the need for
protection arises while they are target shooting or hunting.
6. Please state whether you have ever been criminally charged and/or prosecuted for
violating any of the provisions of Mass. General Laws, Chap. 140 and, if so, the results of
the criminal proceedings against you.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs Christopher Davis and William Thompson have not been so
charged or prosecuted.
7. Please describe by date and content any and all communications Comm2A or any one
acting on its behalf has had with Chief Richard Grimes and/or any other member of the
Weymouth Police Department.
RESPONSE: Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (“Comm2A”) has checked with
its board members and concluded that no one acting on behalf of the organizations has
had any communications with Chief Grimes or other members of the Weymouth Police
Department regarding matters at issue in this lawsuit.
8. Please state the basis for your contention that “[a]bout half of all Massachusetts localities
(not party to this lawsuit) generally issue LTC’s without restrictions to private citizens
who request them,” Complaint, Paragraph 29 and, in particular, whether this statement
refers to first time licensees or renewal licensees.
RESPONSE: The statement in paragraph 29 of the Complaint and Amended Complaint
comes from the organizational knowledge of Plaintiff Comm2A, which seeks to assemble
and disseminate information regarding firearms licensing policies and/or practices
-3-
throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In particular (and without limitation),
Comm2A has asked individuals to share their experiences with licensing in various
Massachusetts jurisdictions, and the information shared supports the statement. In
addition, Comm2A also participates in an internet forum hosted under the domain name
www.northeastshooters.com. Individuals participating in that forum maintain a colorcoded map that depicts the licensing policies of various Massachusetts localities.
Plaintiffs previously produced a copy of this map under the control number
DAVIS00040. As set forth in this map, more than half of the localities (that have policies
or practices known or believed to be known) issue LTC’s without restrictions to all
applicants who are otherwise qualified for licensure. The statement in paragraph 29 does
not distinguish between first time licenses and renewal licenses, meaning that about half
of all localities do not place restrictions on licenses, regardless of whether those licenses
are “first time” or renewal licenses.
9. Please provide the statutory authority by or under which you believe a police chief has
the authority to “revoke a [gun] license,” Complaint, Paragraph 31.
RESPONSE: The reference to “revoke” in paragraph 31 of the Complaint and Amended
Complaint is a mistake and instead refers to the act of causing an LTC to “expire”
prematurely, as more specifically alleged in paragraph 39.
10. Please state whether and when you have made a request to Chief Grimes or his designee
(verbally or in writing) to remove the restrictions on your LTC and Chief Grime’s
response thereto.
RESPONSE: Before applying to Chief Grimes, Plaintiff Christopher Davis held an
unrestricted LTC issued in Foxborough, Massachusetts. When Mr. Davis renewed his
LTC with Chief Grimes’s designee, he requested that the LTC be issued without
restrictions. After he received his restricted LTC, in approximately the summer of 2012,
Mr. Davis contacted a designee of Chief Grimes in writing and requested that the
restriction be removed. Captain James Mullin responded in July 2012 that the restriction
would not be removed, and that “the denial was based on the same policies and
guidelines that have been in place for many years.” Plaintiffs have produced pertinent
documents under the control number DAVIS00045-47.
Plaintiff William Thompson requested a designee of Chief Grimes to issue an LTC
without restrictions when he first applied. Later, after he received a restricted LTC, Mr.
Thompson called the police department and asked a designee about removing the
restriction. The request was denied. Later still, Mr. Thompson asked a designee to
expire his LTC so that he could obtain a new LTC, without restrictions, as alleged in the
Complaint and Amended Complaint at paragraphs 38 and 39.
-4-
11. Please describe in detail what “arbitrary considerations” alleged in Paragraph 63 of your
Amended Complaint apply and/or refer to the Police Chief Grimes and your factual basis
for so claiming.
RESPONSE: Based on Plaintiffs’ present understanding of Chief Grimes’s policy
and/or practice, it is arbitrary to impose restrictions on the basis of whether a person is
employed in the military or in law enforcement, or owns a business that involves
handling large amounts of cash, or has a job that involves being armed.
12. Please describe in detail the factual basis for your claim in your Prayer for Relief, subpart
iii, that “similarly situated, law-abiding citizens [are] treated differently for purposes of
exercising their fundamental right to carry a loaded and operable handgun for selfprotection”.
RESPONSE: As the statement relates to Chief Grimes, and based on Plaintiffs’ present
understanding of Chief Grimes’s policy and/or practice, individuals who are in the
military or in law enforcement, or who own business with large amounts of cash or who
have armed jobs, are similarly situated with other law-abiding private citizens for the
purpose of obtaining permission to exercise their constitutional right of armed selfprotection.
13. Please specifically identify who it is you claim is “similarly situated” to you who was
“treated differently”, as referenced in Interrogatory 12 above, within the Town of
Weymouth.
RESPONSE: Objection. The associational privilege protects against the disclosure of
individuals who have contacted Comm2A in private. Comm2A has pledged to keep
confidential the identities of its supporters, those who seek its assistance, and those who
submit information regarding their licensing experiences. Disclosing the identities of
supporters and others who contact Comm2A would cause substantial and irreparable
damage to the reputation of Comm2A and to its ability to both elicit support and to obtain
information in the future. Moreover, individuals who have obtained unrestricted LTC’s
are concerned that they may become subject to restrictions if their identities are revealed.
Plaintiffs further object that information sufficient to respond to this Interrogatory is in
Defendant’s possession.
