Boston launches site: "Owning a firearm in Boston"

[LLF]

They'll reject you outright if you don't shoot above 200 on moon island.

I think its actually 210 (out of possible 300). As long as you hit all black on the target (its a big target) youll do fine.
Remember as has been said many times if you fail @ Moon Island theyll let you come back and try again without having to go thru the app process all over.
I had an old LTC from another town back in the 80s. At the time it was for Protection of Life & Property which meant unrestricted.
When I went to BPD to get my current license they found out I had this old license so they handled my app as a renewal.
Applied for All Lawful Purposes got a Sporting Target and Hunting.
I could get my attorney involved but right now its not worth it.

 

[fishgutzy]

No that was his predecessor Ed Davis

Thanks for the correction. Been a whole since I lived up there.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think its actually 210 (out of possible 300). As long as you hit all black on the target (its a big target) youll do fine.

It would be amusing to see Jerry Miculek take that test.

 

[SKumar]

When I went to BPD to get my current license they found out I had this old license so they handled my app as a renewal.
Applied for All Lawful Purposes got a Sporting Target and Hunting.
I could get my attorney involved but right now its not worth it.

I don't think you need an attorney. Len or Rob might know their way around this (I forgot off hand).

Then again, I doubt BPD are cracking down on the "target/hunting" concealers.

 

[kalash]

Further, in SC a gun owner without a CWP can have the gun in his/her possession while driving.

That was definitely nice when I was down in SC - loaded gun just sat in the glovebox and it was a non-issue.

There are some people down here who believe that everyone should have to pass the test to carry a gun. I believe everyone ought to WANT to take training and improve gun handling skills without having the government mandate it.

Agreed!

 

[drgrant]

If you move to Boston with an unrestricted LTC you just renewed 1 month ago, Boston can't change the restrictions, right?

No, they're not the issuing authority in that case. They could downgrade on renewal but the last few people who I have talked to that renewed in Boston have not been downgraded.

New apps are still getting punched square in the rectum, though, unless you are willing to take them head on. Unfortunately most of the newbs I've run into that ended up with restrictions are the meek variety or ignored everything I told them. "Oh I forgot to ask about that." "well, you're going to get restricted now, watch..." sure enough, time goes by, restriction, what a surprise.

-Mike

 

[LLF]

If you move to Boston with an unrestricted LTC you just renewed 1 month ago, Boston can't change the restrictions, right?

Assuming it was a Mass license its good as is until it expires. Thank God this miserable state hasnt gotten around to making you re-apply town to town if you move.
MAKE SURE you notify the authorities of your new current address certified mail return receipt requested.

 

[MachineHead]

That was definitely nice when I was down in SC - loaded gun just sat in the glovebox and it was a non-issue.

Funny thing was when I went down to SC, I had a small locking safe under the seat secured to the car seat frame. Could I store it there while driving? Nope. So, my gf and I were laughing as we approached the state SC state line and put it in the glove box right before crossing.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

I asked legitimate questions, inquiring as to how your mandatory safety training scheme would work. Are you able to answer fairly simple questions or no??

If you can ask simple questions...sure.

Make up your mind - you're either making someone else pay for your test or you want people to pay out of pocket, thus alienating the poor. Which do you actually propose?

Let's be clear - currently, there is NO law in the Commonwealth that prohibits adults from allowing a NON_permit_holding person from visiting a gun range, handling a firearm, and shooting it (assuming under-supervision). Folks do it all the time to bring new people into the fold. If this 'activity' were professionally organized as part of a safety or test-prep initiative, I believe that it would not-only be successful, the State and the Law Enforcement community would wholeheartedly SUPPORT it. When was the last time you saw someone 'protest' a Johnny Appleseed event? NEVER happened.

So if I like to collect WWI bolt-action rifles, I have to be able to use a different type of firearm that I have no interest in?

