Additional requirement info needed

[Scrivener]

I am compiling information on those towns which require the following in addition to the application and - for NEW applicants - a copy of the safety certification:

1. An actual range test;

2. "Certification" for a renewal; and

3. "Doctor's letter."

Specifically, I need:

1. The town or city requiring such;

2. The criteria for the "range test:"

3. The language of the "certification" requirement for renewal applicants; and

4. The language specified for the "doctor's letter."

Please use the PM function. Thank you.

 

[NFD9]

Go get'em Scrivener.
Are you going to battle these towns?
If so, Thank You!

 

[Scrivener]

At present, I'm just plumbing the depths...

 

[EddieCoyle]

At present, I'm just plumbing the depths...

Godspeed Scriv.

 

[jhblaze1]

Are you only concerned with the three addition items you listed, or are you interested in some of the other things they are requiring as well?

 

[Scrivener]

Are you only concerned with the three addition items you listed, or are you interested in some of the other things they are requiring as well?

Primarily with those 3, but if you run across other impediments, let me know.

 

[C-pher]

Godspeed Scriv.

+1

 

[ramx50]

+1

+2

 

[hminsky]

Here is the application for Newton, with requirements for two letters of reference

http://www.beartronics.com/tmp/la1.pdf
http://www.beartronics.com/tmp/la2.pdf

 

[MichaelJ]

Well if it helps, I went to Chief Glidden in Lee, MA when I got my LTC-A ALP in 2005. Basically had to give them a copy of the certificate stating I passed the test at AAA Guns in W.Springfield.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Littleton requires three letters of reference stating:

that the applicant is of sound mind and character and is believed to be responsible for the safe possession of a firearm. They also must state how long he/she has known the applicant, the specific basis for their opinion and willingness to be interviewed in confidence by telephone if needed.

http://www.littletonma.org/content/53/121/2190/2204/default.aspx

 

[dixidawg]

Question on the big picture here. If a CLEO is charged with determining "suitability" of a LTC candidate, shouldn't they be able to request whatever they feel helps them do that?

Are there any statutes that would prohibit them from requiring (fill in the blank)? Or should the lack of specific authority in the existing statutes automatically restrict them from adding their own requirements?

 

[Uncle Ogre]

Littleton requires three letters of reference ...

I just got my LTC-A no restrictions from Littleton. The letters are only if you are a new applicant or "upgrading". I don't know what upgrading means, since I had a LTC-B (yeah, yeah, I know... I was uneducated at the time), and I didn't have to submit anything other than standard form. I also did not have to submit any extra letters 4 years ago for the LTC-B. When I applied I was told that they don't issue LTC-Bs at all anymore. Not sure why they've added the extra paperwork; the COP hasn't changed, and I think they're pretty green overall.

 

[Chris]

Question on the big picture here. If a CLEO is charged with determining "suitability" of a LTC candidate, shouldn't they be able to request whatever they feel helps them do that?

IF, there were some standard defined in which to gauge that suitability, I would agree that asking to show 'proof' of meeting that standard would be allowed. However, there is no standard, so a person in one location will be judged differently than one in another. This does not comply with the law which requires the Dept of Public Safety to produce a "Standard" application.

Are there any statutes that would prohibit them from requiring (fill in the blank)? Or should the lack of specific authority in the existing statutes automatically restrict them from adding their own requirements?

No, there isn't anything in the law that sets a limit. Nor is there anything by which you could set a standard of "suitability".

In a fiefdom like Meninostan, only politically connected people are "Suitable" for the most part. While the a very average person in a small town is pretty much issued an unrestricted permit if the background comes back clean with no disqualifiers.

Under a system of government as we are supposed to have, people should not be judged differently based on anything to do with who or where they are.

The issue isn't so much that CoPs are asking for these things, but that by doing so, they create different standards than the rest of the state. Only the Dept of Public Safety is given that power by the legislation.

In other words, the CoP does not have the authority to request additional information than the DPS requires since:

1) There is NO STANDARD to which the CoP is expected to judge a citizen in terms of "suitability" which would require the additional items.

2) There is no authority granted to the CoP to alter the application process defined by the DPS.

The fact that this is occurring is thought by many to be illegal.

 

[drgrant]

Question on the big picture here. If a CLEO is charged with determining "suitability" of a LTC candidate, shouldn't they be able to request whatever they feel helps them do that?

So if they "request" a DNA sample from you, and a 100 page thesis about why you should be granted an LTC, would that be acceptable too? How about a colorectal exam? What if the COP decides that those with inferior colons shouldn't carry guns in his town?

Are there any statutes that would prohibit them from requiring (fill in the blank)? Or should the lack of specific authority in the existing statutes automatically restrict them from adding their own requirements?

The law proscribes the scope of what an application is supposed
to consist of. Anything outside of that is not in the law, and by
virtue of that, extraneous and not legally required.


-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

So if they "request" a DNA sample from you, and a 100 page thesis about why you should be granted an LTC, would that be acceptable too? How about a colorectal exam? What if the COP decides that those with inferior colons shouldn't carry guns in his town?

You are not far off. Under the "wide latitude" and "broad discretion" argued by the chiefs' attorneys and promulgated by the courts, a chief could theoretically require:

1. Blood, hair and/or semen samples (the better to quickly identify any licensed gun owners present at a crime scene);

2. Warrantless entry at any time to verify compliance with storage statutes;

3. Whatever "range test" the chief could imagine;

4. Full physical and psychiatric evaluations;

5. Forbidding LTC's to any household with children, the mentally impaired or anyone with any criminal history (that means mere police reports, regardless of outcome); or

6. Whatever other obstructions a chief feels like imposing.

All can be rationalized under the present standard of reducing access to guns to promote public safety.


