testtest

SouthCoast Health President and CEO arrested (state of MA)

Old_Me

Old_Me

SAINT
this happened just the other day, up here in MA.

"
Police said Hovan was covered in what smelled like alcohol and had a red mark on his forearm.

After speaking to those involved, police arrested Hovan and later returned to seize more than 40 firearms he had stored in the home, along with ammunition and magazines, according to the report. Hovan’s license to carry was also suspended."
Click to expand...

www.wpri.com

SouthCoast Health CEO arrested on domestic assault charge

Keith Hovan, 59, was taken into custody late Saturday night at his home on Mary’s Pond Road in Rochester, according to the police report obtained by 12 News.
www.wpri.com www.wpri.com

i do not know MA gun laws, but a charge of domestic violence, may very well have ended his rights regarding CCW and his collection....??

if he can get those guns and ammo back, i wonder the amount of money to to that..???
 
Old_Me said:
this happened just the other day, up here in MA.



www.wpri.com

SouthCoast Health CEO arrested on domestic assault charge

Keith Hovan, 59, was taken into custody late Saturday night at his home on Mary’s Pond Road in Rochester, according to the police report obtained by 12 News.
www.wpri.com www.wpri.com

i do not know MA gun laws, but a charge of domestic violence, may very well have ended his rights regarding CCW and his collection....??

if he can get those guns and ammo back, i wonder the amount of money to to that..???
Click to expand...

I lived in MA for almost 2 decades, and moved to GA in 2007.

At the time I lived there, Heller hadn’t been decided yet, so even to own firearms in the home required a license, and MA is a may issue state. The Chief of Police for your town or city is who reviews all FID and LTC requests, and they can revoke them for just about any reason at all.

They now have “red flag” laws as well, so I’d assume that it may not even be discretionary when domestic violence is involved.
 
neil0311 said:
I lived in MA for almost 2 decades, and moved to GA in 2007.

At the time I lived there, Heller hadn’t been decided yet, so even to own firearms in the home required a license, and MA is a may issue state. The Chief of Police for your town or city is who reviews all FID and LTC requests, and they can revoke them for just about any reason at all.

They now have “red flag” laws as well, so I’d assume that it may not even be discretionary when domestic violence is involved.
Click to expand...
i did not want to "assume" anything regarding red flag laws in another state.

i know that when i fill out the form for buying a gun in my state, i see the questions regarding domestic violence.

suffice it to say, that if a person partakes in alcohol, and has in the past, drank till drunk, then gun ownership maybe ought to not be a part of that persons life. (but that can bring up debates as well)...it's how the red flag laws and the police see things at that particular time, which apparently seizure is a sure bet.

one stands to lose so much, like a possible job, career, all those guns and ammo which can have a high value overall.

it just came on the radio, that he still has his job, and that the board members have had several meetings since this happened.

my best guess, is 1) guns, 2) ammo, 3) anti-gun sentiment, 4) public opinion, 5) stock holders


= toasted former CEO
 
Keystone19250 said:
My guess is that he’s done with firearm ownership along with his job, in today’s environment law enforcement and prosecutors will not allow him to ever legally own a firearm again. And he can say goodbye to his employment.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Massachusetts is way out there with woke politics. Rockland isn’t like Cambridge or Boston, but in fairness, if you’re the CEO of a health provider, and you get convicted of domestic assault, even 20 years ago it was likely you’d be fired.

Today, just the accusations are probably enough.
 
Old_Me said:
i did not want to "assume" anything regarding red flag laws in another state.

i know that when i fill out the form for buying a gun in my state, i see the questions regarding domestic violence.

suffice it to say, that if a person partakes in alcohol, and has in the past, drank till drunk, then gun ownership maybe ought to not be a part of that persons life. (but that can bring up debates as well)...it's how the red flag laws and the police see things at that particular time, which apparently seizure is a sure bet.

one stands to lose so much, like a possible job, career, all those guns and ammo which can have a high value overall.

it just came on the radio, that he still has his job, and that the board members have had several meetings since this happened.

my best guess, is 1) guns, 2) ammo, 3) anti-gun sentiment, 4) public opinion, 5) stock holders


= toasted former CEO
Click to expand...

Everyone has to answer about domestic violence on a 4473. It’s not unique to any state.

I used the word “assume” only because I don’t know for sure. But as the article stated, his 40 firearms were temporarily seized (because he may be a threat to his spouse) and his LTC was suspended. They gave back the firearms, but the cops have legal backing to confiscate them just because of the arrest. That’s what I was referring to, and I believe that’s related to red flag laws.
 
neil0311 said:
Yeah, Massachusetts is way out there with woke politics. Rockland isn’t like Cambridge or Boston, but in fairness, if you’re the CEO of a health provider, and you get convicted of domestic assault, even 20 years ago it was likely you’d be fired.