If you intend to carry that under your coat pocket as your CC firearm, and you want to be that "well-regulated militia", then the State might have an interest in you not being a danger to the public. A danger to yourself? Well, if you put a round through your own foot, or head, I suppose that's your problem.....

 

[kalash]

If you can ask simple questions...sure.

Ok, so you don't actually have any idea how this mandatory training scheme should work and you can't be bothered to even try to address any potential issues with it. Got it.

Let's be clear - currently, there is NO law in the Commonwealth that prohibits adults from allowing a NON_permit_holding person from visiting a gun range, handling a firearm, and shooting it (assuming under-supervision). Folks do it all the time to bring new people into the fold. If this 'activity' were professionally organized as part of a safety or test-prep initiative, I believe that it would not-only be successful, the State and the Law Enforcement community would wholeheartedly SUPPORT it. When was the last time you saw someone 'protest' a Johnny Appleseed event? NEVER happened.

WHO WILL PAY FOR THIS? I'm a state certified instructor, who pays for my time, materials, and ammo to train people? Currently, it's the students themselves, which not only places a financial strain on the poor, but is also essentially a tax levied on a constitutionally protected right - it's morally indefensible. Any other suggestions?

If you intend to carry that under your coat pocket as your CC firearm, and you want to be that "well-regulated militia", then the State might have an interest in you not being a danger to the public. A danger to yourself? Well, if you put a round through your own foot, or head, I suppose that's your problem.....

You're not making any sense. I didn't say anything about carrying. If you're concerned with public safety, you should logically also be concerned with me negligently putting a steel core 7.62x54R round through a dozen walls made of drywall and into my neighbor's kids playroom, no? If you think we should have mandatory training for carrying only and not for mere ownership/possession and you hinge your argument on safety, you're being intellectually dishonest. If you think that ownership on its own should require safety training, well, go back and see my previous post.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

Ok, so you don't actually have any idea how this mandatory training scheme should work and you can't be bothered to even try to address any potential issues with it. Got it.



WHO WILL PAY FOR THIS? I'm a state certified instructor, who pays for my time, materials, and ammo to train people? Currently, it's the students themselves, which not only places a financial strain on the poor, but is also essentially a tax levied on a constitutionally protected right - it's morally indefensible. Any other suggestions?




You're not making any sense. I didn't say anything about carrying. If you're concerned with public safety, you should logically also be concerned with me negligently putting a steel core 7.62x54R round through a dozen walls made of drywall and into my neighbor's kids playroom, no? If you think we should have mandatory training for carrying only and not for mere ownership/possession and you hinge your argument on safety, you're being intellectually dishonest. If you think that ownership on its own should require safety training, well, go back and see my previous post.

Methinks you've NEVER learned how to operate a motor vehicle without PAYING someone else (a 'state certified instructor' as you put it) to teach you? Or are you just being obtuse to be argumentative? My father taught me with his car....it wasn't that difficult. The State was satisfied with this instruction technique so-long as I read their manual (provided free-of-charge), and passed their test - it really didn't matter HOW I learned, so long as I knew what they wanted me to know....got it?

I also learned gun safety and operation from him, too - net-cost? Zero. Well, he had to buy the ammo, but still.

My Father's Gun Club also had free training for new folks....but that's in PA. We can't POSSIBLY have that in MA because "m*******s", apparently.

I'm guessing your REAL issue is that for Boston, you are subject to MANDATORY training for obtaining the opportunity to even posses/purchase, let-alone carry. That's somehow a 'burden' because POOR. As-if poor people should just have enough money to buy a gun, and enough ammo to load it, and not bother to practice (because poor), and that's "their right". Other states, you just walk into Dick's/Cabelas, plunk down your $300 and walk out-the-door with a shotgun and a box of shells and you're "good-to-go" as far as the State is concerned - and you want that here.

