Military Abortion Policy Unjust

If you have been charged with a military crime or need help with a military board hearing, contact Military Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni for assistance now at (401) 351-5100 or use the contact form HERE for more information.

ACLU Lens: Chicago Sun-Times Weighs in on Indefensible Military Abortion Policy

September 22, 2011
Amanda Simon

The Chicago Sun-Times today has a terrific editorial on a thoroughly unfair military policy regarding servicewomen who are the victims of rape.

As it stands now, the military provides health insurance for members of the Armed Forces and their families but, by federal statute, the Department of Defense is barred from providing coverage for abortion care except where a pregnant woman's life is endangered. Despite the fact that other federal bans on abortion coverage provide an exception for cases of rape and incest, the military does not.

Currently, there are more than 400,000 women serving our country in our Armed Forces. Each one of them faces a disturbingly higher rate than their civilian counterparts that they will be sexual assaulted. Denying them the same medical care that is available to the civilians they protect is shameful.

The Sun-Times says:

    It's time to reverse this absurd policy and, at a minimum, give servicewomen the same rights as any other woman covered by the federal government. That's why we're enthusiastically backing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow for a rape and incest exception. The amendment is expected to be offered in the U.S. Senate soon. We urge Illinois' two senators to support this basic act of fairness.

This policy is unjust and unfair. The National Defense Authorization Act should be coming to the Senate floor in the coming weeks and the ACLU will continue its push to see this ban repealed.

Massachusetts Firearm Identification Card

 

The Massachusetts Firearm Identification Card (FID) is a requirement based on gun policy changes which were part of the Massachusetts Gun Control Act which went into affect June 1, 1998. As part of the new set of Massachusetts firearm requirements all new firearm license applicants must complete a certified firearms safety course or Basic Hunter Education Course. These courses provide one of two FID cards with varying requirements. A class “A" license to carry permits the purchase, possession and carrying of all ammunition, handguns, rifles, shotguns and feeding devices and in addition, permits the holder to carry a concealed firearm. The class "B" permits the purchase, possession and carrying of all ammunition, non-large capacity handguns, and all rifles and shotguns but does not allow the holder to carry a concealed firearm under any circumstances.

The requirements for obtaining a Massachusetts FID card consist of: being at least 18 years old (15-17 with parental consent), and completing a Massachusetts approved firearms safety course or basic hunter education course. The license is valid for a total of 6 years, after which applicants must reapply but are not required to attend the safety course. A restricted FID card is also available specifically for the possession of mace or pepper spray, which also does not require the firearm safety course. Massachusetts has strict penalties for being caught with an unlicensed firearm, and lawbreakers may even be subject to a 90 day sentence that extends to possession of ammunition.

Firearms and Assault client found Not Guilty after trial by Criminal Defense Lawyer John L. Calcagni III

CHARGES: 
Discharge of a Firearm within 500 Feet of a Building;
Carrying a Firearm without a Permit;
Defacing the Serial Number of a Firearm;
Assault and Battery with a Firearm.

Man charged with conducting a drive by shooting at a 7-Eleven gas station in New Bedford, MA.  Police alleged the man exacted revenge on rival gang members at the 7-Eleven following a similar drive by shooting the day prior whereby the man’s brother sustained two gunshot wounds.  The 7-Eleven shooting incident occurred in the early morning hours of November 10, 2009.  It was witnesses by several parties and partially caught on a surveillance video.  The police engaged in a high speed chase with the man after receiving reports of gun shots at the 7-Eleven and a description of the man’s white car fleeing the scene.  During chase, police observed a passenger run from the fleeing vehicle and into a nearby housing project.  Police lost sight of the vehicle for a brief period of time, and then discovered it abandoned on a dead end street near a rural cemetery.  A posse of police officers and K9 police dogs searched the entire area to include the abandoned car, housing project and nearby cemetery.  The search uncovered a firearm abandoned in the housing project; an empty magazine that matched this firearm in the abandoned car; and the Defendant hiding in the cemetery.  He was subsequently arrested and charged with Discharging a Firearm within 500 Feet of a Building; Carrying a Firearm without a Permit; Defacing the Serial Number of a Firearm; and Assault and Battery with a Firearm.  Defendant confessed to police that he had been shot at by hang rivals at the 7-Eleven and denied being involved in the shooting.  Defendant also consented to gunshot residue testing, which came back negative.  Also, no prints were uncovered from either the firearm or magazine.  The police also developed no ballistic evidence that either the discovered firearm or magazine were connected to the charged incident. The case proceeded to trial lasted approximately one week.  At the outset of trial, the Defense filed a series of motions in limine, many of which were granted.  Thereafter, the Commonwealth presented its case, which involved video evidence; physical evidence; documentary evidence; and the testimony of eleven police and civilian witnesses.  The Defense crossed examined each witness vigorously and offered various pieces of demonstrative evidence.  After the close of the Commonwealth’s case, I moved for a directive verdict.  The Court granted my motion with respect to count 3, defacing the serial number of a firearm.  The Court denied the motion with respect to the remaining counts and allowed the matter to proceed to the jury.  After 2.5 hours of deliberation, the jury rendered its verdict of not guilty on all remaining charges.  Defendant was acquitted and released from the courthouse.

RESULT: Not Guilty After Jury Trial. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.