Today, just the accusations are probably enough.
Click to expand...
which in my opinion, are discriminatory.

the old saying, "one is innocent until proven guilty", seems so meaningless these days, in the "woke" snowflake society.
 
neil0311 said:
Yeah, Massachusetts is way out there with woke politics. Rockland isn’t like Cambridge or Boston, but in fairness, if you’re the CEO of a health provider, and you get convicted of domestic assault, even 20 years ago it was likely you’d be fired.

Today, just the accusations are probably enough.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The liability for a health care company to keep on the payroll an individual who is only accused and even never convicted of domestic violence in to today’s society would be self destructive. His career is over.
 
neil0311 said:
Everyone has to answer about domestic violence on a 4473. It’s not unique to any state.

I used the word “assume” only because I don’t know for sure. But as the article stated, his 40 firearms were temporarily seized (because he may be a threat to his spouse) and his LTC was suspended. They gave back the firearms, but the cops have legal backing to confiscate them just because of the arrest. That’s what I was referring to, and I believe that’s related to red flag laws.
Click to expand...
ok, i was not sure about the domestic violence on that form, for my state, or all states. it was also on my state form, which i no longer have to fill out, due to my CCW permit. maybe that's where i got mixed up.
 
Old_Me said:
which in my opinion, are discriminatory.

the old saying, "one is innocent until proven guilty", seems so meaningless these days, in the "woke" snowflake society.
Click to expand...
I’m not a fan or proponent of red flag laws, so no argument from me on their constitutionality.

Was just speculating on why in MA the cops have the legal ability to remove the firearms just based on the arrest. But as you pointed out, I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one on TV.
 
The Federal Law, the Lautenberg Amendment, has been with us for 25 years. Lautenberg prohibits possession of firearms or ammunition by a person who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence, or who is subject to a current injunction for protections against domestic violence. That's the nexus to the questions on the 4473. The victim in this case may have received an injunction against him in a very short span of time, or the state statute builds upon Lautenberg to allow the police to seize his guns based upon the arrest alone. Or the guns may have been seized pursuant to a judge's order. Not enough information to say how they got there.
 
David N. said:
I believe the Lautenburg amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 prevents gun ownership to those convicted of such crimes.
Click to expand...
It does as I understand or remember that when filling out a background check form for a firearm purchase one of the questions is have you been convicted of domestic violence.
Let me also say I’m NOT a proponent of red flag laws in any way!! Any law that allows the confiscation of anything let alone firearms just because someone says they feel uncomfortable with that individual owning guns is like false imprisonment.
 
Last edited:
David N. said:
I believe the Lautenburg amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 prevents gun ownership to those convicted of such crimes.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, in MA the red flag laws give the cops the ability to temporarily seize anyone’s firearms if they’re deemed a “threat to others” such as in domestic violence cases. No conviction necessary.

www.salemnews.com

More firearms seized under 'red flag' law

BOSTON — Police have seized weapons belonging to at least 20 people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others under the state's "red flag" law, according to newly
www.salemnews.com www.salemnews.com
 
They are definitely getting the cart before the horse.

He has only just been arrested. No investigation, no trial or pleading.

The laws saying confiscation and other punitive measures can be taken is pure horse manure.

Why not then take a laptop/computer/cell? CCP tactics.
 
neil0311 said:
As I mentioned, in MA the red flag laws give the cops the ability to temporarily seize anyone’s firearms if they’re deemed a “threat to others” such as in domestic violence cases. No conviction necessary.

www.salemnews.com

More firearms seized under 'red flag' law

BOSTON — Police have seized weapons belonging to at least 20 people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others under the state's "red flag" law, according to newly
www.salemnews.com www.salemnews.com
Click to expand...
As described the law there seems to be too broad in terms of affiants and lacking in due process.
 
neil0311 said:
As I mentioned, in MA the red flag laws give the cops the ability to temporarily seize anyone’s firearms if they’re deemed a “threat to others” such as in domestic violence cases. No conviction necessary.

www.salemnews.com

More firearms seized under 'red flag' law

BOSTON — Police have seized weapons belonging to at least 20 people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others under the state's "red flag" law, according to newly
www.salemnews.com www.salemnews.com
Click to expand...
Red Flag laws go way past that, in regards to domestic violence that’s a no brainer but a law that also allows confiscation based on just someone’s dislike of firearms is unconstitutional. Many reports have surfaced of individuals having guns confiscated because someone knows that individual has guns and even though no threats were made the guns were taken. That is abuse of the system.
 
Keystone19250 said:
Red Flag laws go way past that, in regards to domestic violence that’s a no brainer but a law that also allows confiscation based on just someone’s dislike of firearms is unconstitutional. Many reports have surfaced of individuals having guns confiscated because someone knows that individual has guns and even though no threats were made the guns were taken. That is abuse of the system.
Click to expand...
It varies from state to state. States should tread lightly with these laws. In my view any "red flag" law that is triggered on anything less than clear and convincing evidence, and fails to guarantee due process is doomed to failure on several levels and will not withstand a Supreme Court challenge. Allowing such orders on petition of anyone other than law enforcement makes it far too broad in scope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top