Have you ever been on the road with people who didn't have a drivers license, and ZERO driver education? DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT HIGHWAY WITH THEM? "As long as they don't hit me, it's someone else's problem...." ??? Understand that for densely-populated urban environments, stray bullets might be MORE of an issue, than, say the rural cornfields of Ohio? Cities might impose a few more rules because of the obvious geographic issues/logistics? How terrible....Rome will surely fall because of this. Perhaps "the Poor" would appreciate you taking-up a collection to buy them some practice ammo for their test?

 

[firestorm]

Methinks you've NEVER learned how to operate a motor vehicle without PAYING someone else (a 'state certified instructor' as you put it) to teach you? Or are you just being obtuse to be argumentative? My father taught me with his car....it wasn't that difficult. The State was satisfied with this instruction technique so-long as I read their manual (provided free-of-charge), and passed their test - it really didn't matter HOW I learned, so long as I knew what they wanted me to know....got it?

I also learned gun safety and operation from him, too - net-cost? Zero. Well, he had to buy the ammo, but still.

My Father's Gun Club also had free training for new folks....but that's in PA. We can't POSSIBLY have that in MA because "m*******s", apparently.

I'm guessing your REAL issue is that for Boston, you are subject to MANDATORY training for obtaining the opportunity to even posses/purchase, let-alone carry. That's somehow a 'burden' because POOR. As-if poor people should just have enough money to buy a gun, and enough ammo to load it, and not bother to practice (because poor), and that's "their right". Other states, you just walk into Dick's/Cabelas, plunk down your $300 and walk out-the-door with a shotgun and a box of shells and you're "good-to-go" as far as the State is concerned - and you want that here.

Have you ever been on the road with people who didn't have a drivers license, and ZERO driver education? DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT HIGHWAY WITH THEM? "As long as they don't hit me, it's someone else's problem...." ??? Understand that for densely-populated urban environments, stray bullets might be MORE of an issue, than, say the rural cornfields of Ohio? Cities might impose a few more rules because of the obvious geographic issues/logistics? How terrible....Rome will surely fall because of this. Perhaps "the Poor" would appreciate you taking-up a collection to buy them some practice ammo for their test?

Yet again, your position seems to be that gun ownership is not a right. Having to bend the knee, ask permission from the state and go through a bunch of hoops simply to possess is a heavy burden on your rights. How about before you are allowed an opinion you have to go to some basic classes, then the state will have a test you can schedule 6 months out or so, then when the license comes in you can state your opinion to others. Sound fair? I mean we wouldn't want any dangerous opinions out there without training...

 

[kalash]

Methinks you've NEVER learned how to operate a motor vehicle without PAYING someone else (a 'state certified instructor' as you put it) to teach you?

Which amendment outlines a right to driving? I must've missed that one.

I also learned gun safety and operation from him, too...

Good for you. What about those who don't have a gun-totin' father to teach them?

- net-cost? Zero. Well, he had to buy the ammo, but still.

Yeah! Who cares when someone else is paying for it, right?? This is textbook-perfect leftist thinking.

I'm guessing your REAL issue is that for Boston, you are subject to MANDATORY training for obtaining the opportunity to even posses/purchase, let-alone carry. That's somehow a 'burden' because POOR. As-if poor people should just have enough money to buy a gun, and enough ammo to load it, and not bother to practice (because poor), and that's "their right".

Well it actually is their right, yes. Also, to get a home defense gun in MA you're looking at $100 for a safety course, $100 application fee, $150 for a safe to satisfy storage laws; license renewal every five years... For what, a $200 home defense shotgun? I don't know about you, but several hundred dollars is a big deal for your average working man.

Other states, you just walk into Dick's/Cabelas, plunk down your $300 and walk out-the-door with a shotgun and a box of shells and you're "good-to-go" as far as the State is concerned - and you want that here.

Is blood running in the streets in those states? Last I checked you didn't even need license to carry in VT, NH, and ME and yet those are the safest states in the country.

Understand that for densely-populated urban environments, stray bullets might be MORE of an issue, than, say the rural cornfields of Ohio? Cities might impose a few more rules because of the obvious geographic issues/logistics? How terrible....Rome will surely fall because of this. Perhaps "the Poor" would appreciate you taking-up a collection to buy them some practice ammo for their test?