Without waiving these objections, and based on Plaintiffs’ present understanding of Chief
Grimes’s policy and/or practice, individuals who fit the parameters specified in response
to the above Interrogatory nos. 11 and 12 and have obtained unrestricted LTC’s are
similarly situated to the Plaintiffs for the purpose of obtaining permission to exercise
their constitutional right of armed self-protection.
-5-
14. Please describe in detail how the allegation referenced in Interrogatory #13 above applies
and/or relates to the Police Chief Grimes.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs would have obtained LTC’s without restrictions but for Chief
Grimes’s policy and/or practice of imposing “Target & Hunting” (or other similar
“sporting”-type) restrictions on LTC’s issued to individuals who are not in the military or
in law enforcement, or who do not own business with large amounts of cash or have
armed jobs.
Dated: New York, New York
June 5, 2013
DAVID JENSEN PLLC
By:
Tel: 212.380.6615
Fax: 917.591.1318
[email protected]
Patrick M. Groulx, BBO #673394
POLIS LEGAL
P.O. Box 760656
Melrose, Massachusetts 02176
Tel: 978.549.3124
Fax: 617.500.9955
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-6-
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
) 1:13-cv-10246
Plaintiffs,
)
)
-against)
)
)
the Danvers Police Department; and ROBERT L.
)
the Peabody Police Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
LOBAO; ROBERT CAPONE; and COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, INC.,
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO CHIEF CHAMPAGNE’S INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiffs respond to the Defendant Chief Champagne’s First Set of Interrogatories
Propounded to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notably Rules 26
and 33, and the Local Rules of this Court, as follows:
PRELIMINARY
1. These responses are for use in this action, only.
2. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or amend these responses as may become
necessary in the future.
3. Plaintiffs have exercised reasonable care to avoid disclosing privileged or protected
information. In the event that any privileged or protected information is inadvertently
disclosed, Plaintiffs reserve their right to demand the immediate destruction and/or return
of this information pursuant to (inter alia) Rule 26(b)(5)(B).
4. In submitting these responses Plaintiffs do not waive any evidentiary objection, privilege,
or protection, except as expressly stated in this Response (e.g. that a document is
authentic).
5. These preliminaries are asserted without prejudice to, or waiver of, the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
1. Please state whether and when you sought judicial review of the decision of Police Chief
Champagne to issue you a License to Carry Firearms (“LTC”) with certain restrictions in
state District Court, Superior Court or any other court and, if so, the results of said
judicial review.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs Wilson Lobao and Robert Capone did not seek judicial review of
the decision of Chief Champagne to impose restrictions on their LTC’s (save for the
claims they have asserted in the present action).
2. Please state whether and when your License to Carry has been revoked or suspended by
any gun licensing authority including, but, not limited to Police Chief Champagne.and, if
so, whether you sought judicial review for purposes of having the LTC reinstated and the
results of said judicial review.
RESPONSE: No gun licensing authority has suspended or revoked the LTC’s of
Plaintiffs Wilson Lobao and Robert Capone.
3. Please state whether and when you have ever been subject to any of the statutory
disqualifications set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, ¶131(d).
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs Wilson Lobao and Robert Capone have never been subject to
any of the statutory disqualifications set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, § 131(d).
4. Please state whether and when you ever applied for a License to Carry Firearms to the
licensing authority in which you have a place of business as provided in M.G.L. c. 140, §
131(d) and, if so, the results thereof.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff Robert Capone’s place of business is in Peabody, Massachusetts,
which is the same as his residence. Hence, Mr. Capone’s application to Chief
Champagne was an application to the licensing authority with jurisdiction over his place
of business. The results of this application are as alleged in the Complaint. As indicated
in the email produced under the control number DAVIS00041, Mr. Capone pointed to his
ownership of a business as a reason that would justify the removal of his restriction.
Plaintiff Wilson Lobao is retired. He does not have a place of business, and he did not
(and could not) apply for an LTC under this provision of M.G.L. c. 140, § 131(d).
-2-
5. Please state in detail the basis for your contention that the “restrictions” imposed on your
LTC prevent or preclude you “from using handguns for the purpose of self-protection
. . .,” as alleged in the Complaint, ¶¶1 & 51.
RESPONSE: Sections 129B(6) and 129C of Chapter 140 of the Massachusetts General
Laws generally prohibit people, including Plaintiffs Robert Capone and Wilson Lobao,
from possessing handguns unless they hold LTC’s issued pursuant to M.G.L. c. 140, §
131. In addition, M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a) generally prohibits people from possessing
handguns away from their residences or places of business unless they also hold LTC’s.
Subparts (a) and (b) of M.G.L. c. 140, § 131 provide that licensing authorities issuing
LTC’s may impose “restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of [handguns]
as [they] deem proper.” Both subparts also provide that “violation” of a restriction is
“cause” for suspension or revocation of a LTC, and also for the imposition of a monetary
fine. Chief Champagne’s imposition of “Target & Hunting” restrictions on Mr. Capone’s
and Mr. Lobao’s LTC’s prevents them from using handguns for the purpose of selfprotection, except to the extent that the need for protection arises while they are target
shooting or hunting.
6. Please state whether you have ever been criminally charged and/or prosecuted for
violating any of the provisions of Mass. General Laws, Chap. 140 and, if so, the results of
the criminal proceedings against you.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs Robert Capone and Wilson Lobao have not been so charged or
prosecuted.
7. Please describe by date and content any and all communications Comm2A or any one
acting on its behalf has had with Chief Champagne and/or any other member of the
Peabody Police Department.
RESPONSE: Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (“Comm2A”) has checked with
its board members and concluded that no one acting on behalf of the organizations has
had any communications with Chief Champagne or other members of the Peabody Police
Department regarding matters at issue in this lawsuit.
