Frank Saccoccio – RI Future

January 22, 2016January 22, 2016

Trio of common sense gun bills introduced in the House

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Last year, when Speaker Nicholas Mattiello brought the legislative season to an abrupt end, he said that the bills that did not come to the floor were “not very consequential” and “just not as important” as the legislation he had dealt with and passed. Among the bills that Mattiello deemed inconsequential and unimportant were three that dealt with guns.

Those three bills have just been reintroduced in the House.

H7199 criminalizes the manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale or transfer of any ammunition feeding device capable of accepting more than ten rounds. Two years ago, when this bill was first introduced, Jerry Belair, president of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence asked the following question, “Rhode Island law limits the number of rounds to five when hunting deer. Rhode Island law limits the number of rounds to three when hunting ducks. If we can limit the number of rounds in a firearm to protect deer and ducks, how can we not limit the number of rounds to protect our children and citizens?”

H7243 provides that only peace officers and persons approved by the school authorities for the purposes of educational instruction may carry firearms or other weapons on school grounds. A similar bill was introduced last year and died in committee. Apparently the idea that someone might bring a gun into a school in Rhode Island without the knowledge of school administrators does not bother our legislature.

H7283 prohibits any person convicted of a misdemeanor offense under §12-29-2 (a crime involving domestic violence) from purchasing, owning, transporting, carrying, or possessing any firearm. A similar bill submitted last year died in committee after Frank Saccoccio of the Second Amendment Coalition successfully mischaracterized the bill as a gun grab in both the House and Senate committee meetings.

Last year a poll indicated that 80 percent of Rhode Islanders want to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, yet when it came time for action, the General Assembly, under the leadership of Speaker Mattiello deemed the bills above “not very consequential” and “just not as important.”

What has to change in Rhode Island before common sense gun legislation can be passed? Mattiello has an A+ (100 percent) rating with the National Rifle Association (NRA). Senate President M Teresa Paiva-Weed has an A (93 percent) rating from the NRA.

April 22, 2015

How to lobby for domestic abusers’ gun rights

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

When testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on bills that would bring state law in line with federal law and close the loophole allowing misdemeanor domestic abusers to keep their guns, Frank Saccoccio, representing the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition, insisted that he was in no way defending domestic abusers. It’s surely not his intent to defend domestic abusers, but that is exactly what Saccoccio is doing.

Time and again Saccoccio made statements that were refuted by Rachel Orsinger, representing the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Julia Wyman, representing the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence (RICAGV).

Saccoccio claims that the bill before the committee is the same as the bill presented last year. The bill did not pass and Saccoccio implied that though his organization was willing to help make some changes to the bill’s language that would allow the bill to pass, no one asked for the 2nd Amendment Coalition’s opinion. “We haven’t seen this bill until it was brought forward now,” he said.

This seems contrary to the statement by Rachel Orsinger, who thanked the Committee Chairman Cale Keable, the 2nd Amendment Coalition, the RICAGV, various law enforcement people, the Attorney General and the Public Defender’s office who “sat in very hot, very long meetings last year to come up with the language” in the bill, “That everyone could agree to, at least last year.”

Julia Wyman also remembered the “roundtable discussion last year, and all the major stakeholders were involved… including… two members of the 2nd Amendment group…” Wyman found it “rather incredulous” that the 2nd Amendment Coalition cannot support a bill they helped to craft.

Perhaps it’s Saccoccio’s strategy to obfuscate the issue. Time and again he prefaced his statements with some variation of, “Those of you who are lawyers will understand,” as if those in the room who are not lawyers will never be able to get their heads around the complex legal definitions of misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors. Fortunately, Rachel Orsinger was able to clear up the confusion Saccoccio sowed.

“I know there’s been some confusion around petty misdemeanors and misdemeanors,” said Orsinger, “those are two separate legal categories, just like book worms and worms are not the same thing, just because they have one of the same words in there.”