Thanks to all who responded, here or on my PM. Keep those cards and letters coming in!

 

[FalArAk]

Thanks for what you are doing Scriv.

 

[dixidawg]

So if they "request" a DNA sample from you, and a 100 page thesis about why you should be granted an LTC, would that be acceptable too? How about a colorectal exam? What if the COP decides that those with inferior colons shouldn't carry guns in his town?

The question is not whether it is acceptable to me or you, but acceptable under the law.

The law proscribes the scope of what an application is supposed
to consist of. Anything outside of that is not in the law, and by
virtue of that, extraneous and not legally required.

It may not be legally required, but would it be legally prohibited?


I guess that is the heart of what Scriv is trying to get clarified?

All can be rationalized under the present standard of reducing access to guns to promote public safety.

 

[drgrant]

The question is not whether it is acceptable to me or you, but acceptable under the law.

There's nothing in the law that says that the IA/CLEO can go on fishing expeditions to determine suitability.

It may not be legally required, but would it be legally prohibited?

In at least one case, he's managed to get a court to agree with him that the "shooting test" requirement is invalid/null because it's not required by law. While the CLEO won't be held criminally liable because he didn't break a law, the judge can still order him to "not do that" or to issue a permit sans the bogus test requirement being fulfilled.

All can be rationalized under the present standard of reducing access to guns to promote public safety.

That's not mentioned anywhere in the law, and as such, is
wholly irrelevant. Further, do you think many/most anti gun
cleos really believe that? IMO it's more about power than anything
else.

-Mike

 

[wahsben]

I think a good argument could be made that restricting firearms actually threatens public safety because it creates an imbalance that favors the criminal.
Places that restrict firearms such as gun free zones have been the least safe of all.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

In at least one case, he's managed to get a court to agree with him that the "shooting test" requirement is invalid/null because it's not required by law. While the CLEO won't be held criminally liable because he didn't break a law, the judge can still order him to "not do that" or to issue a permit sans the bogus test requirement being fulfilled.

True, but Scrivener's client in another case lost on this issue in superior court - see http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=23389&page=5&highlight=langer

Every applicant faced with an extra requirement has to make a choice - do they comply to get the license, or do they spend time, money, and the risk of a denial they would not otherwise receive to fight it in principle?

I was criticized for administering a range test to a member of the Hopkinton club who was submitting his Brookline renewal. As a result of his action, he received his renewal without hiring an attorney, going to court or risking an adverse decision ... but, he did not strike a blow for freedom when doing so.

I know of one green town (bordering on bright green) that treats the SS# as required. Since it's required to get a driver's license, and the PD has full access to that data, I am not convinced that picking a fight on this particular issue - with an officer who is prepared to issue A/restrictions:none once the record check comes back would be productive.

"Not giving anything you are not required to" may be the best strategy if you are going to the police station to prove a point, but it may not be the optimal approach if your goal is to get your LTC without delay or added expense.

 

[GaryO]

Scriv, if it helps, here in Franklin you are required to have certification that you have taken a basic handgun safety course and meet with COP and everything is done electronically. No problems, no letters, nothing. Just how it should be.

 

[Arioch]

A friend in Townsend has asked me to supply a letter of recomendation to the CLEO for him. Townsend requires the following:
"submit written references of three parties, who are either known to or otherwise found
satisfactory by this Department, stating that the applicant is of sound mind and
character and is believed by the reference to have demonstrated responsibility for the
safe possession of a firearm. Each reference must state how long he or she has known
the applicant, the specific basis for this or her opinion that the applicant is of sound
character and responsible, and must indicate his or her willingness to be interviewed
by telephone in confidence by this Department. Written references are not required
for FID Cards (Class C) or Restricted FID Cards (Class D)."

 

[dwarven1]

WTF is a "restricted FID"? A pepper spray FID?

 

[jasonj84]

Town of Andover requires a doctors letter (even for renewal). Unsure as to the body of the letter.

Town of Reading: (new app) requires proof of handgun course, three letters of recommendation which have to clearly state purpose of the letter (recommend Mr. X for a License to carry concealed firearms).

 

[pdm]

WTF is a "restricted FID"? A pepper spray FID?

Yep. $25 bucks.

 

[jhblaze1]

Town of Andover requires a doctors letter (even for renewal). Unsure as to the body of the letter.

Town of Reading: (new app) requires proof of handgun course, three letters of recommendation which have to clearly state purpose of the letter (recommend Mr. X for a License to carry concealed firearms).

Isn't proof of a pistol safety course a statutory requirement for all new apps?

 

[Scrivener]

I was criticized for administering a range test to a member of the Hopkinton club who was submitting his Brookline renewal. As a result of his action, he received his renewal without hiring an attorney, going to court or risking an adverse decision ... but, he did not strike a blow for freedom when doing so.

Critical, yet omitted fact: This came a mere one or two weeks AFTER the Brookline District Court struck down that "range test" requirement. In short, the invertebrate applicant through away the perfect opportunity to mount a second, immediate challenge.

 

[Arioch]

Yep. $25 bucks.

$50 in the 2 towns I know of.

 

[VTpro]

disregard...........