8. Please state the basis for your contention that “[a]bout half of all Massachusetts localities
(not party to this lawsuit) generally issue LTC’s without restrictions to private citizens
who request them,” Complaint, Paragraph 29 and, in particular, whether this statement
refers to first time licensees or renewal licensees.
RESPONSE: The statement in paragraph 29 of the Complaint and Amended Complaint
comes from the organizational knowledge of Plaintiff Comm2A, which seeks to assemble
and disseminate information regarding firearms licensing policies and/or practices
-3-
throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In particular (and without limitation),
Comm2A has asked individuals to share their experiences with licensing in various
Massachusetts jurisdictions, and the information shared supports the statement. In
addition, Comm2A also participates in an internet forum hosted under the domain name
www.northeastshooters.com. Individuals participating in that forum maintain a colorcoded map that depicts the licensing policies of various Massachusetts localities.
Plaintiffs previously produced a copy of this map under the control number
DAVIS00040. As set forth in this map, more than half of the localities (that have policies
or practices known or believed to be known) issue LTC’s without restrictions to all
applicants who are otherwise qualified for licensure. The statement in paragraph 29 does
not distinguish between first time licenses and renewal licenses, meaning that about half
of all localities do not place restrictions on licenses, regardless of whether those licenses
are “first time” or renewal licenses.
9. Please provide the statutory authority by or under which you believe a police chief has
the authority to “revoke a [gun] license,” Complaint, Paragraph 31.
RESPONSE: The reference to “revoke” in paragraph 31 of the Complaint and Amended
Complaint is a mistake and instead refers to the act of causing an LTC to “expire”
prematurely, as more specifically alleged in paragraph 39.
10. Please state whether and when you have made a request to Chief Champagne or his
designee (verbally or in writing) to remove the restrictions on your LTC and Chief
Champagne’s response thereto.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff Robert Capone requested a designee of Chief Champagne to issue
him an LTC without restrictions when he first applied. Later, in December 2012, Mr.
Capone contacted Detective Michael Crane by email and requested that he remove the
restriction from his LTC. Detective Crane responded “no” and explained: “For a first
time applicant (per policy), if it required for employment or if you are a documented
business owner with a demonstrated need, such as making morning and evening deposits
- the restriction may not apply.” Plaintiffs have produced a copy of the email under the
control number DAVIS00041.
Plaintiff Wilson Lobao requested a designee of Chief Champagne to issue him an LTC
without restrictions when he first applied. Later, shortly after he received his restricted
LTC, Mr. Lobao asked the detective who was then responsible for issuing LTC’s to
remove the restriction. The detective told Mr. Lobao that he could wait and re-apply, but
that Chief Champagne did not like to issue unrestricted LTC’s.
-4-
11. Please describe in detail what “arbitrary considerations” alleged in Paragraph 63 of your
Amended Complaint apply and/or refer to the Police Chief Champagne and your factual
basis for so claiming.
RESPONSE: Based on Plaintiffs’ present understanding of Chief Champagne’s policy
and/or practice, it is arbitrary to impose restrictions on the basis of whether a person has
previously held a Massachusetts LTC, or whether they own a business or have a job that
requires one to carry a gun.
12. Please describe in detail the factual basis for your claim in your Prayer for Relief, subpart
iii, that “similarly situated, law-abiding citizens [are] treated differently for purposes of
exercising their fundamental right to carry a loaded and operable handgun for selfprotection”.
RESPONSE: As the statement relates to Chief Champagne, and based on Plaintiffs’
present understanding of Chief Champagne’s policy and/or practice, individuals who
both have and have not previously held Massachusetts LTC’s, as well as individuals who
own business or who have armed jobs, are similarly situated with other law-abiding
private citizens for the purpose of obtaining permission to exercise their constitutional
right of armed self-protection.
13. Please specifically identify who it is you claim is “similarly situated” to you who was
“treated differently”, as referenced in Interrogatory 12 above, within the Town of
Peabody.
RESPONSE: Objection. The associational privilege protects against the disclosure of
individuals who have contacted Comm2A in private. Comm2A has pledged to keep
confidential the identities of its supporters, those who seek its assistance, and those who
submit information regarding their licensing experiences. Disclosing the identities of
supporters and others who contact Comm2A would cause substantial and irreparable
damage to the reputation of Comm2A and to its ability to both elicit support and to obtain
information in the future. Moreover, individuals who have obtained unrestricted LTC’s
are concerned that they may become subject to restrictions if their identities are revealed.
Plaintiffs further object that information sufficient to respond to this Interrogatory is in
Defendant’s possession.
Without waiving these objections, and based on Plaintiffs’ present understanding of Chief
Champagne’s policy and/or practice, individuals who fit the parameters specified in
response to the above Interrogatory nos. 11 and 12 and have obtained unrestricted LTC’s
are similarly situated to the Plaintiffs for the purpose of obtaining permission to exercise
their constitutional right of armed self-protection.
-5-
14. Please describe in detail how the allegation referenced in Interrogatory #13 above applies
and/or relates to the Police Chief Champagne.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs would have obtained LTC’s without restrictions but for Chief
Grimes’s policy and/or practice of imposing “Target & Hunting” restrictions on “first
time” LTC’s for individuals who do not own businesses or have jobs that require them to
carry guns.
