Boston PD Renewals -- range test?

[dwarven1]

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have the stable job and ability to move around to find the ideal LTC-A ALP town or hire a lawyer to fight for them. I'm sick and f***ing tired of people like Scrivener, you, and Jim who sit in the comfort of friendly towns and continually ridicule those who don't have that flexibility at thi time.

Ex-friggin'-scuse me?? "Continually ridicule"?? I quoted Scrivener's line earlier this evening - ONCE - to point out that people who accepted the status quo were the ones responsible for keeping it alive. I do NOT make a practice of ridiculing people who are unfortunate enough to get stuck in a town with a fascist CLEO like Worcester; in fact, I usually DEFEND them and point out that it takes a lot of resources to move. Or haven't you noticed my mentioning that moving to NH is an impossibility at this time, repeatedly?

Maybe in a few years, if, God forbid, I'm still stuck in this Godforsaken city and start pulling insix figures, then I'll try the above. But for me, and many others, it is simply not practical to fight it or move.

The next year I make six figures will be the first. I'd love it - but I don't see it happening any time soon. Nice try. I make a decent living, but not that decent.

 

[Scrivener]

Scriv, don't get into attacking the folks here. It won't be tolerated.

But obscenity-saturated tirades will. Stellar sense of proportion.

One way the bureaucrats win is by requiring "small stuff" (e.g. course for each renewal, range test, doctors letter, etc.) which may cost the applicant another $100.00-200.00 . . . Don't think that these licensing authorities don't know what they are doing and why they can get away with it.

And those who blithely declare,

Test is easy. Frankly, the fact that they're giving me a gun and free ammo to shoot at a target in a laughably easy range test doesn't bother me all that much except it means I have to wait a few more days.

aid and abet those bureacratic bullies with their supine compliance, encouraging MORE such abuses. Good work.

Some consider blind obeisance to bullies and servile compliance too high a price and find that approach a false economy.

 

[Len-2A Training]

. . .

 

[vellnueve]

The next year I make six figures will be the first. I'd love it - but I don't see it happening any time soon. Nice try. I make a decent living, but not that decent.

Wasn't referring to you.

 

[Scrivener]

The rules here are that we do NOT attack each other (members of NES). Rants against politicians and bureaucrats are tolerated.

Then let's review:

I'm sick and f***ing tired of people like Scrivener, you, and Jim who sit in the comfort of friendly towns and continually ridicule those who don't have that flexibility at thi time.

Now square that rant with your transparent rationalization about "politicians and bureaucrats."

 

[Len-2A Training]

He wasn't insulting/attacking you, just expressing that he felt like YOU attacked him.

 

[drgrant]

I have. As those actually following gun law in this state on this forum know.

And in the case of Boston, does challenging them result in a
change in policy? Or does one just get the vacuum sucking sound
of the cash being sucked out of the client's wallet?
I would venture a safe guess that even in a place like boston,
the guy who lawyers up might get a pass on the requirement, but
the PD will go back to its old tricks on the next applicant that
comes through the door. They know that there is really little to
no penalty for them abusing the system, and 99 out of every 100
people don't have the money, time, or the inclination to challenge
them.

I agree in principle that showing these bastards up is a good
idea, but I think in reality most people do not have the resources
to do so.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

+1
Testing to gain access to a right is illogical, regardless of the ease of the test.

We shouldn't have to beg for the right
(filling out "may issue" paperwork especially) never mind get
tested for it! The range test in boston is just a dollop of vomit
on top of a large cake which was fabricated out of poop. It
doesn't change the overall flavor that much. MA Gun laws=

-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

And in the case of Boston, does challenging them [sic] result in a
change in policy? Or does one just get the vacuum sucking sound
of the cash being sucked out of the client's wallet?

You are misinformed. Boston has not been challenged; Brookline and Watertown have been. Because Brookline uses the "Boston Test," the logic of the Brookline decision would apply directly to Boston. I have even heard that Boston no longer requires the test, but have not had that claim confirmed.

I would venture a safe guess that even in a place like boston, the guy who lawyers up might get a pass on the requirement, but
the PD will go back to its old tricks on the next applicant that
comes through the door. They know that there is really little to
no penalty for them abusing the system, and 99 out of every 100
people don't have the money, time, or the inclination to challenge them.

The costs of defending a policy declared to be unlawful is not something finance committees like to see on the budget.

As for the invertebrates who comply with a "requirement" already deemed outside the chief's powers, they deserve what they get for undermining the achievements of their predecessors.

I agree in principle that showing these bastards up is a good idea, but I think in reality most people do not have the resources to do so.

