Class A LTC w/ Restrictions

[RIPOPOTMUS]

I spoke with an officer last night who is in charge of firearm licensing in a town in Massachusetts. (I won't get into specifics about who/where because it was a private conversation). I noticed that his town does not allow unrestricted Class A LTC, so I asked his reasoning behind this decision. He said that he will renew existing Class A permits because he doesn't think it would be fair to take away that right for no reason, but he will not issue new unrestriced Class A's.

His reasoning for not issuing new unrestricted LTC's is that he "doesn't trust the average person to have a gun out on the town, at the movies, at a bar with women and children around etc." First of all, I think it's a pretty condescending viewpoint considering the he and his fellow officers are allowed to carry. I guess us lowly civilians can't be trusted to protect ourselves outside of our homes. I'm in no position to debate the guy, so I just bit my lip and continued the conversation.

Another problem I have with his reasoning is that he will renew unrestricted LTC's which shows that he realizes there are responsible gun owners out there, and that they should be allowed to carry. To flat out deny any new applications contradicts this thinking. If someone can demonstrate that they are a responsible and safe gun owner then they should be allowed to carry. There has to be some kind of competency test he can administer rather than just saying "no". That's just lazy and it punishes good citizens who are having their rights infringed for no reason.

I just thought I'd give you all some insight into how some of those in charge of permitting feel. I know I'm preaching to the choir.

 

[Dirtypacman]

It makes me sick to hear that but its not something I have not heard before from others.
I say toss the city out there - you should have nothing to fear. The more we know about how these jerks think the better we are to change the system.

by the way welcome to the forum thanks for joining in the discussions.

 

[BOBKATT]

I say toss the city out there - you should have nothing to fear. The more we know about how these jerks think the better we are to change the system.

I agree. This is a slimebag who thinks he has the right to deny the rights of others. I say throw him under the bus. We need to be aware of who is who if we are going to get anything changed.

 

[vicpinto]

He said that he will renew existing Class A permits because he doesn't think it would be fair to take away that right for no reason, but he will not issue new unrestriced Class A's.

So, it's not fair to take away a right previously given but not giving the same right is fair game? That's great logic.

 

[firestorm]

At least post the town in the thread on gun rights by town, let us know who it is that will renew existing but not give new. its info that people moving to that town might like to have.

 

[RIPOPOTMUS]

At least post the town in the thread on gun rights by town, let us know who it is that will renew existing but not give new. its info that people moving to that town might like to have.

The town is currently listed on the gun rights by town thread. That is where I got the idea to ask him about his policies. The reason I am hesitant to name the town is that he is my professor at the moment so I'd rather not make myself a target. I may be a coward in that respect but I'm just looking out for myself.

 

[firestorm]

How would it make you a target? If you hadnt let that info slip, then nobody would know that you had any connection to him. I cant fault someone for not wanting to hurt themselves, but posting something like that doesnt help anyone if we dont know where it is and cant use the info.

 

[BOBKATT]

The town is currently listed on the gun rights by town thread. That is where I got the idea to ask him about his policies. The reason I am hesitant to name the town is that he is my professor at the moment so I'd rather not make myself a target. I may be a coward in that respect but I'm just looking out for myself.

I understand if you do not want to make yourself a target but if it's listed on the gun rights by town thread is it listed correctly as a town that will not issue?

 

[RIPOPOTMUS]

How would it make you a target? If you hadnt let that info slip, then nobody would know that you had any connection to him. I cant fault someone for not wanting to hurt themselves, but posting something like that doesnt help anyone if we dont know where it is and cant use the info.

I want to post the info as bad as you want to see it but I figure if I put the name of the town in my post someone may know who the licensing authority in that town is and post his name on this thread for whatever reason. Then if he simply googled his name (which many people do from time to time) then this thread may come up and it would be pretty easy for him to determine that it was me. I REALLY don't want to be "that guy".

Stranger things have happened.

 

[firestorm]

Thats fine, but it still comes down to Bobkatt's question, is the town listed correctly as one that will not issue ALP? Or is it mislabeled as a green town. even without telling us what town it is, you can let us know that much.

 

[MikeD]

Pretty f'ing pathetic when people in Ma. are so terrified of the local authorities that they fear retribution if they speak out against them.

 

[RIPOPOTMUS]

The town is currently listed on the gun rights by town thread. That is where I got the idea to ask him about his policies.

Yes - it is correctly listed as bold red - "may issue with restrictions". That's what I meant to infer from the above quote - I apologize if I was unclear. That is part of the reason I see no need to list the town right now - the info is already available. I will be sure to update this thread with the name of the town when I feel comfortable doing so. Thanks for understanding.

 

[RIPOPOTMUS]

Pretty f'ing pathetic when people in Ma. are so terrified of the local authorities that they fear retribution if they speak out against them.

I knew I would take a lot of heat for this, but that's fine with me. If I come on here and start throwing his name around and he happens to stumble across it then he'll be sure never to give me any honest insight into the thinking behind his policies for fear of having everything he says posted online. It's just not a good idea right now. I think I'm making the right decision here.