Dated: New York, New York
June 5, 2013
DAVID JENSEN PLLC
By:
Tel: 212.380.6615
Fax: 917.591.1318
[email protected]
Patrick M. Groulx, BBO #673394
POLIS LEGAL
P.O. Box 760656
Melrose, Massachusetts 02176
Tel: 978.549.3124
Fax: 617.500.9955
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
-6-
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Criminal History Systems Board
FTN:
OOG l ~ Dd0 J
LlC#:
Firearms Record Bureau
Application
FOR NEW/RENEWAL OF A FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION CARD OR
LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS OR LICENSE TO POSSES A MACHINE GUN
(MGLC.140, s.129B AND s.131)
Please Check One
_/.ew Applicant
Renewal - Most Recent License to Carry/FlO Number:
l?sued from Which City/Town?
----------------------------------------
--------~----~-------
MA
. t;.xpiralion_Date:
·NOTE: l(aP.plication is"for first firear,Tts identification card or_Jicense to.carry .firearms, a copy of the _Rrearms S~ety Gertifipate or
. . ... •
. . _- ·.
.-. _ · . .
. ·
Hunter S~fety Course Certificate must b_e aitacned to this application. . . _
. .
.
.
.
Please Check the Type of License for Which You are Applying
(Please Check Only One)_
Firearms Identification Card- Restricted (mace and pepper spray)
Firearms Identification Card
Class B License to Carry- Non-Large Capacity
,£"
Class A License to Carry- Large Capacity
License to Possess a Machine Gun
Check if a Class A Gun Club License 'NOTE: Only the Colonel of the State Police can issue a club license.
Except for Signature, Print or Type all Requested Information
~CQ._,---\-?o~Yl--=--e__B:...__a---,-6€-r_+-----c'---:-:-(YJ h I_R~lEDACTED .
tt_-{1
ic::.,..:.....:-.
Last Name
First Name
Middle Name
Suffix
-. -
[YJ.A
Residential Address
Qun
(If
. .Club
. .Address
..
·. Applicable)
--
Date of Birth
\.·
)
State
··
m~·ld
..en
·.cuy
· . -State
:PP Code.·.·. "Telephon~ ~!~umber · .
Place of Birth
JO<J.-:'01'\~
\/ \ -\-oJ e_
· · Mother's Fir-st Name·
MOTher's Maiden Name .
Father's Ftrst Name •
Father's Last Name
c~v{C4$ i ~-<'
Heighl
.
Hair Color
Complexion
Weight
OVJ ()er C C
-1
Eye_c:olor
..
1·,-.r.\r~-.-~·
t V~r l ( :l'
....- v'--~ I Cl
..l
Oc;c;upatirm
\2;
l'
I
L.
l
{...~'---.
Businass Addf cs,;;
Cityffown
State
Zip
Telephone Number
CTED
Please Answer the Following Questions Completely and Accurately
1.
Are you
a citizen of the United States?
If naturalized give date, place
and naturalization number
2.
(e.S _
Date
Place
Naturalization No.
Have you ever used or been known by another name? )./0
If yes, provide name and e x p l a i n : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3..
·,,
Wfi~t is your age? *You must be 21 years of age to applylaJ:a Ucens!-l To Carrr.Fire~im-~ •.f8 years of age.~o ~p~lyJor;.
··Firearms 'tdentification-·card, 15 years of age but less than '18 year3 of ;Jge wiih submission of a certificate of parent or
<1. cguardian granting permission to apply for a Rrearms Identification Card.
o
4.
Have·you ever·oeen convicted of a felony?
No
5.
tlave you ever been convicted of the unlawful use, possession, or sale of narcotic or harmful drugs as defined in
M.G.L. c. 94C sec. 1?
No
6.
Have you ever been convicted of a crime punishable by incarceration by more than one (1) year?
No
7.
In any state or federal jurisdiction have you ever been convicted as an adult or adjudicated a youthful offender. or
delinquent child for the commission of (a) a felony; (b) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2
years; (c) a violent crime as defined in MGL C140.s.121; (d) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession,
ownership, sale, transfer, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment
may be imposed; or (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, oossession or sale of c-.ontrol!ed substa!1(;~S as
def1ned in section i of MGL 94C?
·
8.
Ha~~-y~u ever been ~nlined·to any hqsPital or Institution ~or mental illness?
9.
Are you or have you ever been under treatment for or confinement for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness?
. 1~- ~av~
..::1
you ever ~ppeared ,In ~~~ ~urt a~ a ~efeni:f~t r~~ any crlmln_al off~nse (excluding ~on-criminal.t~ffic offen~~s)?
11. Are you now under any charge(s) for anyoffense{s) against the law?
.12. Are you now-or have you eVer been ·the subject 61 a· M.G.L C209A restraining o;d~r biinvOived in
charge?
·
·
adomestic violen~e
13. Has any Uce!lse to Carry Firear~. Permit to Possess· Firearms; or Firearms--Identification Card issued uniler the.laws
of any state or territory ever been suspended, revoked, or denied?
No·
NO
.·
-If You Answered "YES" to any of the Questions 4-14, Give Details Which Must Include Dates,
Circumstances and Location
_A/0_.
in Wha1l!tate. territory or jurisdi~tio; h~ve yqu re;iged?
.Ottuir than
. .MassachusE!tts,
.
.
.
- ......
Have you ever held a Ucense to Carry in any other state, territory or jurisdiction?
- If "YESft, when, where imd license nu~ber?
List the Name and Addresses of Two References
1.
First Name
'VCJ~'ao 4j
Address
2.
City/Town
State
Zip
City/Town
State
Zip
Cresce0zo
Address
Reason(s) for
\? (9 ~C+l ~0
.
~ncl. .
