Any chance for getting approved for LTC in Worcester, MA for first timers?

[bostonasphalt2]

Show up at the interview with $1000 in your pocket ?

There are very few businesses that don't use cash occasionally.

I told the License Officer (different city) that I often had large amounts of cash on hand that needed transport to the bank for deposit.

It was not a lie.

I DID carry a few grand to the bank, but not every day. Sometimes once a month.

Enough IMHO to justify protection.

The License Officer is unlikely to interrogate you.

If you are not comfortable telling the truth ...... then don't say this.

But honestly, very few of us are in business as "Armored Car" security guards !

And the Officer will understand that even a few hundred dollars may be big money to you.

It's just an additional argument that you should use if you honestly feel it applies.

Easy:

Applicant: I carry large sums of cash
LO: Show me deposit slips

 

[BulletCubed]

Worcester wont be a problem for you. "All lawful purposes." and carry on. The wait to get your appointment may be long, but you'll get your unrestricted eventually in Worcester.

 

[Enzo]

When I got my LTC in Worcester unrestricted in 2015 under chief Gemme the purpose I put down was “All Lawful Purposes”.

The officer in the Licensing Division specifically told me to write, all lawful purposes.

 

[B-9]

Easy:

Applicant: I carry large sums of cash
LO: Show me deposit slips

You Got Me !!

Honestly, it's never going to get to that point.

And being forced to produce income or bank statements is unheard of.

It's far too easy to deny an applicant for any or no reason at all.

 

[Mesatchornug]

You Got Me !!

Honestly, it's never going to get to that point.

And being forced to produce income or bank statements is unheard of.

It's far too easy to deny an applicant for any or no reason at all.

Quite the opposite. I've heard of exactly that in Boston.

 

[Ravendark]

I think you should not carry a gun. Sounds like you draw too much attention to yourself as it is. If you got harrassed, what would you do, brandish?

What on earth does drawing too much attention to myself have to do with defending my life if needed? I would not brandish my firearm if I were harassed, that is defence weapon for if I feel my life is in danger. If someone pulls a knife, gun, or other weapon on me, sure, I'll gladly take out my weapon and do my best to scare the offender off while distancing myself. If someone is attacking me, I'll fire at them. But my job or appearance drawing attention has absolutely nothing to do with my constitutional right to self defense if the situation arises. I'm not the kind of person who would go waving a firearm at people for cat calling me or being creepy. But I sure as shit will if someone is following me late at night to my car from a gig or threatens my life. That's what it's for.

 

[42!]

What on earth does drawing too much attention to myself have to do with defending my life if needed? I would not brandish my firearm if I were harassed, that is defence weapon for if I feel my life is in danger. If someone pulls a knife, gun, or other weapon on me, sure, I'll gladly take out my weapon and do my best to scare the offender off while distancing myself. If someone is attacking me, I'll fire at them. But my job or appearance drawing attention has absolutely nothing to do with my constitutional right to self defense if the situation arises. I'm not the kind of person who would go waving a firearm at people for cat calling me or being creepy. But I sure as shit will if someone is following me late at night to my car from a gig or threatens my life. That's what it's for.

Unfortunately, in MA, you are wrong. The gun doesn't come out until AFTER there is a clear threat to your life and you have already formed the intent to shoot. Sure, something could change in that second or two from draw to shoot that results in you not shooting, and hopefully it does, but the threat to your life, and the decision to shoot has to come before the draw.

Consider the argument they will use. Why would you draw your gun if there was no threat to your life? Since doing this would would mean you were brandishing (assault), or were not acting in defence of your life (the only acceptable reason to draw a gun). So either the threat existed BEFORE you drew or you don't draw. Be very clear on this, if you ever have to draw your gun it will make the difference between your freedom and a long time in jail.

You pull a gun on someone who's only overt act is following you, and you can expect an assault charge that will at the least cost you your LTC, and at the most put you in jail.

 

[amm5061]

Unfortunately, in MA, you are wrong. The gun doesn't come out until AFTER there is a clear threat to your life and you have already formed the intent to shoot. Sure, something could change in that second or two from draw to shoot that results in you not shooting, and hopefully it does, but the threat to your life, and the decision to shoot has to come before the draw.

Consider the argument they will use. Why would you draw your gun if there was no threat to your life? Since doing this would would mean you were brandishing (assault), or were not acting in defence of your life (the only acceptable reason to draw a gun). So either the threat existed BEFORE you drew or you don't draw. Be very clear on this, if you ever have to draw your gun it will make the difference between your freedom and a long time in jail.

You pull a gun on someone who's only overt act is following you, and you can expect an assault charge that will at the least cost you your LTC, and at the most put you in jail.

Yup, that. Though if someone pulls a knife on you, you have pretty clear grounds to claim you believed your life was in danger. You would be surprised how quickly someone can close within stabbing distance.