Have you ever considered that there are poor people outside of cities? Have you ever considered that poor people in inner city neighborhoods with high crime have more of a reason to want to defend themselves than, well, you?

 

[kalash]

Curiously enough, I don't see a training requirement in "shall not be infringed". Tell me, who gets to decide the standard for this training, upon which your rights depend? Who is going to pay for said training? How long is it valid for? Do you have to re-train periodically? Do cops have to pass it too? How often will training be available, in case someone needs to protect themselves ASAP?

By the way, still waiting for answers to these questions. Can we get away with just a printout of the basic rules of safety with every new gun purchase?

 

[bigblue]

You can't fix ignorance by doubling down on stupid.

 

[Dadstoys]

You can't fix ignorance by doubling down on stupid.

Government is the answer to everything.

 

[kalash]

Government is the answer to everything.

Hey! Show me your license to make sarcastic comments! Did you even take the required language safety course?

 

[Dadstoys]

Hey! Show me your license to make sarcastic comments! Did you even take the required language safety course?

I sent in my renewal 4 months ago but the Chief says the state is really slow.

 

[Waher]

I'm guessing your REAL issue is that for Boston, you are subject to MANDATORY training for obtaining the opportunity to even posses/purchase, let-alone carry. That's somehow a 'burden' because POOR. As-if poor people should just have enough money to buy a gun, and enough ammo to load it, and not bother to practice (because poor), and that's "their right".

Boston doesn't allow anyone which isn't driving a car to have access to Moon Island. So if you are one of the majority of poor people residing in the city which don't own a car and perhaps don't have a driver's license, you aren't going to be able to take the required exam. No taxis, Ubers, or persons other than authorized by the permission slip from BPD are allowed to drive through the checkpoint to get out to Moon Island either, so unless the security detail at the gate are being nice there's no asking for a ride from someone unless they are also taking the exam that day.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

What was this thread about anyway?

 

[drgrant]

I'm guessing your REAL issue is that for Boston, you are subject to MANDATORY training for obtaining the opportunity to even posses/purchase, let-alone carry. That's somehow a 'burden' because POOR. As-if poor people should just have enough money to buy a gun, and enough ammo to load it, and not bother to practice (because poor), and that's "their right". Other states, you just walk into Dick's/Cabelas, plunk down your $300 and walk out-the-door with a shotgun and a box of shells and you're "good-to-go" as far as the State is concerned - and you want that here.

Yeah, we do, because that's what the constitution says is appropriate. Not sure whats so ****ing difficult to understand about that...

Your "BWEAH PEEOPLE NEED TO BE FORCED INTO BEING TRAYNED" shit falls on deaf ears, given there are like 40 something states that require no training (spme not even for carry, but most of these, no training for basic ownership) and there aren't tons of people causing gun accidents etc. You've invented a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.

BTW I have had a gun pointed at me by a "freshly trained individual with a new LTC" so I'm not exactly a firm believer in any kind of a mandatory training regimen being any kind of qualifier with regards to whether or not someone will treat a firearm with respect. (and yeah, I almost made him eat the gun, but that's a whole other story).

Have you ever been on the road with people who didn't have a drivers license, and ZERO driver education? DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT HIGHWAY WITH THEM? "

Strawman Argument fail- You've basically just ascribed typical firearms use and possession to the same level of chaos and danger as that of operating a motor vehicle on a public road. That's just flat out ****ing retarded.








-Mike

 

[bigblue]

Flat. Out. Focking. Retarded.

 

[MGnoob]

We should make all Muslim take a religious safety class, and only allow practice of such religion after licensing, fees,fingerprinting, dna testing, and eating of one hotdog.

Gun ownership is no more dangerous than free speech or freedom of religion.
Or you going to claim religion and words dont kill.
9/11...BLM... case and point.

Some people think you can teach and train stupid away, its just not true.

 

[Lcstyle]

Have you ever been on the road with people who didn't have a drivers license, and ZERO driver education? DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT HIGHWAY WITH THEM? "As long as they don't hit me, it's someone else's problem...." ??? Understand that for densely-populated urban environments, stray bullets might be MORE of an issue, than, say the rural cornfields of Ohio? Cities might impose a few more rules because of the obvious geographic issues/logistics? How terrible....Rome will surely fall because of this. Perhaps "the Poor" would appreciate you taking-up a collection to buy them some practice ammo for their test?

Tell that to all the gang bangers running around the city shooting each other would ya, that all those stray bullets could hurt someone.
Oh yeah oddly enough BTW, doesn't seem to be a lot of stray bullets in the "rural cornfields of Ohio" where there's no training requirement.
Weird how that works huh?

Your sarcasm isn't surprising, but it does shows a sad disregard for life. Maybe you should tell Carol Bowne how she needed to be trained to defend herself.
Except you can't, because she's dead.

The statistics on all this are inexact, but not as alarming as you might think.
In cases where armed and experienced civilians have intervened to chal-
lenge armed criminals, the likelihood of bystanders being hit has been sev-
eral times less than in similar interventions by police. More important,
though, is something that cannot be statistically quantified. People who are
constantly afraid have lost their self-respect. And in an effort to get it back,
they call for vicarious revenge on crime by bellowing for law and order
solutions. When these fail to deliver, the talk turns to vigilantism. So one
ends up with the worst of both worlds - bloated, corrupt and repressive
police departments and assault weapons in the hands of the gangsters, with
public opinion still poisoned by fear. Instead of a confident citizenry, one
has a mass of atomized opinion-poll digits, crying in vain to authority to
save them, and loosing off the odd, vicious, Bernhard Goetz-style fusillade.
(The Black Panthers, who at least briefly taught better manners to the
police, also succumbed to gangsterism and illustrated the futility of Wild West-type tactics. there is no street-theater solution to this problem).
~Christopher Hitchens
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Essays/Myth of Gun Control/

 

[SKumar]

Have you ever been on the road with people who didn't have a drivers license, and ZERO driver education? DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT HIGHWAY WITH THEM?

Comparing regulation of cars to regulation of guns. This is the exact same logic Obama used for his gun control arguments.

 

[garandman]

Some people never write letters or attend public hearings out of fear of retribution. The 'suitability' issue in the Commonwealth makes that a real concern in places like Watertown and Brookline whom are always looking for any excuse to lord over the citizenry.Boston currently doesn't have that problem with regard to firearm licensing. But the city is known to engage in political retribution for other matters, so there is a chilling effect to not rock the boat.

In testimony at a hearing at the State House, Commissioner Ed Davis said words to the effect that "Lawful gun owners commit nearly zero crimes."

I've found quite the opposite. If you have a LCF in Boston, they assume you have "pull" somewhere.

Ironically, I've met many Bostonians who have a gun in their homes, think it's crazy not to have one, think it's equally crazy to tell the city they have one, and crazier still to pay for a license.

 

[smokey-seven]

MichaelJames1971 said:

Have you ever been on the road with people who didn't have a drivers license, and ZERO driver education? DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT HIGHWAY WITH THEM?

Yea, It's call Massachusetts. Unlicensed drivers in uninsured vehicles driven by illegal aliens.

 

[radioman]

The argument that compares guns with cars is bogus. Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights. Owning a gun is a God given constitutional right.

How much training does it take to know which end the bullet comes out? Don't pull the trigger unless you want a bullet to come out that end. You could do that in a five second reading of a pamphlet.

 

[kalash]

Ironically, I've met many Bostonians who have a gun in their homes, think it's crazy not to have one, think it's equally crazy to tell the city they have one, and crazier still to pay for a license.

Same.

"You're a gun owner too? Oh cool, I didn't even know you had a license."
"...what license?"