:~
.. ·
To.I 5Q +-. ( 'Bvs i oeSS ~_)
reques~ng the issuanc~ of a.card or_license~ · . ~0 ( . . Q..e. { S 0 ()a._ t
·6·0·:Y.·. t~·C+~~
hu~.J~
.\ ~- · ·0.0i· :
s:yac T
c,._(\
~
·.
•V'{ARNI~G* Any person .who kn.owir:~gly files an application containing false Information shall be·punished by a llne of ~ot tess than
$500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 years in a house of correction, 6r by both
such fine and. imprisonment (MGL c.140, §§ 1298(8) and 131(h}). ·
- .
·1 declare the above facts are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and I understand that any false answer(s}
will be just cause for denial or revocation of rny li<'en~" t0 carry firezrms.
~
Signed under the penalties o~ this
1
•
J
i
I 1.--J
/\/\
day of _ _:.f_I_J_O.._'_'--~_.__ _ _
:...=----___L"='-)~-a-yf--=-----~----rn_.. _-r_tr>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ye_a_~_ _
0
1
Signature of Applicant: __
.Mj?-'·'-'.e.
,___---..:
~~~~-c;--------------·-·-·
----
---·- ···----.
May 18,2012
Chief of Police for the City of Peabody
6 Allen's Lane
Peabody,MA 01960
Dear Robert L. Champagne,
I am currently applying for my class 'A' LTC and would like it for personal protection in and out of the
home. I also would like to use it for recreational target sports and in a business capacity.
I am the owner of C&C Landscaping Inc in Peabody, which was established in 2004. I started out
working in my neighborhood at the age of twelve and now my business grosses over a quarter million
dollars a year. I frequently make large deposits and purchase used equipment via craigslist typically
using cash transactions that can range from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand. My company also
provides snow and ice management at several commercial properties throughout Essex county. During
the winter my truck is equipped with expensive computers, GPS, and radio communications equipment
which could potentially makes me a target for crime
I have been a resident of Peabody for over 25 years and I graduated from Peabody High School class of
2004. I have always been responsible and always kept out oftrouble. With the success of my
landscaping business I was fortunate enough to be able to purchase a 2 family home on 118 Lynnfield
Street in Peabody.
I recently got married and I am a devoted family man to my wife and plan on starting a family soon. I
feel it is my duty and obligation as a husband be able to protect her.
My wife and_ I are avid hikers and enjoy the pleasures of the outdoors. -y.le take our 3 dogs almost every
week to Harold Parker· in Andover and Bradley Palmer in Topsfield: A firearm would be added ·
protection against any animal or human threats that can be encountered in a remote area especially when
travelling off trail.
My parents have been a~ti~e members orthe co~munity for over 30years. They just opened up "Lucky.
Dogs Daycare" in Peabody, and my wife is the manager of their business
I trained at Baystate Firearms in Peab_ody where I was taught proper firearm safety t_echnique~ and
Ma~sa~husetts firearm laws. In addition to this training I have visited lpcal gun ranges with friends to
further shmpen my firearm skills.
.
.
.
I know that gun ownership has become more a privilege than a right and want to think that being a good
citizen has allmvcd me this privilege. I hope that I would never be forced into a situation by a criminal
that '.voL!ld put th~ !i'.·es ·Jf!!!)' f:l!1!i!)· andlor me in jeopardy, so 'vhile I hope for the best, Twould like tn
be prepared for the worst.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Capone
Pen body, ·Mi\ 01 960
DAVIS00041
v-10246-FDS Document 35-12 Filed 07/01/13
'$9,6
DAVIS00049
DAVIS00050
DAVIS00051
FTN:
Department of Criminal Justice Information Services
FFOX000028974
LIC #:
Firearms Records Bureau
Application
LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS OR LICENSE TO POSSES A MACHINE GUN OR
ALIEN PERMIT TO POSSESS A RIFLE OR SHOTGUN OR
NON-RESIDENT LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS
(MGL C.140, s.129B AND s.131 AND s.131H AND s.131F)
Please Check One
,{_
New Applicant
Renewal -Most Recent license to Carry/FlO Number:
Expiration Date:
Issued from Which City/Town?
------------------------- MA
*NOTE: If application is for first firearms identification card or license to carry firearms, a copy of the Firearms Safety Cerlificate or
Hunter Safety Course Certificate must be attached to this application.
(Please Check Only One)
Firearms Identification Card - Restricted (mace and pepper spray)
Class B License to Carry - Non-Large Capacity
,[_
Class A License to Carry - Large Capacity
Check if a Class A Gun Club License *NOTE: Only the Colonel of the State Police can issue a club license.
Resident Alien Permit to Possess a RiHe or Shotgun
Non-Resident Class A Large Capacity/Class B Non-Large Capacity Temp. License to Carry Firearms
Non-Resident Class A Large Capacity Firearms Employment/Military Temp. LTC
CHRISTOPHER
First Name
DAVIS
Last Name
JAMES
City
Gun Club Address (If Applicable)
State
JANE
Mother's First Name
FRENCH
Mother's Maiden Name
6'02"
Height
LARGE
Build
230 lbs.
Weight
DOUGLAS
Father's First Name
LIGHT
Complexion
DAVIS
Father's Last Name
BROWN
Hair Color
HOMEMAKER
Occupation
Social Security Number (Optional)
Employed By
Form FA-25/26
Telephone Number
MASSACHUSETTS
Place of Birth
Date of Birth
City/Town
Zip Code
Business Address
State
Zip
Telephone Number
Page -1 of 3
1.
2.
y
Are you a citizen {)f the United States?
Date
Place
Naturalization No.
N
Have you ever used or been known by another name?