Given that the cost of a "bitch-slap" letter to the chief citing the court's decision would likely be sufficient, the minor cost of an attorney drafting that letter would probably not exceed the asinine "range test."

At worst, the letter would make a marvelous exhibit to the Petition for Judicial Review, as well as part of the story should the local paper cover it (as both the Brookline and Watertown Tab did).

 

[drgrant]

You are misinformed. Boston has not been challenged; Brookline and Watertown have been. Because Brookline uses the "Boston Test," the logic of the Brookline decision would apply directly to Boston. I have even heard that Boston no longer requires the test, but have not had that claim confirmed.

Maybe not so much misinformed, but perhaps I misstated my
question... The point I was trying to make, was how many
bitch-slaps does it take before the IA will stop asking for illegal
things? Since IAs have been known to abuse the system, it
would not surprise me in the least if some of them maintain these
unlawful requirements despite being slapped a few times over
it....

The costs of defending a policy declared to be unlawful is not something finance committees like to see on the budget.

Even if this is true, there is nothing preventing an IA
from saying "we require a range test" and then just backing
down (at that moment) when the client says he's going to bring
them to court over it, thus avoiding any BS higher up, but still
allowing them to (generally) maintain an illegal policy. (well, at
least for any person that doesn't question it!)

To top it off, I get the impression that for big cities like Brookline
and Boston that the legal costs for coping with the PD's illegal
policy probably end up amounting to mouse milk compared to the
rest of the legal costs they have. (eg, people suing the PD/town
for other things, etc). EG, these costs get swept under
the rug or get justified. Of course, if a shit-ton of people
started taking them to court, that might change because then
it starts showing up on the radar as a lot of red ink.

As for the invertebrates who comply with a "requirement" already deemed outside the chief's powers, they deserve what they get for undermining the achievements of their predecessors.

Are they still invertebrates if they can't afford to obtain
competent counsel?

Given that the cost of a "bitch-slap" letter to the chief citing the court's decision would likely be sufficient, the minor cost of an attorney drafting that letter would probably not exceed the asinine "range test."

And roughly, what does one of those letters cost?

I agree that the range test has a "cost" at least if one is
currently employed; because basically you'd have to take a half
day of work off or something just to take it. Of course, if
the client is in a lower income bracket, say, making 10 bucks
an hour or something, you mean to tell me you'd write someone
a letter for $40 or less?

At worst, the letter would make a marvelous exhibit to the Petition for Judicial Review, as well as part of the story should the local paper cover it (as both the Brookline and Watertown Tab did).

That I can agree with, the only way to get rid of these thugs
ultimately is to make them unpopular.

-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

First, word spreads. RAPIDLY, in this community. Any serious shooter - and that's the type who'd be going for an unrestricted LTC/A and willing to fight for it - would hear about the town losing.

That should mean more applicants telling the IA to pound sand on the BS requirements, such as "range tests," club memberships and holding a hunting license.

If three people a week walk in, tell the IA to shove it and walk out, they may think it's an organization. If fifty people a month walk in and tell them to shove it - can you imagine; 50 PEOPLE A MONTH! - , they may think it's a movement. And that's what it is, the LTC Anti-Licensing Abuse Movement! And all ya gotta do to join is tell your IA you won't put up with any more abuses on your next application - with FEELING.

With apologies to Arlo Guthrie.

Second, there is a often a cost involved for the "test," be it a flat-out charge for it or to an instructor. There is also the day of worked missed, as you pointed out. Compared to that, the $150-200 for an attorney's letter is hardly insurmountable. You also ignore the intangible benefit to the applicant - not crawling.

Some consider that a considerable and cost-effective course of action.

 

[Len-2A Training]

. . .

 

[vellnueve]

There's no charge for the Moon Island test in Boston.

 

[Scrivener]

There's no charge for the Moon Island test in Boston.

And why is that? Because the fee was successfully challenged in court.

Further, Brookline allows the test to be take elsewhere, which means there may well be a fee.

 

[M1911]

I have even heard that Boston no longer requires the test, but have not had that claim confirmed.

I'd appreciate it if you could let us know if you get that confirmed. I just called the Boston Police licensing phone number and the person who answered told me the Moon Island range test is still required. Of course, she might have been misinformed...

 

[Scrivener]

I'd appreciate it if you could let us know if you get that confirmed.

As you're the one applying there, YOU are the one who could - and should - "get that confirmed."

And if the LO claims it is, ask how that is possible in the face of MGL 140, s. 131P, 515 CMR 3.05 and the Brookline decision finding they supersede the local LA's imposition of additional "safety tests."

 

[M1911]

As you're the one applying there, YOU are the one who could - and should - "get that confirmed."

