The Liberal Gun Club Forum

The Vineyard.
Crossing guard relieved of duty, guns seized

A Tisbury School crossing guard has been relieved of duty and had his personal firearms confiscated for alleged threats to the Tisbury School overheard by a waitress at Linda Jean’s restaurant in Oak Bluffs.

Nichols said he was unimpressed with the Tisbury School resource officer’s alleged trips to Xtra Mart to get coffee when children came to school in the morning. While dining at Linda Jean’s a couple of weeks ago, Nichols said he told a friend about this and suggested somebody could “shoot up the school” in that officer’s absence, which he described as “leaving his post.”

Nichols said the waitress made a complaint to Tisbury Police about what she overheard and on the strength of that, Saloio and another officer relieved Nichols of his crossing guard duties while he was in the midst of performing them and subsequently drove to his home and took away his firearms license and guns.

This is how we treat those with a lifetime of service and obeying the laws. Red flag laws have so much potential for misuse.

So he points out a danger to the school and he gets punished for it? Typical shoot the messenger approach with gun-paranoia thrown in to boot. Another reason i would never want to live in Mass. My company's headquarters are there and my worst fear is that someday they will tell me I have to move there. Sorry, but I'd quit in that case.

Eris wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:36 pm So he points out a danger to the school and he gets punished for it? Typical shoot the messenger approach with gun-paranoia thrown in to boot. Another reason i would never want to live in Mass. My company's headquarters are there and my worst fear is that someday they will tell me I have to move there. Sorry, but I'd quit in that case.

If you did, you would have to get a license simply to _own_ firearms.

This is ridiculous. So if I'm holding a grudge against someone, I can just claim they said something violent and police will come and forcefully take their guns?

DMac wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:29 pm This is ridiculous. So if I'm holding a grudge against someone, I can just claim they said something violent and police will come and forcefully take their guns?

Unfortunately, that is exactly how it works. It's a "guilty until proven innocent" system.

Eris wrote:

DMac wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:29 pm This is ridiculous. So if I'm holding a grudge against someone, I can just claim they said something violent and police will come and forcefully take their guns?

Unfortunately, that is exactly how it works. It's a "guilty until proven innocent" system.

So asset forfeiture erodes the 4th amendment. These red flag laws erode the 2nd amendment.

Where's the one for the 1st amendment? Where you can get someone's social media accounts deactivated because they "incited violence" maybe

DMac wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:32 pm Where's the one for the 1st amendment? Where you can get someone's social media accounts deactivated because they "incited violence" maybe

You're no longer able to freely discuss guns without the threat of confiscation. I read somewhere that even the ACLU opposes these red flag laws.

featureless wrote:

DMac wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:32 pm Where's the one for the 1st amendment? Where you can get someone's social media accounts deactivated because they "incited violence" maybe

You're no longer able to freely discuss guns without the threat of confiscation. I read somewhere that even the ACLU opposes these red flag laws.

I assume their opposition, rightly so, is because of the law's lack of due process?

Yes

You just don't say shit like that. It's not funny and should be taken seriously. If my kids went to that school I would be worried they didn't take his guns away. You know the feds will come pay you a visit if you post something like that online, especially about potus. It's borderline free speech and and hate speech.

tonguengroover wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:39 pm You just don't say shit like that. It's not funny and should be taken seriously. If my kids went to that school I would be worried they didn't take his guns away. You know the feds will come pay you a visit if you post something like that online, especially about potus. It's borderline free speech and and hate speech.

Did you read it? He didn't say he was going to do anything wrong.

K9s wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:56 pm

tonguengroover wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:39 pm You just don't say shit like that. It's not funny and should be taken seriously. If my kids went to that school I would be worried they didn't take his guns away. You know the feds will come pay you a visit if you post something like that online, especially about potus. It's borderline free speech and and hate speech.

Did you read it? He didn't say he was going to do anything wrong.

Yup. He actually said the officer assigned shouldn't take coffee breaks leaving the kids unprotected. If anything, he was concerned with their well being.

Where do you draw the line? I support the waitress and taking action out of concern for the children, but as soon as she told the cops his exact words, they should have dropped it, or at least done nothing more than talk to the guy, explain the complaint, and tell him to think about what he's saying in public.

The waitress isn't a professional and I don't find any fault there. The cops, however should be professional and though it's not surprising that they reacted out of proportion to the situation, it's still unprofessional.

Personally, my view on red flag laws is mixed, but if somebody is so great a threat that they shouldn't have weapons, maybe they should be locked up in jail or a mental health treatment facility.

tonguengroover wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:39 pmIt's borderline free speech and and hate speech.

How is it hate speech to say that a guard should not leave his post?

Nichols said he never carries guns outside the house and would like to have his license and his guns back, but the fate of the guns may be sealed. “My grandson is manager of a gun shop in Worcester, Mass and he’s going to be allowed to come down and take the weapons and sell them for me,” he said.