 

[Ravendark]

Unfortunately, in MA, you are wrong. The gun doesn't come out until AFTER there is a clear threat to your life and you have already formed the intent to shoot. Sure, something could change in that second or two from draw to shoot that results in you not shooting, and hopefully it does, but the threat to your life, and the decision to shoot has to come before the draw.

Consider the argument they will use. Why would you draw your gun if there was no threat to your life? Since doing this would would mean you were brandishing (assault), or were not acting in defence of your life (the only acceptable reason to draw a gun). So either the threat existed BEFORE you drew or you don't draw. Be very clear on this, if you ever have to draw your gun it will make the difference between your freedom and a long time in jail.

You pull a gun on someone who's only overt act is following you, and you can expect an assault charge that will at the least cost you your LTC, and at the most put you in jail.

Thank you for the information! To clarify, in this situation I would only brandish if I was followed to my car, put myself between my car and them if I couldn't get into it in time, and they were actively trying to attack me once they reached me or if they reached me sooner. I wouldn't just assume someone walking behind me was actively following me to do harm. Escape is always the first plan. In Massachusetts, does a weapon have to displayed in order to justify brandishing a firearm? Or is the active attempt to attack someone justified? I know it's such a fine line and I hope I am never in that situation.

I will be continuing to take classes and I am hoping to find one that covers this area as well.

But I'm happy to hear that it isn't a struggle to apply in Worcester anymore. I'll be sure to let my instructors know that things have changed so that anyone else who asks them has up to date information.

 

[B-9]

Quite the opposite. I've heard of exactly that in Boston.

Glad I don't live in Boston !

 

[Mesatchornug]

Thank you for the information! To clarify, in this situation I would only brandish if I was followed to my car, put myself between my car and them if I couldn't get into it in time, and they were actively trying to attack me once they reached me or if they reached me sooner. I wouldn't just assume someone walking behind me was actively following me to do harm. Escape is always the first plan. In Massachusetts, does a weapon have to displayed in order to justify brandishing a firearm? Or is the active attempt to attack someone justified? I know it's such a fine line and I hope I am never in that situation.

I will be continuing to take classes and I am hoping to find one that covers this area as well.

But I'm happy to hear that it isn't a struggle to apply in Worcester anymore. I'll be sure to let my instructors know that things have changed so that anyone else who asks them has up to date information.

My layman's understanding is that there is no such thing as "brandishing" in MA. In fact, it's known as Assault with a Deadly Weapon to wit pistol. That is, There are other jurisdictions that describe an activity and give it the legal name of brandishing. We don't have that here. But make no mistake, pointing a gun at someone, or in any other way, threatening them is a crime - assault.

We need to start by understanding two things: first, you're never justified in escalating a situation; second, there is no way to use a firearm as less than lethal force. If all uses of a firearm are lethal force, then we can only ever use them to defend ourselves from immediate lethal threats.

Next, we need to remember that in MA (outside the walls of one's home) we have a duty to retreat. This means that if someone is threatening you, or even in the process of attacking you, your first priority must be to escape. If you have any exit available (say, getting in and locking your car) you must take that.

Finally, self-defense is what's called an "affirmative defense." This means that in order for it to apply in court, you must justify your actions to a judge and (most likely) jury.

Putting this all together -
After surviving likely the worst event of your life, you will be arrested. Several months and countless dollars later, you will find yourself in a courtroom in front of dozens of strangers who've never lived this experience - most of them believe that "duty to retreat" is common sense. You must convince them that you had a legitimate fear of "imminent grave bodily harm or death." You will demonstrate that you did everything in your power to prevent, avoid, deescalate, and escape the situation. Then, and only then, did you draw and present your firearm, using the least possible amount of force to stop the threat.
Meanwhile, the state's lawyers will use every trick available to them to discredit your story, this is how they prove they're "tough on crime," "keeping guns off the streets," and "thinking of the children."
Assuming you get a two word verdict, your chief of police will still have broad discretion over whether to let you continue to carry a firearm for your own protection. You will have to answer "yes" every time they ask "Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal offense?" Then you'll have to relive the entire ordeal as you explain it to them, and prove again that you aren't a bloodthirsty vigilante.

Seriously, welcome to the family, it's not all sad trombones.

 

[Billsail]

There was an infamous case (here on the forum anyway) a while back, where a man, an attorney IIRC, was arrested when his jacket blew open, exposing his holstered firearm. I don't remember the disposition of the case, but even if it was favorable, it was quite an ordeal to go through.

 

[Mesatchornug]

There was an infamous case (here on the forum anyway) a while back, where a man, an attorney IIRC, was arrested when his jacket blew open, exposing his holstered firearm. I don't remember the disposition of the case, but even if it was favorable, it was quite an ordeal to go through.

That one was awful for us. Fortunately, in my understanding, the Simkin decision replaced it.

