Civilian gun club seeks contempt order against Fort Devens
The Fort ignored repeated warnings from the gun club about a host of legal issues.
By Lee Williams
The treasurer of the Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., warned Fort Devens officials at least four times that if they didn’t let the civilian club shoot, they would file a motion for contempt.
A motion for contempt was filed today.
It’s a direct response to the latest bit of chicanery by the Fort, which hasn’t allowed the private gun club to use its gun ranges for more than three years.
The gun club sued the Fort in federal court three years ago and won its case March 20. The Fort had 60 days to appeal the court order but allowed it to expire. Club members showed up to shoot on May 13, but officials wouldn’t allow them access. The club had been told they would shoot handguns, so all of the members brought handguns. However. when they arrived at the base they were told they had been reassigned to a rifle range without any notice.
“We were outraged, particularly the members who drove to the range parking lot on May 13. The Fort’s games are transparent,” said treasurer James Gettens, a club member since 1998. He is also a former Army JAG lawyer who served in the Iraq War.
Now, through an order of contempt, the gun club wants the court to appoint a third-party official to oversee the process. The club suggested a United States Marshal. Other options include having a judge issue fines, holding Fort officials in contempt, or ordering the Fort to pay the club’s attorney’s fees or issue other remedial orders.
Gun club officials say Fort Devens commander, Lt. Col. Carlos Poventud-Estrada, and civilian Department of Defense lawyer, John Hollis, are personally responsible for their lack of range access.
According to court documents, the club accuses the two of “deliberately ignoring, subverting and obstructing” the recent court order, and for “obstructing and preventing, deliberately and maliciously” the club’s access to the firing ranges.
In a phone interview Wednesday, Fort Devens public relations officer, John Quinn, first claimed the gun club’s three-year absence was caused by the COVID Virus, which he quickly acknowledged was not true.
“Well, there were a lot of changes, years ago. There was limited access. I will have to get hard answers on why they stopped coming here,” Quinn said.
He knew nothing about the club’s recent motion for contempt.
“An order of contempt? I did not hear that. They have not mentioned that to me or said they would take legal action. We haven’t received a copy. That is up to them to file any court documents. I don’t speak for the club. I am the spokesman for Fort Devens. I cannot tell you why they feel that. That’s their decision,” Quinn said. “We are trying to comply with their safe return. We want safety—no accidents or incidents. We have had incidents in the past. Someone shot themselves in the leg a couple years ago. We have busy training areas. Shooting incidents are rare.”
Quinn denied the club was thrown out last week, when they brought pistols but were reassigned to a rifle range without notice.
“I don’t believe they were thrown out. They scheduled the time at the range, and were told it was a rifle range—a long-distance range with paper targets. They showed up with pistols, not rifles. They were told rifles were the only thing they were allowed to shoot. You can shoot pistols on certain ranges, but they were assigned to shoot on a rifle range. Why they chose to bring pistols and not rifles, that is up to them,” Quinn said.
He did not know why things had gotten so bad with the gun club.
“That’s a good question,” he said. “Obviously, there’s been a contentious relationship. I’ve been talking to the (gun club) president. He sat down with our range chief, but if some people don’t get along with others, there’s not any reason. It’s taking more time than everyone would like. We are following court orders.”
Gettens strongly disagrees.
“Mr. Quins is well aware of this legal action and its history. He was given links to articles written about this case and its results,” Gettens said. “His account is a false narrative. He is putting up a smokescreen to protect his chain of command.”
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
Northeast Blue City Communist! It’s a cesspool.. Pete Hegseth needs help covering his 6! Between 8 years of Obama and another 4 years of Obiden it’s going to take time to ring out the sponge 🧽!
Not really surprised. The union guy at the RSC (back in the 90's) was concerned about us adding cameras at the SCIF, acting as though we needed the union's permission. My Captain clarified that he was providing the info as a courtesy, not asking for permission. If the DRFTA (is it still called that?) has any civilians like that, I am not surprised that there are issues.