**If anyone has any questions that you'd like me to try to have him answer, post them and I'll do my best to slip 'em in there**

 

[2000GM]

Pretty f'ing pathetic when people in Ma. are so terrified of the local authorities that they fear retribution if they speak out against them.

I agree to a point, but I also think it would be bad form to post the details of a private conversation he had with someone on an open forum, and then post his name. Unless of course he had disclosed to the person that he would be doing so.

 

[cbrburns]

Sounds exactly like the conversation I had with my issuing officer in Winchendon. Renews existing licenses, but refuses to issue new ALP's. We all know how violent Winchendon is, you're more likely to encounter a rabid fisher cat than an armed citizen.

 

[massnee]

based on the op's conversation I believe I know who he spoke to...

 

[gene]

I doubt that the pathetic argument described for not issuing ALP is a one time conversation the license officer had with you. Sounds more like a philosophy!

 

[Hanwei]

Pretty f'ing pathetic when people in Ma. are so terrified of the local authorities that they fear retribution if they speak out against them.

I knew I would take a lot of heat for this, but that's fine with me.

Ripopotmus,

I don't think MikeD was saying YOU were pathetic... only that the situation you're in is a sad one if you feel like you can't speak your mind without fear of retribution... and that is exactly the situation that the May Issue towns put its residents in. If they say or do anything that the licensing officer does not like... Bam... branded "unsuitable" and license is gone. [sad2]

Oh... and welcome to the Forum! Go Green!

 

[mikem317]

His reasoning for not issuing new unrestricted LTC's is that he "doesn't trust the average person to have a gun out on the town, at the movies, at a bar with women and children around etc." First of all, I think it's a pretty condescending viewpoint considering the he and his fellow officers are allowed to carry. I guess us lowly civilians can't be trusted to protect ourselves outside of our homes. I'm in no position to debate the guy, so I just bit my lip and continued the conversation.

Another problem I have with his reasoning is that he will renew unrestricted LTC's which shows that he realizes there are responsible gun owners out there, and that they should be allowed to carry. To flat out deny any new applications contradicts this thinking. If someone can demonstrate that they are a responsible and safe gun owner then they should be allowed to carry. There has to be some kind of competency test he can administer rather than just saying "no". That's just lazy and it punishes good citizens who are having their rights infringed for no reason.

The following people would probably agree with his observations: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, etc.

 

[BOBKATT]

If someone can demonstrate that they are a responsible and safe gun owner then they should be allowed to carry. There has to be some kind of competency test he can administer rather than just saying "no".

Wrong answer. Read the Bill Of Rights. There is no demonstration needed. And there is no "allowing" necessary.

 

[RIPOPOTMUS]

Wrong answer. Read the Bill Of Rights. There is no demonstration needed. And there is no "allowing" necessary.

I agree - I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution as well but in this case it would be better than the alternative of being unarmed.

 

[CRSIII]

I spoke with an officer last night who is in charge of firearm licensing in a town in Massachusetts. (I won't get into specifics about who/where because it was a private conversation). I noticed that his town does not allow unrestricted Class A LTC, so I asked his reasoning behind this decision. He said that he will renew existing Class A permits because he doesn't think it would be fair to take away that right for no reason, but he will not issue new unrestriced Class A's.

His reasoning for not issuing new unrestricted LTC's is that he "doesn't trust the average person to have a gun out on the town, at the movies, at a bar with women and children around etc." First of all, I think it's a pretty condescending viewpoint considering the he and his fellow officers are allowed to carry. I guess us lowly civilians can't be trusted to protect ourselves outside of our homes. I'm in no position to debate the guy, so I just bit my lip and continued the conversation.

Another problem I have with his reasoning is that he will renew unrestricted LTC's which shows that he realizes there are responsible gun owners out there, and that they should be allowed to carry. To flat out deny any new applications contradicts this thinking. If someone can demonstrate that they are a responsible and safe gun owner then they should be allowed to carry. There has to be some kind of competency test he can administer rather than just saying "no". That's just lazy and it punishes good citizens who are having their rights infringed for no reason.

I just thought I'd give you all some insight into how some of those in charge of permitting feel. I know I'm preaching to the choir.

There's some pretzel logic for ya! This guy's to conflicted to make a rational decision regarding anything other than what to put on his toast. Take away his badge and give him a broom.

 

[namedpipes]

It makes me sick to hear that but its not something I have not heard before from others.
I say toss the city out there - you should have nothing to fear. The more we know about how these jerks think the better we are to change the system.

by the way welcome to the forum thanks for joining in the discussions.

Well, let him get his LTC in hand first!!!

 

[RIPOPOTMUS]

Well, let him get his LTC in hand first!!!

Ha - thanks for the support but luckily I'm living in a will-issue town at the moment so I got mine with relative ease. I'm renting right now, so I'm sure I'll be moving at some point in the future and I would be furious if I was stripped of my rights just because the licensing authority in a particular town doesn't trust his "subjects".

As of now I don't wield very much power in trying to change things - I only have one vote - but I'm pursuing a career in criminal justice because I think that the best way to change this flawed system is to become a part of it and try to make changes from the inside. Wish me luck.

 

[cbrburns]

So if you live in a will issue town, why are you afraid of disclosing the info? Not to be a dick, but I just don't get it.