By Steve Pomper
This article stems from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s latest round of controversial gun law legislation, but it’s not about the new law itself. I’m not addressing what the new gun law does to Mass. citizens’ self-defense rights. I’ll even set aside opponents’ efforts to repeal the law
However, being a native of the Bay State and a retired cop has spurred my interest in a specific aspect of this issue. The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission (MSEC) threatened prosecution to muzzle a small town’s top cop.
The MSEC issued a police chief a letter of reprimand, euphemistically called a “public education letter” (public re-education, perhaps?), informing him he may have broken state law because he publicly expressed disagreement with the state’s controversial new gun law.
Even if you disagree with the chief’s views, isn’t calling his opposing a controversial law an ethics violation a step too far? I know government lawfare is all the rage these days but come on.
I remember writing a series of articles for the police union newspaper (First Amendment) many years ago, opposing my city’s indoctrinating cops with socialist/CRT propaganda. City officials, the media, and community activists called for my discipline for “insubordination” for respectfully expressing my opposing opinion, using my free speech rights (First Amendment).
Again, how do actions like these amount to insubordination—or worthy of a reprimand? Does anyone else see the danger in such actions, regardless of your side of the issue?
Several states have been involved in passing controversial gun laws aimed at severely curtailing or even effectively banning civilian gun ownership. There are people on both sides of this issue and always will be. That’s fine. But using the law to punish people for using their constitutional rights is not fine.
This police chief swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. That includes protecting his town’s (and state’s) citizens from anyone who would infringe on their unalienable rights—including state government officials. Again, how it is unethical to publicly state your professional opinion about an issue important to your constituents?”
How is the commission not violating the chief’s First Amendment rights? After all, the chief is using his free speech to state that he sincerely believes these new laws violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
To further dissect the issue, let’s ask what happens when the state ethics commission reprimands law enforcement officials when they dare to publicly disagree. But they do not similarly reprimand other officials who do the same thing but publicly agree with them?
The commission sent an official accusatory letter, rebuking (small public platform) Ware (Pop. 10,000) Police Chief Shawn Crevier “after finding reasonable cause to believe he violated the Conflict of Interest law” (translation: he is in conflict with their interests).
Chief Crevier posted opposing views on his department’s Facebook page. As a law enforcement leader, he simply challenged the constitutionality of the law, which constitutional scholars and gun rights organizations have also done.
According to NBC Boston, the NRA said, “‘With Governor Healey’s signature, Massachusetts has enacted one of the most egregious and freedom-restricting laws in the history of the Commonwealth. We are thankful for the bipartisan group of legislators who stood against gun registries and the banning of commonly owned firearms and standard magazines,’ the Second Amendment rights organization said last week. ‘NRA will be challenging this law to restore the rights guaranteed to Bay Staters by the U.S. Constitution.’”
I point this out not because of what the NRA and others say the law does but because it shows Chief Crevier is hardly on the fringe of this issue, and it’s certainly not objectively unethical to hold his views and to express them.
On the contrary, the commission has not similarly rebuked another police chief for publicly endorsing the state’s new gun law. He is (large public platform) Agawam (Pop. 30,000) Police Chief Eric Gillis, who also serves as the 2024 president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association (MCOPA) representing “300+ active police chiefs.”
Why didn’t they also sanction Chief Gillis? Both police chiefs essentially did the same thing but on opposite sides of an issue. Is it because Chief Gillis agrees with the Ethics Commission’s view of the issue, but Chief Crevier doesn’t? Is agreement “ethical” but disagreement “unethical?” Ironically, isn’t the commission unethical in this contradiction?
In 2023, Chief Crevier issued a statement regarding the new gun legislation. In it, he boasted, “The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police…, voted unanimously to oppose this Bill. It is the first time in the organization’s history that it has voted unanimously on any single topic” (House version).
However, according to William Kirk at Washington Gun Law, speaking about Chief Gillis, who became president of MCOPA for 2024 (after the above no vote), this is “the first time that we’ve ever seen a predominant state law enforcement agency [MCOPA] actually stick up for and promote and further civilian disarmament legislation” (Senate version).
Those are some significantly conflicting “firsts.” Just because the Senate version may be “better” doesn’t necessarily make it good for the people.
According to NHPR.org, “The big difference in who’s on board this time is that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association is on board from the outset. The head of that group, Agawam Police Chief Eric Gillis, went as far as to trek to the statehouse last week to join Senate Democrats for the bill’s rollout and say from the get-go, ‘my group is on board. We like this one, even though we did not like the House bill.’”
This is not to criticize Chief Gillis’s actions but to draw attention to the similarities between one chief who publicly supports an issue and is not reprimanded and another chief who opposes that issue but receives a reprimand.
Can it truly be an ethics violation for a police chief to express a legitimate disagreement with a controversial state law for which many believe there is prima facia evidence suggesting its unconstitutionality? How could any official ever stand up for the people’s rights under such a biased regime?
People who live in the Birthplace of the American Revolution shouldn’t have to ask these questions. If this weren’t so serious, it would be humorous. After all, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were essentially citizens defending themselves against a government (British) gun confiscation.
Summarizing their letter, the commission wrote, “In short, you used the WPD Facebook page to rally political opposition to the bill based on your personal view that it would improperly limit your and other gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.”
He’s a sworn law enforcement professional, which also makes it his professional view. Also, his conclusion has objectively legal merit whether you agree or disagree with his conclusion.
Chief Crevier defended himself. “I stand by my post and I truly believe, as well as many others, that this new gun law does nothing to protect the public safety. The House and Senate should focus on holding these criminals accountable for their actions.”
So, ethical to agree with the government, but unethical to disagree. How convenient is that?
Constitutional case law seems to be on Chief Crevier’s side, further weakening a case for an ethics violation for holding his opinion. The below cases seem to show he’s being quite ethical in what he believes is his defense of the people of the Commonwealth.
In closing, check out these constitutional caselaw citations from voidjudgements.net, which seem to demonstrate the ethical and legal legitimacy of Chief Crevier’s position on the new law.
“Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, ‘Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.’”
“Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. ‘The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.’”
“Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. ‘Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.’”
“Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 ‘An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.’”
And, finally, to Chief Crevier’s specific accusations against Massachusetts government officials, here’s a whopper:
“Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that ‘no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.’”
Massachusetts citizens can decide for themselves about the validity of the new law. However, it seems to me the decision as to whether this police chief is guilty of ethics violations is objectively, no.
Make a difference. Support the NPA.