-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
"All lawful purposes", automatic denial of ltc renewal
- Thread starter dre2333
- Start date
"Because the cia"... they laugh, you laugh, the photocopier laughs.... you all shot the photocopier....
Then you get denied... maybe stick with the smart answers
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Then you get denied... maybe stick with the smart answers
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Probably going with something similar to this, minus the protecting of items.
Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
Framingham's app now provides you with examples of reasons why you want your LTC, such as "ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES." Town BS is lol/cry
That said, when I first applied and was required to provide an answer, I kept it short and specific: I want to carry a handgun for personal protection and all other lawful purposes. The more specifics and details you provide, the more excuses you give them for denying or restricting you.
That said, when I first applied and was required to provide an answer, I kept it short and specific: I want to carry a handgun for personal protection and all other lawful purposes. The more specifics and details you provide, the more excuses you give them for denying or restricting you.
Last edited:
I might be completely full of shit here (and if I am I trust and hope that many of you will make sure I know), but didn't the law changes in 2015 require a CLEO to go before a judge and explain why a license is denied?
If so, I would think that "Because he wrote 'All Lawful Purposes' on the application" would not be a good enough reason, even in MA.
I'd be inclined to write it on the application in ALL CAPS, and sue the chief in court. I'd start a thread here to fund my legal expenses, and cost the town some money.
Am I wrong?
If so, I would think that "Because he wrote 'All Lawful Purposes' on the application" would not be a good enough reason, even in MA.
I'd be inclined to write it on the application in ALL CAPS, and sue the chief in court. I'd start a thread here to fund my legal expenses, and cost the town some money.
Am I wrong?
From what has been written here before it is more that the department will not accept an improperly filled out or incomplete application. Therefore a permit has not been denied. Semantics to be sure.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Write this down
I hereby apply for a Class A License to Carry Firearms (LTC/A), issued as “Restrictions: NONE” (formerly “All Lawful Purposes”) as set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, § 131(d). I do so for
the following reasons:
1. I wish to own guns which require a Class A LTC for home and personal defense
2. I am considering joining a rod & gun club to have a place to shoot, and these clubs
require a license to join, use the range, and to compete at events.
4. Because it is the class and reason for issuance recommended by the Massachusetts
Chiefs of Police and is the most commonly issued class of license for that reason*;
5. Because one is either qualified to own handguns, or one is not; and
6. Because there is no liability to a licensing authority who issues an LTC to a qualified applicant, regardless of the class and reason for issuance;
I therefore apply for an unrestricted Class A License to Carry Firearms (LTC/A); formerly issued as for “All Lawful Purposes.”
I hereby apply for a Class A License to Carry Firearms (LTC/A), issued as “Restrictions: NONE” (formerly “All Lawful Purposes”) as set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, § 131(d). I do so for
the following reasons:
1. I wish to own guns which require a Class A LTC for home and personal defense
2. I am considering joining a rod & gun club to have a place to shoot, and these clubs
require a license to join, use the range, and to compete at events.
4. Because it is the class and reason for issuance recommended by the Massachusetts
Chiefs of Police and is the most commonly issued class of license for that reason*;
5. Because one is either qualified to own handguns, or one is not; and
6. Because there is no liability to a licensing authority who issues an LTC to a qualified applicant, regardless of the class and reason for issuance;
I therefore apply for an unrestricted Class A License to Carry Firearms (LTC/A); formerly issued as for “All Lawful Purposes.”
Individualist
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,663
- Likes
- 4,366
Or more simply... ALP because it is my right as a law abiding citizen in good standing.
Technically correct, and the new law was more specific on what constituted suitability. BUT, the courts are not holding them to the new definition/standard. The courts still site "Broad Discretion" with no requirement to show a "risk to public safety" as the new law would require. And until someone gets this into a higher court to establish a new standard we're screwed.
All the CoP/LO needs to say is "During the application process the applicant was uncooperative and aggressive". And bingo you are unsuitable.
aeromarine
NES Member
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take up the Peruta case, reverse the lower court decision and declare the need to show "good cause" to be a violation of the Second Amendment. That should make your issue go away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego_County
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta_v._San_Diego_County
You'd need a witness to testify and 3+ years to fight it in court, meanwhile without a LTC. In MA the likelihood is that you'd lose even with all that.
amm5061
NES Member
Not sure if anything past personal safety would be a help or a hindrance. Might just make you a target for hunting/target restrictions.
allen-1
NES Member
Sorry, I just read this.
![[puke2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/031.gif "Puke2 [puke2]")
I want to carry a gun BECAUSE it's my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and For All Lawful Purposes.
And your appointed, in some cases elected, police chiefs won't "accept" this as legitimate cause?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[rules]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/034.gif "Rules [rules]")
![[banghead]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/045.gif "Bang Head [banghead]")
![[bs2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/047.gif "BS2 [bs2]")
I'm sorry, but your state sucks even worse than Connecticut does - and I left Connecticut in part due to the unreasonable gun laws.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,635
- Likes
- 49,137
Dude, I feel for you. Youre the guy that got dicked around by Everett a few years ago, no?