If yes, provide name and e x p l a i n : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3.
What is your age? *You must be 21 years of age to apply for a License To Carry Firearms, 18 years of age to apply for a
Firearms Identification Card, 15 years of age but less than 18 years of age with submission of a certificate of parent or
guardian granting permission to apply for a Firearms Identification Card.
34
4.
Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
N
5.
Have you ever been convicted of the unlawful use, possession, or sale of narcotic or harmful drugs as defined in
M.G.L. c. 94C sec. 1?
N
6.
N
7.
In any state or federal jurisdiction have you ever been convicted as an adult or adjudicated a youthful offender or
may be imposed; or (e) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances as
defined in section 1 of MGL 94C?
N
8.
Have you ever been confined to any hospital.or institution for mental illness?
N
9.
N
10. Have you ever appeared in any court as a defendant for any criminal offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?
N
11. Are you now under any charge(s) for any offense(s) against the law?
N
12. Are you now or have you ever been the subject of a M.G.l. C209A restraining order or involved in a domestic violence
charge?
N
13. Has any License to Carry Firearms, Permit to Possess Firearms, or Firearms Identification Card issued under the laws
N
14. Are you currenUy the subject of any outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction?
N
Form FA-25/26
Page -2 of3
If You Answered "YES" to any of the Questions 4-14, Give Details Which Must Include Dates,
Other than Massachusetts, in what state, territory or jurisdiction have you resided? NEW VORK
N
Have you ever held a License to Carry in any other state, territory or jurisdiction?
If "YES", when, where and license number?
Date Range
License No.
Place
1.
2;
LAMBERT
Last Name
CHARLES
First Name
Address
MASHPEE
Cityffown
HULBIG
Last Name
MIKE
First Name
Address
FRANKLIN
Cityffown
MA
State
02649
Zip
MA
State
02038
Zip
Reason(s) for requesting the issuance of a card or license: l::lll
*WARNING* Any person who knowingly files an application containing false information shall be punished by a fine of not less than
$500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 years in a house of correction or by both
such fine and imprisonment (MGL c. 140, §§ 1298(8) and 131(h)).
I declare the above facts are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and I understand that any false answer (s)
will be just cause for denial or revocation of my license to carry firearms.
Form FA-25/26
Page-3of3
To Whom It May Concern.
The reasons I wish to receive a Class A LTC with no restrictions are as follows. I was
recently a victim of two crimes, identity theft and criminal harassment. The individual
was shipping items to my address, from business brochures to a Sunsetter retractable
awning. The individual changed my utilities from my name to his as well as the address
to his. multiple times, in order to have proof of residency. He went so far as to partially
pay my electric bill twice, resulting in NStar showing up to shut off my service, because
once changed, my direct withdrawal was stopped. Charges were filed in Quincy District
Court (Docket #1056CR004751) but the individual was found, unfit to stand trial due to
failing of a psychological exam, and trial was postponed until he passes such an exam. I
am fear full for my safety and the safety of my family from retaliation of this individual.
This individual has no respect for the law, and is very bold in his actions of breaking the
law. This individual knows full well my address. I do not feel safe with this individual
free on the streets. Another reason I wish to posses a Class A LTC with no restrictions is I
enjoy back country hiking and camping with my family. Many times we find ourselves in
areas free from cell phone signals and no way to call for help. I wish to have the ability to
protect my family when in these situations. Finally I wish to apply for a LTC in other
states which we hike and camp as a family. Having a license in my home state with
restrictions on it will cause undue problems in my attainment of a nonresident LTC in
other states. We spend time year round in Maine and have had encounters with black
bears and coyotes in the past. I am not a prohibited person who will treat this
responsibility with the great respect it deserves. I am a member of the Braintree Rifle and
Pistol Club and a firm believer in the redundancy of safety when it pertains to firearms.
Firearms not under my direct control have tamper resistant locks and are locked inside a
safe. I feel I am a good candidate for a Class A LTC with no restrictions. as I fully intend
to continue to follow the laws of the Comnionwealt fMassachusetts.
Christopher James Davis
Weymouth Ma, 02188
CTED
DAVIS00046
DAVIS00047
DAVIS00045
Case 1:13-cv-10246-FDS Document 35-19 Filed 07/01/13 PageFTN:
1 of 3
The Commonwealth ofMassachusetts
LIC#:
200 Arlington Street, Suite 2200
Chelsea, MA 02150
Application
(MGL C.140, s.129B AND s.131)
Please Check One
Y
New Applicant
Renewal - Most Recent License to Carry/FlO Number:
_______________________ MA
Expiration Date:
*NOTE: If application is for first firearms identification card or license to carry firearms, a copy of the Firearms Safety Certificate or
Class B Ucense to Carry - Non-Large Capacity
YCiass A Ucense to Carry- Large Capacity
License
to PosseSs a Machine Gun
Check if a Class A Gun Club Ucense *NOTE: Only the Colonel of the State Police can issue a club license.
"o1340
Last Name
·.·
First Name
Middle Name
-Residential Address
. State
If Applicable)
Gun Clu
City
State
DatEr of Birth
er's First Name
·o !..q ,,
J.uo
Height
CfiJC.
J..BJ
Weight
l1fk'D, ·
Build
Father's Last arne
.P~tf{
8 Row II)
Complexion
Hair Color
Eye Color
MtJ
Occupation
SG~~-61(ooK
City!Town
Form FA-25/26
SoclD! Security Number (Optional) Drivers Li
J
Ill H.State
Zip
....
7
Telephone Numoer
Page- 1 of 3
1.
Are you a citizen of the United States?
2.