Just to be clear, I'm NOT the one who will be applying there. I know a woman who is in the process of applying there and I'm trying to help her where I can. My request was that if you received confirmation before she does, that you share it with us.

 

[Scrivener]

Just to be clear, I'm NOT the one who will be applying there. I know a woman who is in the process of applying there and I'm trying to help her where I can. My request was that if you received confirmation before she does, that you share it with us.

Should I get reliable information on that subject, I'll pass it along. In the meantime, your friend would seem to be the prime source for such news.

 

[jon]

I honestly have to say, while the opinions of many people on here may be right, the way they foist them on others is rediculous.

Having just finished graduate school in Boston, (thank god I didn't get my LTC there as Boston/SOM refuses to acknowledge a change of residency to MA if you are student. Don't want them to fawk up the vote or get the in state rates you know) I can attest to the lifestyle that vellnueve is currently living. The horrible pay ($10/hr is generous) really precludes any legal counsel when he can easily take the test and be done with it.

What this would have been a great time however is for one of the gun law advocates to put their money where their mouth is and fund the case.

 

[M1911]

Should I get reliable information on that subject, I'll pass it along. In the meantime, your friend would seem to be the prime source for such news.

I'll certainly update the thread when I get more information from my acquaintance.

I have mentioned to her that she could fight this, but she is in poor health and I suspect she will chose not to do so.

 

[the_doctor]

4. The requirement of a full-size revolver shot double-action, single-handed is likely (and quite possibly intended) to prevent women, Asians, Latinos and the elderly or otherwise arthritic from passing.

Why would you think that a woman could not fire in such a way? How do you think Asians and Latinos? are going to fail? I am confused as many people think of themselves as Latin. I have met Gypsies from Romania that call themselves Latin. Are they going to fail the test?

To be honest I think that your opinion smacks of racial intolerance.

I could see that the argument of the test being designed for males with large hands. Especially since police are now aware of trigger pull and grip sizes vary and typically buy weapons with customization options.

Bill

 

[dwarven1]

Why would you think that a woman could not fire in such a way? How do you think Asians and Latinos? are going to fail? I am confused as many people think of themselves as Latin. I have met Gypsies from Romania that call themselves Latin. Are they going to fail the test?

To be honest I think that your opinion smacks of racial intolerance.

Oh, lord... the race card. Here on NES.

I don't know about Latinos, but most of the Asians I know are smaller in stature - probably with correspondingly smaller hands. Or maybe the BPD was just thinking that when they put the test in. (of course, my friend Ted is definitely an exception to that - six foot tall and he calls himself an ABC - American Born Chinese. His only accent is pure Boston) Certainly my mother couldn't fire that Ruger, nor could several of my female friends. Small hands.

Hell, if they were still using the Model 10 with those G-d-awful full-sized S&W grips, I might fail the test! And I normally use a 1911! But the S&W grips simply don't fit my hands - I have short fingers.

Tell me something... if I say that Irish folks are more likely to get a sunburn in the summer, am I being racist? Why or why not? How about if it's TRUE? Is it racist then?

 

[vellnueve]

I'm Asian, and I passed the test easily. My favorite (hand)gun is my S&W 520 L-Frame .357.

 

[GSG]

Dwarven, I'm Irish, and I do not in fact burn easy in the summer. I absorb sunlight for some reason, and the only times I've ever burned is after an allergic reaction to sunblock.

And no, it's not racist, because most of us Irish get crispy from anything brighter than a overhead lamp.

 

[M1911]

Why would you think that a woman could not fire in such a way?

I was working with the woman in question on Saturday. She was using her S&W revolver, which has had a pretty darn good trigger job on it. It has a considerably lighter trigger on it than my model 60, upon which I've done a spring job and trigger job -- so mine is considerably lighter than stock and hers is lighter still.

The fact is that she has a very hard time pulling the double action trigger on her revolver. She can almost not pull it at all, let alone hold it one-handed, pull the trigger, and maintain sight alignment at the same time. She's fine firing single action and put two rounds in a 3 inch bull at 45 feet, standing with a two-handed grip. Her marksmanship is fine.

But old age, arthritis, lung cancer, surgery, and chemo have ganged up on her so that she just doesn't have much strength.

 

[Bugs100]

The Moon Island test is still required I took it very recently. You can only take it now at 7am.

 

[Scrivener]

The Moon Island test is still required I took it very recently. You can only take it now at 7am.

Or you can cite the statute, the CMR and the Brookline decision and challenge the "requirement."

 

[vellnueve]

That's a brilliant idea!

Lemme PM Cross-X.

 

[Scrivener]

Special Operators are standing by!