 

[drgrant]

There was an infamous case (here on the forum anyway) a while back, where a man, an attorney IIRC, was arrested when his jacket blew open, exposing his holstered firearm. I don't remember the disposition of the case, but even if it was favorable, it was quite an ordeal to go through.

I don't even remember how that was disposed, but I remember that guy was an attorney and he got his gun and LTC back. The f***ed up thing was that he was never actually arrested, either. Happened in Springfield, IIRC.

-Mike

 

[Ravendark]

My layman's understanding is that there is no such thing as "brandishing" in MA. In fact, it's known as Assault with a Deadly Weapon to wit pistol. That is, There are other jurisdictions that describe an activity and give it the legal name of brandishing. We don't have that here. But make no mistake, pointing a gun at someone, or in any other way, threatening them is a crime - assault.

We need to start by understanding two things: first, you're never justified in escalating a situation; second, there is no way to use a firearm as less than lethal force. If all uses of a firearm are lethal force, then we can only ever use them to defend ourselves from immediate lethal threats.

Next, we need to remember that in MA (outside the walls of one's home) we have a duty to retreat. This means that if someone is threatening you, or even in the process of attacking you, your first priority must be to escape. If you have any exit available (say, getting in and locking your car) you must take that.

Finally, self-defense is what's called an "affirmative defense." This means that in order for it to apply in court, you must justify your actions to a judge and (most likely) jury.

Putting this all together -
After surviving likely the worst event of your life, you will be arrested. Several months and countless dollars later, you will find yourself in a courtroom in front of dozens of strangers who've never lived this experience - most of them believe that "duty to retreat" is common sense. You must convince them that you had a legitimate fear of "imminent grave bodily harm or death." You will demonstrate that you did everything in your power to prevent, avoid, deescalate, and escape the situation. Then, and only then, did you draw and present your firearm, using the least possible amount of force to stop the threat.
Meanwhile, the state's lawyers will use every trick available to them to discredit your story, this is how they prove they're "tough on crime," "keeping guns off the streets," and "thinking of the children."
Assuming you get a two word verdict, your chief of police will still have broad discretion over whether to let you continue to carry a firearm for your own protection. You will have to answer "yes" every time they ask "Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal offense?" Then you'll have to relive the entire ordeal as you explain it to them, and prove again that you aren't a bloodthirsty vigilante.

Seriously, welcome to the family, it's not all sad trombones.

Thank you so much! This was exactly my thought process. Doing everything I can to escape and distance myself by all means necessary is always the first priority. It's great to know the legal side of it all as well. It's definitely something I need to study. And I hope it never ever comes to that ever.

 

[42!]

Just remember, if something should happen, only say "I want to talk to my attorney". Pick a lawyer now and carry his/her contact info, not just in your phone. No reason to let them go looking in your phone just because you need a number.

Sure, this all sounds a little paranoid, but it's really just being prepared. Once you are prepared, move on to something more fun.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

You Got Me !!

Honestly, it's never going to get to that point.

And being forced to produce income or bank statements is unheard of.

It's far too easy to deny an applicant for any or no reason at all.

Except it has happened

 

[a73elkyss]

I just left Worcester after almost 20 years there. OP, others here may disagree, but I think your info is out of date.... There was a dramatic change in the liscensing philosophy a few years ago even before Gemme retired. For a big democratic mob run city, Worcester gives a LOT of unrestricted LTCs now, including to first-timers.

I was told that there were a lot of people suing the city, including some who really had the means to fight and cost the city a lot of money and Gemme was told to stand down. Disclaimer: just what I was told, no first-hand knowledge.

I am not NES qualified or authorized to label a city "Green", but I think Worcester is the most Green big city in Mass right now.

I agree that I think you are getting "out of date" information about Worcester. I'm no fan of Worcester by any means, but I do have two relatives living in Worcester, who applied and received their unrestricted LTC. Took a while for the whole process, but no hiccups.

Best of luck.

Jay

 

[Olympus Racing]

I’m not sure where you get your info but lately
Worcester has been as green as it gets with MA LTC

 

[drgrant]

I just left Worcester after almost 20 years there. OP, others here may disagree, but I think your info is out of date.... There was a dramatic change in the liscensing philosophy a few years ago even before Gemme retired. For a big democratic mob run city, Worcester gives a LOT of unrestricted LTCs now, including to first-timers.

I was told that there were a lot of people suing the city, including some who really had the means to fight and cost the city a lot of money and Gemme was told to stand down. Disclaimer: just what I was told, no first-hand knowledge.

I am not NES qualified or authorized to label a city "Green", but I think Worcester is the most Green big city in Mass right now.

It's definitely changed but I would NOT be surprised if they still drag ass like a dog with dingleberries wiping itself on the carpet.... unless the new Chief has changed things that much more. It's one thing if it takes too long but they're honest about it; (a lot of these PDs are understaffed, not that its a valid excuse) but that's a world of difference from voicemail-no-response-hell-65-days-into-an-app BS thats common in some of the shit towns in MA.

-Mike