Date
Place
Naturalization No.
If yes, provide name and e x p l a i n : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3.
What is your age? *You must be 21 years of age. to apply for a License To Carry Firearms, 18 years of age to apply for a
1.. '-::l..
ftL__J..
4.
5.
M.G.L. c. 94C sec. 1?
6.
7.
8.
Have you ever been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness? •
9.
·in any CO\Jrl as..~ defendant for any cdminal offenst~ (ex~udi!Jg non-qjmipallraffi.g offenses)?
..10.... ~!;IV~ yo_u ~ver.~PPf:!l3red
.
.
.
.
.:
. JjJ_{) .
!J}_Q
12. Are-you now or have you ever been the. subject of a M.G.L.-C209A restraining order or involved-in a domestic violence·
charge?
.
.
.
.
•
.
"'. 1O
JJL
13. Has any License to Carry Firearms, Permit to Possess Firearms, or Firearms Identification Card issued under the laws
14. Are you currently the subject of any outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction?
Form FA-25/26
l\JQ
ty~o
~
Page- 2 of 3
If You Answered "YES" to any of the Questions 4-14, Give Details Which Must Include Dates,
Other than ¥assachusetts, in what ~tate, territory or j~risdiction have you resided?
.·
Have you ever held a License to Carry in any other state, territory or jurisdiction?
If "YES", when, where and license number?
1.
ry},q-ll)FtJI[~If
WdLtA-M
1},
First Name
2.
First Name
P~&!'wfc;z. ·
fVIf&
e ~trc ~G:J -h /MilD F Rt111Q J-lt1111 E
({ /f.11/G ~ !+itrD 13 crO:r- 'J G ~- F '?I(o +Gt:-ftt~ IV .
State
Zip
Reason(s) for requesting the issuance of a card or license:
.
~.
.
i-o c)~.:v fJ
*WARNIN~* Any person who knoWingly files an appli~ati~~ c~ntaining false information shall be ·punished by a fine of not less than
$500 ner more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not less than 6 montlis nor more than·2 year's in house of 9Qrrection·, or by beth
sucli fine· and imprisonment (MGL c.140;s.131 ).
·
·•
·
a
I declare the above facts are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and I understand that any false answer(s)
will be just cause for denial or revocation of my licehse to Carry Firearms and may be used in ·a· criminal proceeding pursuant to
Massachusetts General law Chapter 140, Section 129 and 131.
·
Signed under the penalties of pe~ury this
I
Signature of Applicant:
Form FA-25/26
(J)
-
Jl
.
1
(} r '
· ··--··:<__
-······-aay-··--·····--·
_
day of
N~ V&/111, :8 E. ((
·-··--·-month- ---··--
2..0t2°
L.f!!_
__
year
-- ·-- ~ -
~Y\./ c0 ~ d~v ~
·'?
I·
I
/,.
/J
Page- 3 of 3
Robert L Champagne
Chief of Police
6 Allen's Lane
Peabody, MA. 01960
Dear ChiefRobert L. Champagne;
This letter is in reply to your requirement of reasons for requesting a License to Carry
Firearms, Class A
As a Member of the Haverhill Hound Rod and Gun Club, the opportunity presents
itself to join the pistol and rifle teams. The rifles used are of the Military type, large
capacity; which requ}res a Class A License to transport in ~y vehicle. I cannot even own
legally, an ·elevep. shot clip for the twenty-two caliber rifle, which- I own. . .
1 would also like the option of being able to carry" a pistol to an4·on my boat Without :
anyone knowing there is one on board. There are something's best not advertised. There
are occasions when we sail to remote areas, with expensive equipment on board. Not that
having a weapon "on board is the total answer; it does provide another option for self- .
defense.
My preference is for the Class A License; primarily, my belief of out of sight, out of
mind. The Idea of carrying anything in a lockable case only suggests something of value,
and possibly worth stealing; even without knowing what's in it; also more awkward to
carry and handle.
Wilson J. Lobao Jr.
f!J/-~Jd)~/L-.
Peabody, MA. 01960TeJ
·
Cell,
E-Mail
REDACTED
..·
FTN:
FWEY000051334
LIC #:
200 Arlington Street, Suite 2200
Chelsea, MA 02150
Application
(MGL C.140, s.129B AND s.131)
Please Check One
,{_
New Applicant
Renewal- Most Recent License to Carry/FlO Number:
Expiration Date:
- - - - - - - - - - - - MA
*NOTE: If application is for first firearms identification card or license to carry firearms, a copy of the Firearms Safety Certificate or
Class B License to Carry - Non-Large Capacity
,{_
Class A License to Carry - Large Capacity
Check if a Class A Gun Club License *NOTE: Only the Colonel of the State Police can issue a club license.
. THOMPSON
Last Name
WILLIAM
First Name
JR
Suffix
J
Middle Name
Residential Address
NWEYMOUTH
City
MA
State
02191
Zip Code
Gun Club Address (If Applicable)
City
State
Zip Code
TED
Telephone Number
MASSACHUSETTS
Place of Birth
ANNE
Mother's First Name
RAFTERY
Mother's Maiden Name
6'04"
LARGE
Build
Height
280 lbs.
Weight
WILLIAM
Father's First Name
LIGHT
Complexion
BLACK
Hair Color
THOMPSON
Father's Last Name
BROWN
Eye Color
MECHANIC
Occupation
RAHN'SM/C ENGINEERING
Employed By
ABINGTON
City/Town
Form FA-25/26
800A ADAMS STREET
Business Address
MA
State
02351
Zip
(elephone Number
Page -1 of3
1.
