Concord Police Sued for Taking Gun of
 Homeowner

By Curt Lovelace
 June 2001

 When Alec Costerus moved back to Massachusetts in March 1999, he heard there was a new law
 regarding handgun licenses.

 So he innocently went to the Concord Police Department to inquire what he needed to do. He still held a
 Firearms Identification (FID) card which had no expiration date. But instead of being given the information
 on what to do, Costerus was immediately arrested by Sgt. Barry Neal and put in jail.

 The charge was "illegal possession of a firearm" although Costerus didn't have any guns in his possession.
 Later, Concord officers searched his home and seized two handguns and a competition rifle.

 Despite spending a night in jail and having his family frightened by an illegal search of his home, Costerus
 wanted to forgive and forget. He hoped to clear up the "gigantic misunderstanding."  In November, the
 charges against him were dismissed without a trial.

 Filed for a License

 Costerus then filed for a license to carry handguns. The response was unexpected. On December 31,
 1999, an officer drove up the driveway and hand delivered the chief's letter of denial.

 Two reasons were given by Chief Leonard Wetherbee of the Concord Police Department. They were:

 "1. Your failure to comply with a Concord Police Department Administrative Policy requiring the
 completion of a state approved  Firearms Safety Course when upgrading from a Firearms Identification
 Card to a License to Carry.

 "2. Your recent involvement in domestic and firearms related issues in the Town of Concord."

 Costerus says he's exempt from the necessity to complete a firearms safety course. This exemption comes
 straight out of the law itself, the Massachusetts Gun Control Act of 1998, which exempts current FID
 cardholders, he says. His FID card was still valid, he explains, when he applied for his License to Carry. In
 addition, he is qualified to teach the Firearms Safety Course. He is a former Massachusetts State
 Champion shooter, a high school and college competitive shooter and has both ROTC and police training.

 The only illegal activity regarding Costerus and firearms, he maintains, was on the part of the Town of
 Concord. The police illegally searched his home and confiscated his weapons without probable cause, he
 claims. All charges against Costerus were eventually dropped.

 On January 3, 2000 Costerus petitioned the Concord District Court to review the denial. In March a judge
 declared, "While the chief's discretion is certainly broad, it is not unlimited." The judge's ruling contained an
 order to issue Costerus a license. But Chief Wetherbee countered with a Motion for a Stay of
 Enforcement. Costerus received no license.

 

(continued)

A Federal Case

 In August 2000, Costerus filed a civil rights suit in U.S. District Court in Boston against the Town of
 Concord and the State of Massachusetts. In the 40-count suit, Costerus, who is not an attorney and is
 representing himself, charged several police officers and the police chief, as well as then-Gov. Paul Cellucci
 and several state officials, with numerous violations of the Second, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the
 U.S. Constitution. The suit also cites violations of the Declaration of Rights and the Privacy Act of 1974
 and it charges conspiracy, fraud, larceny through illegal conversion, negligence, false arrest, false
 imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

 "In a nutshell, this is what I'm looking for," Costerus explained to MassNews. "From the Concord
 defendants, I want recovery of actual, compensatory and punitive damages. I'm seeking an injunction as
 well. I want my property back. It was illegally obtaine. It was stolen from my house without due process.

 "From the state defendants I am seeking Declaratory Relief, which basically says to the state, 'You were
 wrong.' I'm also seeking Prospective Relief, in that I'm seeking that all of Chapter 180 be declared
 unconstitutional in all of the aspects I specifically address."

 Costerus believes he is fighting for more than money. He is fighting for the U.S. Constitution. He said, "I
 deeply regret the time that fighting to preserve our Constitutional rights has diverted from my family and
 other pursuits. But any right not worth fighting for is not worth having. If I do nothing, then I would not be
 worthy of exercising those rights, and what kind of example of civic responsibility is that? As long as the
 egregious acts of the Concord police remain unchallenged, we, all of us, as a lawful society, suffer and
 share in my doom. And as long as the Commonwealth enacts laws, such as Chapter 180 of the Acts of
 1998, that strip away rights that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then we as a body of citizens
 must defend our rights."

