What happens when even the "professionals" aren't "professional enough"?

One needs a scorecard to keep track of this one, but I'll do my best. I actually had to read the article twice before I could make sense of it.

Ashland, Massachusetts police officer Ed Pomponio, who lives in and used to work for the police department in nearby Milford, had his firearm carry permit canceled last week by his former boss, Milford Police Chief Thomas O'Loughlin, apparently because Pomponio has difficulty staying out of trouble:

"Pomponio resigned from the Milford force in 2005 after being accused of having an extramarital affair while on duty. Since that time, O'Loughlin has counted 16 incidents involving Pomponio, including one where he threatened a Milford officer and swore at a lieutenant."

Apparently, if I understand the facts correctly, Massachusetts law requires police officers to obtain firearm carry permits before being allowed to carry a firearm off-duty, just as any other citizen would have to do (actually, some towns in that state go so far as to mandate that officers obtain a current permit to carry before carrying on-duty, but the two mentioned in this story do not). In any event, Officer Pomponio no longer possesses such a license.

This development means that Officer Fife Pomponio gets to carry his service pistol all day long while he does his job, but then has to lock it up at the office at the end of the day before he goes home, because his town of residence's local chief has decided that he can't be trusted with carrying a personal firearm off-duty.

Here's some quick background on how the permit system generally works, for those who don't know the process. People who know this stuff already, feel free to skip ahead two paragraphs.

Massachusetts is a "may-issue" state, in which local law-enforcement officials enjoy wide latitude over which lucky peasants get issued a permit to carry, and often decide whether to grant or deny a permit based on any criteria they choose, however unrelated or obscure. In practice, this system usually means that the only people who receive permits are celebrities, politicians and friends and supporters of the issuing bureaucrat. We here at The Northern Muckraker have documented numerous instances in which this authority has been abused in just such a manner by hypocritical and corrupt heads of police departments.

Instead of this unfair and much misused system, we here at this blog advocate the "shall-issue" system that's currently law in thirty-six states (and working quite well, by the way), in which law-enforcement officials are required to issue citizens who pass training and background check requirements their carry permits, unless the officials can cite compelling evidence to the contrary. Arguments such as the ones that Chief O'Loughlin claim make Pomponio unfit to carry off-duty would be presented to an judge who would decide if the permit denial is truly warranted, and not based solely on office gossip, as Pomponio seems to claim. No muss, no fuss. Everyone goes through the same fair and impartial process, and the bad apples who don't qualify are rightly barred from carrying.

In this particular case, there is another way for Officer Pomponio to obtain his carry permit. According to the article, the law in Massachusetts regarding carry permits used to require that only the chief in one's town of residence could issue a citizen their permit, regardless of the person's employer. This ordinance was changed last July to allow police chiefs to issue a permit to "any law enforcement officer employed by the licensing authority." Therefore, all Pomponio has to do is get his new chief to rubber-stamp a new permit and everything is hunky-dory, right?

Hah.

Incredibly, Ashland Police Chief Scott Rohmer, Pomponio's current boss, shuffles and weaves when asked directly if he'll use his new authority under the updated law to issue his employee a permit:

"'When asked if he would consider applying for a license from Rohmer, Pomponio said, 'I'll cross that bridge when I get there... 'He has not yet, and if he applied, I don't know what the outcome would be,' Rohmer said."

This is frankly the most ludicrous situation that I've seen on this topic since I began this blog, and I've seen some doozies. One chief flatly puts his reputation on the line to deny an officer a carry permit due to apparent anger management issues, another chief ducks the question when asked if he'll issue another permit to his own employee, and meanwhile this man gets to show up for work, arm himself (something most likely denied to most, if not all of the local law-abiding peasants), and then gets dispatched to go sort out volatile and stressful situations? Can anyone say "disaster waiting to happen"?

Really, the only compelling question here is "If not one but two chiefs think that a given cop can't be trusted to carry a firearm off-duty, why the heck is he still being allowed (and even paid) to carry while on-duty? Good Lord, just typing that question makes me shake my head in wonder.

Meanwhile, the same old line that "Only trained law-enforcement officers are professional enough to carry firearms in public" keeps getting spit out by folks such as the Brady Campaign and many (but not all, thankfully) law-enforcement heads, especially those in big cities such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

I disagree. Every permit holder I know (and I know quite a few) is far more "professional" and qualified to carry a firearm in public than Officer Pomponio. I've attended meetings and been in rooms with hundreds of armed permit holders more than once, and I have felt perfectly comfortable and safe in every instance.

I can't say the same if I were to encounter this good officer on the side of a Massachusetts roadway, sadly.