Anyone from a free state would laugh that we have to give a reason at all. We have become desensitized.
It doesn't help to go against the grain and ruffle feathers on principal. Remember the ultimate goal, your LTC.
It doesn't help to go against the grain and ruffle feathers on principal. Remember the ultimate goal, your LTC.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
That's right. Don't worry when they come for your neighbors, it's not you. And after they've established that they can come for anyone anytime, I'm sure you'll be fine.
You'll change your mind when your CoP decides anyone who wants an LTC is unsuitable, FIDs only. After all handguns are just for killing people, you can defend you home with a double barrel shotgun. MA court would support this. So sit back and relax, it'll come to you.
Same with Arlington. Last time I had the chance to talk with the CoP (a number of years ago), he told me that it is basically his policy to either issue ALP or deny the license. He said his view is that you're either sane enough to have a gun or you're not and so doesn't really see the point of a non-ALP license.
babygorilla
NES Member
What they (MA.gov) really need to do is get rid of the "sub" categories. FID, LTC or Denied. No other options.
Shrewsbury told me that the only restriction they issue is "For employment purposes only". They did that because the holder had an ongoing neighbor dispute and the police were there every weekend. He would have suspended or revoked the license, but the guy drove for Loomis Fargo and needed the LTC to keep his job.
They wont get rid of any sub categories. "They" are the ones that decided on them in the first place.
As many have said on this thread, get LTC, before its a LTC-IF/When/Where.
As many have said on this thread, get LTC, before its a LTC-IF/When/Where.
I had that personal discussion with a couple of chiefs now. If you don't trust them to carry responsibly, how can you trust them to abide by your ridiculous restrictions? Somehow they didn't "get it"!
I had suggested a long time ago something like the MA DL. It's a "junior" license until a certain age, then automatically gives all privileges. So it would be a single license good for low-capacity long guns until you turn 21, then automatically be a full-fledged LTC with no restrictions. It'll never happen in MA, as it makes too much sense.
Neptune Cat
NES Member
Take a look at #4 below.
I'll make this VERY simple. Here is the generally applicable portion of a "letter to the chief" (which I submit as an addendum to the app):
[Paragraphs 1 through 3 are for SPECIFIC reasons, like employment, competition,etc.]
4. On the advice of counsel, to prevent any confusion or liability resulting from a misinterpretation of the terms and conditions of a restricted license*(p. 69, ¶ 3
5. Because it is the class and reason for issuance recommended by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police and is the most commonly issued class of license for that reason* (p. 69, ¶ 5);
6. Because one is either qualified to own handguns, or one is not; and
7. Because there is no liability to a licensing authority who issues an LTC to a qualified applicant, regardless of the class and reason for issuance.
8. Because it is the Reason For Issuance for Non-Resident Licenses and it is illogical to issue a Massachusetts citizen a lesser license.
I therefore apply for a Class A License to Carry Firearms (LTC/A) issued for All Lawful Purposes.
* See Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law (8th Ed.), Glidden, Ron C., “§ 131 Notes” at Page 70 and “Frequently Asked Questions,” ¶¶ 2 through 5 at Page 218; see also the 6th Edition, Summary,” ¶ 2 - “Class B NOT Recommended,” ¶ 3 - “Restricted LTC’s,” and ¶ 5 - “All Lawful Purpose” at Page 69; “ See also the 4th Edition at pages 181-183.
I trust you can manage the rest.
GlockJock
NES Member
First off, a +1 and a "This" to your post (so that you don't think I'm ripping it...I'm simply referring to it)..
But..
A Supreme Court ruling might "Make the issue go away"???..Might make ANY issue go away? In a state where an angry, sniveling, arrogant, whackjob, see-you-next-Tuesday is so entirely effin deranged that she completely ignores the bill of rights anytime she effin pleases, yet is elected as the" top law enforcement officer" (and maybe even Governor eventually, the way this insane asylum state functions)?
Like she'd all of a sudden wake up one morning and forget that she's absolutely, totally miserable psychologically due to her personal life sh*t and dizzying "who am I really?" crises (starting when she was in friggin elementary or junior high school, according to those who know her) get behind and abide by ANY ruling/decision/case law/Constitutional wording/etc that doesn't suit her Liberal lunatic psyche?
Like she'd have her morning tea and crumpets with her wife and come to the realization that "Hey, wow!!!" I was actually born and raised in the United States of America?
Like she/they/anybody in power in MA gives a flying fork about even one single word or paragraph in the "great parchment" that doesn't relate to men marrying men, or women who aren't really women but think they are women and should be allowed to pee-pee with the ladies?.. or any other pressing, "urgent" life or death matter to these beserk wingnuts?
These people have their own g*ddamned agenda. If they gave a damn about the Constitution/Bill of Rights etc we wouldn't even be having this discussion. They elect each other (see: "Warren, Elizabeth Squaw" in the encyclopedia) BECAUSE they have their own agenda. And if that agenda differentiates from the Constitution?
Too bad! Eff it, Eff you, and completely Eff anyone who thinks differently from their "correct" way of thinking.
Last edited:
