Man challenging constitutionality of gun permit revocation

[Gunreference1]

Friday, September 17, 2010

Man challenging constitutionality of gun permit revocation

By Gary V. Murray TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
gmurray@telegram.com

WORCESTER — Citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, a Shrewsbury man is challenging the constitutionality of a state law under which his license to carry a firearm was revoked five years ago by Police Chief Gary J. Gemme.

Lawyer Mel L. Greenberg, who represents Raymond J. Holden, filed an amended petition in Central District Court Sept. 10 appealing Chief Gemme’s 2005 revocation of Mr. Holden’s firearm’s license based on a determination that Mr. Holden was not a “suitable person” to carry a gun.

To read the rest of the story click the link below.

http://www.telegram.com/article/2010...100919634/1116

Steve

[Krupski]

Mr. Holden, who has a place of business in Worcester, had been granted a license to carry a firearm in 2001, but the license was suspended by Chief Gemme on Sept. 14, 2005, four days after Mr. Holden was arraigned in Westboro District Court for an alleged assault on his wife.

The assault and battery complaint was dismissed Oct. 3, 2005, after Mr. Holden’s wife recanted a statement in a Shrewsbury Police Department incident report.

Judge Dennis J. Brennan, since retired, then ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Holden’s license in light of the dismissal of the assault charge. Chief Gemme followed the court’s order, but then revoked the license, saying he could consider underlying evidence that a crime had occurred even if a charge had been dismissed.

UN FKING BELIEVABLE!

[Penguin]

No kiding what ever happened to inocent until proven guilty by a court of law?

[aliceinchains]

The thing i don't like about this whole CC . It is based on who is issuing the license. So if Chief Gemme has a hard on for you well i guess he is going to fuck you.

[JTHunter]

No kiding what ever happened to inocent until proven guilty by a court of law?

Certain gun laws in Illinois "require" the defendant to prove they are "eligible" to use exemptions to those specific charges in order to USE those exemptions!