Lawyers in the room who work in family court, said Saccoccio, know that family court judges are “very very liberal” and likely to “err on the side of caution” when issuing protective orders. But, that’s the way the system is designed, pointed out Orsinger, once again cutting through the fog of Saccoccio’s words. It’s only after a judge makes a final decision that a permanent firearm restriction is put in place.

“Even if there’s no nexus to a firearm,” an indignant Saccoccio said, even if “there’s no allegation that a firearm was ever used,” a domestic abuser might lose his guns under this law.

“If someone is routinely showing that they have power and control over ending your life,” countered Orsinger, “knowing that they have a gun is an inherent threat.”

This legislation binds judges hands, offerred Saccocio. The word used to be “may” as in “a judge ‘may’ remove a domestic abuser’s guns.” That word has become “shall.” In Saccoccio’s opinion, judges should have discretion. Of course, other states, even states as gun friendly as Louisiana, use the word “shall” in similar legislation, said Orsinger.

Ultimately Saccoccio got to the end of his testimony by telling the assembled Representatives the same story he told the Senate weeks earlier. Saccoccio told of a “seminal case” in which a man with a protective order against him ran into his wife three times by coincidence, and was charged with violating the order. In Saccoccio’s telling of the case, the man was coincidentally holding the door for his wife when they ran into each other at the post office, and another time the man innocuously waved to his wife as he passed her while driving.

According to Orsinger, such stories tend to minimize what victims of domestic violence go through. “For those of us who have had healthy relationships in our lives,” she said, “it seems really reasonable that even in the most animosity filled divorce… you can bring a coffee to court just to be nice. But to the person who always got a Starbucks Latte the morning after they were brutally beaten, a Starbucks Latte means something different. It can be an inherently violent act to violate a restraining order… What it says to that victim is that no court can hold me back, no police can hold me back… I can get to you whenever.”

Saccoccio’s performance seemed doubly unnecessary when we remember that the bill under discussion simply brings state and federal law into alignment. It doesn’t do anything but close a loophole. “Already, under federal law,” said Julia Wyman, “if you commit a domestic violence misdemeanor, you are barred from owning a firearm for life.”

“By the time someone gets a conviction” for domestic violence, added Rachel Orsinger, “they’ve either… committed a felony assault that’s now been pled down to a simple assault… or this is their seventh or eighth time being arrested.”

“But don’t get me wrong,” said Frank Saccoccio, “we are not supporting or in any way… advocating for domestic violence. It should not be condoned or supported in any way.”

Frank Saccoccio and the 2nd Amendment Coalition say they agree with Wyman on the need, “to take firearms out of the hands of abusive people,” but until he supports this common sense legislation, his bewildering word clouds are “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

March 26, 2015March 27, 2015

The dark art of defending domestic abusers’ right to a gun

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

When Frank Saccoccio, president of the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition and Johnston’s assistant city solicitor, introduced himself to the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify against Senate Bill 503, which would prohibit “any individual convicted of domestic violence or subject to a restraining order from possessing a firearm,” he played up the fact that he does the criminal prosecutions for Johnston in district court.

He said that he’s “very familiar with the domestic violence issues and what actually comes in front of District Court…” and implied that this was because of his prosecutorial experience. “I’ll try to give you my perspective,” said Saccoccio, “that I see each and every week in the court system…”

Watching a lawyer walk the line between a job that requires him to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence and a job that requires him to protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners should have been an interesting experience. No one supports the idea of domestic abusers having access to guns, so the intent of this law was generally thought to be a good thing by everyone. Further, prosecutors generally like laws that make prosecuting wrongdoers easier while at the same time protecting victims from further harm. Yet early on Saccoccio made comments that made it appear he had as much sympathy for those accused of domestic violence as he did for those who claimed to be victims, saying, for instance, “A lot of times you take a look at Family Court judges, they are very, very liberal. They like to err on the side of caution.”

This doesn’t seem like something someone interested in prosecuting domestic abusers might say. What lawyer complains when the judge is on their side?