 He believes that licensing gun owners at the discretion of local police chiefs is discriminatory. It can be used
 as a racist, anti-Semitic or anti-female tool in the hands of an unscrupulous police chief.

 A federal judge, Morris E. Lasker, granted a motion by the state last month to dismiss part of the case.
 According to Costerus, "The judge said I would be entitled to Prospective Injunctive relief, but only when
 there's a valid, Constitutional claim. He said there is no individual right under the Second Amendment for an
 individual to keep and bear arms. So the counts of the original complaint were dismissed to the extent that
 they make Second Amendment claims."  Costerus has filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court
 of Appeals for the First Circuit."

 

(continued)

First Circuit Will Decide

 He considers this dismissal a victory of sorts. He says there is a case in the Fifth Circuit, United States v.
 Emerson, where Dr. Emerson was charged with possessing a firearm in violation of a federal law while he
 was under a restraining order. The federal district court judge ruled that the federal statute deprived
 Emerson of his Second Amendment rights as much as a convicted felon.

 The judge, Costerus says, did a very lengthy study of the Second Amendment and how it applies. He ruled
 that there is under the Second Amendment a guarantee for an individual's right to keep and bear arms and
 that that federal statute violated that right. "That completely flies in the face of what this judge in
 Massachusetts just wrote, who by the way spent no time investigating the matter," he argues.

 The way Alec Costerus sees it, "Even if I lose in the First Circuit, and Emerson wins in the Fifth, we will
 have a federal jurisdictional conflict. So at this point it doesn't matter whether I win or lose, if Emerson
 wins. If we both lose, it would be a different story."

 For now, Costerus remains unlicensed and without his firearms, which are being held by the Concord
 Police Department. He is awaiting a ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. While he has not engaged
 an attorney for this process, he has amassed large legal bills. Donations can be made to the Alec S.
 Costerus Legal Fund, P.O. Box 705, Concord, MA 01742-0705.

 Both Barry (now Lieutenant) Neal and Chief Leonard Wetherbee of the Concord Police Department were
 contacted for comment on this case. Barry referred us to Wetherbee, who has not responded.

   


 Bill Before Legislature Would Address Problems

 A bill currently before the state legislature would address some of the problems encountered by Alec
 Costerus. Senate bill 1178 would eliminate the discretionary role of local police chiefs in the issuance of
 licenses to carry firearms. At a hearing before the Public Safety Committee in March, Rep. George
 Peterson (R-Grafton), one of the sponsors of the bill, said that this legislation would make Massachusetts a
 "shall issue" state for firearms licenses. He told the panel that the current system, which leaves all license
 decisions up to local police chiefs, creates, in essence, 351 different sets of standards. This bill takes away
 police chief discretion. No determination has been made by the committee as yet.

 Senate 1178, in its entirety, reads thusly:

 AN ACT RELATIVE TO FIREARM LICENSING.

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the
 authority of the same, as follows:

 SECTION 1. Paragraph (d) of Section 131 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws is hereby amended by
 striking, in line 4, the words: "may issue if it appears that the applicant is a suitable person to be issued such
 license, and that" and inserting in place thereof the following words: "shall issue, if."

I don't see how anyone can call this "strict enforcement of existing laws".  The cops in this case ignored existing law and made up their own rules.  This is hardly what Bush is after.  

Norm

It may not be what he is after, BUT this is what happens when a "zero tolerance" policy is pushed. Read all of the ridiculous cases about kids getting suspended for drawing pics of guns or pretending a chicken finger is a gun. Apply the same no-brain logic to the federal laws and there you have Project Exile. It is a program just waiting to be abused by overzealous anti-gun prosecutors.

Watch Project:Exile go federal in 2002.
Watch Hillary Clinton be elected to U.S. Presidency in 2004.
Watch abusive enforcement.
Watch everyone who supports this say " that's not how it was meant to be used."
See history repeat itself. See the way gun control in place when Nazis came to power in 1930's Germany looks really familiar.
See me go to the range and practice.

Imb,
This isn't even "zero tolerance".  This is a wacked out, power hungry C.O.P who's making up his own rules.

Norm