If naturafized give date, place
2.
y
Are you a citizen of the United States?
Date
Naturalization No.
Place
N
If yes, provide name and explain: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
What is your age? *You must be 21 years of age to apply for a Lic~nse To Carry Firearms, 18 years of age to apply for a
23
4.
N
5.
M.G.L. c. 94C sec. 1?
N
6.
N
7.
N
8.
Have you ever been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness?
N
9.
N
3.
10. Have you ever appeared in any court as a defendant for any criminal offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?
Y
-.;·.
N
12. Are you now or have you ever been the subject of a M.G.L. C209A restraining order or involved in a domestic violence
charge?
N
13. Has any Ucense to Carry Firearms, Permit to Possess Firearms, or Firearms Identification Card issued under the laws
N
.. .
. ... e!
14. Are you currently the subject of any outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction?
N
Form FA-25/26
Page- 2 of3
If You Answered "YES" to any of the Questions 4-14, Give Details Which Must Include Oates,
2003-TRESPASSING-DISM
Other than Massachusetts, in what stale, territory or jurisdiction have you resided? ~
---------------N
If "YES", when, where and license number'?
License No.
Place
Date Range
1.
2.
MCAULEY
Last Name
COLIN
First Name
Address
MARSHFIELD HILLS
City/Town
MCGRATH
Last Name
THOMAS
First Name
Address
WEYMOUTH
City/Town
MA
State
02051
Zip
MA
State
02189
Zip
Reason(s} for requesting the issuance of a card or license: NEW FOR H&I.
•wARNING• Any person who knowingly files an application containing false information shall be punished by a fine of not less than
$500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 years in a house of correction or by both
such fine and imprisonment (MGL c. 140, §§ 1298(8) and 131(h)}.
I declare the above facts are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief and I understand that any false answer {s}
will be just cause for denial or revocation of my license to carry firearms.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this
r;day
day of
/'1ArCl.-r
month
year
._r'f.:. .~. .!.l~ '- - '- f_,_.~'- '-"-F--<::.:::~-'-Vl-'------------------.!-'~"'-'-
Signature of Applicant:_..,6-""A'-•
Form FA-25/26
Page- 3 of3
DAVIS00016
'$9,6
Joel F. Pierce
John J. Davis*
Judith A. Perritano
John J. Cloherty III*
Daniel G. Skrip •
David C. Hunter mt
AdamSimmst
Of counsel:
Gerald Fabiano
Maria E. DeLuzio
Charles K. Mone·•t*
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
90 CANAL STREET
BOSTON, MA 02114-2018
TELEPHONE
FACSIMILE
(617) 350-0950
(617)350-7760
April17, 2013
Seth B. Barnett
EdwardS. Bertrand
Daniel P. Carney
John P. Cronin
Jason W. Crotty0
Michael D. Leedberg•
Melissa M. Malloy*
Jill M. Murray•
Alexandra Nassopoulos"
Beth A. Oldrnixon*
Meghan L. Riordan
Zachary M. Weisberg*
Robert G. Weller
*also admitted in RI
+ also admitted in PA
t also admitted in NY
• also admitted in CT
also admitted in FL
• also admitted in ME
"also admitted in CA
0
David Jensen PLLC
New York, NY 10038
Re:
Christopher Davis, et al. v. Richard C. Grimes, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the
Weymouth Police Department, et al.
U.S. District Court, C.A. No. 1:13-cv-10246
Our File No. 135-0410789
Dear Attorney Jensen:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), please find enclosed the Disclosure Statements and
various documents produced on behalf of Chief Richard Grimes (Weymouth) and Chief Robert
Champagne (Peabody), respectively. According to my calculations, the computer printouts of the
total Licenses To Carry ("LTC") issued for the Town of Weymouth and the Town of Peabody
indicate the following:
(i)
Weymouth: 1,078 LTCs; 485 with some restriction, the majority of which are
"T &H," Target and Hunting; and
(ii)
Peabody: 1,633 LTCs; 475 with some restriction, the majority of which are
"Targeting & Hunting." The notation "Null" corresponds to an individual's
Firearms Identification Card (not a LTC).
Please note that I made these calculations myself (not via some computer-run), so you may
want to double check those numbers yourself.
It is my understanding that neither Chief Grimes nor Chief Champagne has a written rule or
policy with respect to first time applicants always being issued an LTC with restrictions; however,
as previously discussed, I would suggest that this is a topic better-served through your clients'
Christopher Davis, et al. v. Richard C. Grimes, et al.
April 17,2013
Page2
service of interrogatories to the several Police Chiefs. Likewise, Chief Grimes's and Chief
Champagne's decisions with respect to the individually-named plaintiffs who reside (or formerly
resided), in Weymouth and Peabody, as the case maybe.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
AS/mm
Enclosures
cc:
Geoffrey P. Wermuth, Esq. (w/ Encs.)
Patrick M. Groulx, Esq. (w/o Encs.)

Joint Compendium of Exhibits

Transcription

Similar documents

A-1 FREEMAN RELOCATION INC vs. Z BILLIARDS

Customer Complaints Procedure Mortgage Services

Gidewon et al Order on Defedants` Motion for Summary Judgment

Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69, 1853 WL 639, 58 Am.Dec. 385

Hypothetically Speaking - Philadelphia Bar Association

11 Plaintiffs - FindForms.com

HMC Fee Negotiation 071212

2015 Alabama Amend Instructions for TurboTax CD/Download

Konsument Europa - Konsumentverket

Motion to Vacate And/Or to Reconsider Order and for a Rehearing