The jump from talking about district court to family court was also puzzling. Didn’t Saccoccio indicate that his perspective was gleaned from his experience in district court? Now, I’m not a lawyer by any means. I know that lawyers work in a variety of courts and court settings, and that Saccoccio is sure to have a lot of knowledge about the workings of various courts, but is his concern on this issue truly informed by his experience as the assistant town solicitor of Johnston?

I don’t think so.

It seems to me that Saccocio’s perspective on this issue is informed by his work as a lawyer who helps defend, not prosecute, those accused of domestic violence. On the website for his law firm, Comerford & Saccoccio, there is a section about the “increased penalties for crimes committed on family members, spouses or those who share the same household.” The website goes on to say that, “If you have been accused of domestic violence, you can be arrested on the spot. At Comerford & Saccoccio, we will work hard to get you out of jail and immediately begin building your defense.”

In light of this, Saccoccio’s perspective begins to make sense, and it’s no wonder that he would not want to broadcast the basis of his perspective to the Senate committee. Not only is Saccoccio, as the president of the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition inclined to fight legislation that might limit access to firearms, he’s also a lawyer that “will work hard” to get clients accused of domestic violence “out of jail immediately.” Testifying against this bill did not require Saccoccio to navigate a difficult line, it simply required him to do what he always does: advocate for gun owners and domestic abusers.

Saccoccio told two stories during his 20 minutes of testimony in which he attempted to highlight how easy it was for innocent men to get caught up in the court system because of domestic violence accusations and the violations of restraining and protective orders.

Everybody here who practices law that knows it is extremely easy to be found in violation of a protective order or restraining order. We have one right now in Johnston, I’ll explain to you the quick facts without saying the name.

“Male and female, the female filed for divorce. She got a protective order in the divorce, probably to get a leg up on it, I’m not sure, then she goes in, as she goes in to drop off the kids, at the house, he comes out and says, ‘We got to do taxes at the end of the month, I really need the finances.’ Takes the kids and goes into the house. She goes around the corner, calls the police. he gets arrested, he’s charged, and that’s going to trial right now.

“So under this section, that you’ve put in place, that person, if they’re convicted, even if they’re put on probation, would lose their firearms, forever, because they spoke to the other person. No threats, no intimidation, no name calling… asked if he could get the finances so that he could do the taxes at the end of the month. That’s a violation of a protective order and a restraining order. And it’s just that simple.”

We have a seminal case in Rhode Island, State v. Conti and the attorneys that are here understand this. They’re aware of the basis of this. Mr. Conti was walking out of the post office, held the door open for Mrs. Conti, and there was a protective order. As she walked by he said, ‘Hi Liz.’ And she walked in. A day later, she’s driving down the street, he’s going the other way, he waves. She called the police and had him arrested. He was charged, had to go through a trial, and he lost. They said he violated the protective order. That case went to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and it was overturned. But something as simple as that, ‘How are you doing?’ and you could be right in the middle of this [law], losing your firearms, and you could be convicted of that.”

Certainly everyone accused of a crime deserves a robust defense. And Saccoccio, as a defense attorney, provides an invaluable service representing those accused of domestic violence who, we should all remember, are innocent until proven guilty. That said, our society and our government has an obligation to protect victims of domestic violence, and not having access to your guns while the case is decided is a small price to pay for justice and safety.

This is the line Saccocio was pretending to walk.

The intent of Senate Bill 503 is to save lives. Since Saccoccio likes stories, here’s one he should know: The story of Evelyn Burgos, who lived in Johnston until August 2013. According to the Providence Journal, two weeks after she applied for a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, she was killed violently – much like she feared. And what actually took place was far worse. Armed with a .357 caliber revolver, her ex-boyfriend shot and killed Burgos and her 25-year-old daughter Vanessa Perez in the presence of her two sons, 2 and 8, and her 3-year-old granddaughter.”

I wrote about the importance of closing the loophole Senate Bill 503 addresses back in January. Here’s the full video of Saccoccio’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.