Nichols lost his wife two years ago and values his crossing guard work as a connection to the outside world. “I just need something to do to get out of the house and I love the kids,” he said.

Seems like they were just looking for an excuse to get rid of him, they can't use his age of 84. He wants the job more than the guns. The police department fucked up, how will the chief fix it.

jimg wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:24 pm Where do you draw the line? I support the waitress and taking action out of concern for the children, but as soon as she told the cops his exact words, they should have dropped it, or at least done nothing more than talk to the guy, explain the complaint, and tell him to think about what he's saying in public.

The waitress isn't a professional and I don't find any fault there. The cops, however should be professional and though it's not surprising that they reacted out of proportion to the situation, it's still unprofessional.

Personally, my view on red flag laws is mixed, but if somebody is so great a threat that they shouldn't have weapons, maybe they should be locked up in jail or a mental health treatment facility.

Nichols' comment apparently constituted such a big emergency that, despite having a child at the school, the waitress waited two weeks to report it. The assistant principal is married to the resource officer about whom Nichols was commenting. The sheriff is the resource officer's brother. Somehow this was all left out of the story.

Nichols still doesn't have this LTC back and probably won't.
https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/10/14/step ... ing-guard/

Nichols said he’s never been accused of threatening a school, and never had a firearms violation. “I’ve got no record of any violations,” he said.

Nichols said he never carries guns outside the house, and would like to have his license and his guns back, but the fate of the guns may be sealed. “My grandson is manager of a gun shop in Worcester, and he’s going to be allowed to come down and take the weapons and sell them for me,” he said.

So f**d up. Petty grievances.

I would hope that a lawsuit by some well-funded group that claims to uphold our 2A rights would happen? Something? Anything?

I suspect he may have been a poor tipper or did something to piss waitress off.

That's the problem with red flag law plus too many people with petty grudges that haven't a clue as to consequences on one's life just for payback to some obscure slight they perceived as a threat to them or others. I had to move 10,000 miles away from my first wife just to live a normal life without spending time with courts and lawyers over every little silly aspect of our divorce. It became worse after she remarried and divorced again. Vicious and vindictive, to the point of telling my three young daughters to run if they saw me as I planned to kidnap and kill them - we never recovered from that episode. Twenty-five years ago she apologized for doing this - I've not seen her since. I've related the story here of her calling the draft board in 1967 after our divorce and got me drafted 14 days before turning 26, which was the draft cut off age at the time.

A small town on an island (Martha's Vineyard - The Vineyard), like all small towns everyone is related to someone else. If it ends up in court, wonder who the judges are related to.

Nichols’ ouster and the seizure of his firearms generated social media activity never before seen on Martha’s Vineyard Times webpages, including links on gun activist and law enforcement pages, and tens of thousands of Facebook hits. On the same day Nichols was reinstated, an online petition circulated demanding Nichols be allowed to return to his crossing guard duties.

The confiscated guns were later turned over to Nichols’ son-in-law, Nichols told The Times. Asked if he was given a letter or any paperwork for the seizure of his license, Nichols said, “No, he just told me to hand it over, so I took it out of my wallet and handed it to him.” Nichols said he has been licensed for firearms since 1958.

While Nichols said he doesn’t own a computer or cell phone and is therefore not directly privy to the online support he’s received, he said his daughters have kept him apprised of it.

Of the support he said, “I appreciate that, and I’m really, really happy that I have it.”

Linda Jean’s owner Marc Hanover said he’s known Nichols for decades, and vouched for his integrity. He described the situation as “absolutely outrageous.” He said he believes one of his servers “overreacted.” Hanover said he spoke with the restaurant patron who had conversed with Nichols at the time of the alleged threats.

“He assured me there was never a threat made,” Hanover said.

https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/10/14/step ... ing-guard/

The fate of all of us when we reach that age?

Wino - I understand. Bad relationships suck. Dogs are good.

highdesert - By the time I am 84 (if alive at all), I wonder if these firearms will even be legal to own. I don't have a single shot, so I may be left with a walking stick and (maybe) a sling shot.

K9s wrote: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:59 am Wino - I understand. Bad relationships suck. Dogs are good.

highdesert - By the time I am 84 (if alive at all), I wonder if these firearms will even be legal to own. I don't have a single shot, so I may be left with a walking stick and (maybe) a sling shot.

I'm going to go with effectively illegal to possess at best.

Two words: "due process"

If the above assertions are correct: (1) the resource officer is related to the assistant principle; (2) the sheriff is the resource officer's brother.

If true, this looks like a pretty grievous case of bias.

Two words: "due process"

But due process only applies to those with the resources to fight back.

When your talking about a potential mass shooting the way to react is to err on the side of caution. When you say "someone should" could easily be changed to "I will since no one else is". So the guy got his guns back, no harm done.

tonguengroover wrote: Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:13 am When your talking about a potential mass shooting the way to react is to err on the side of caution. When you say "someone should" could easily be changed to "I will since no one else is". So the guy got his guns back, no harm done.

He didn't say that, though. Are we reading the same article?