The department in Stoneham is willing to give me an unrestricted license but they think that I have to pay the renewal fee and start all over. I remember from talking to Cross-X that this is not necessary and that they can lift the restrictions any time they want. How do I convince them that this is the case? Stoneham did not originally issue the permit to me.
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Convincing local police to lift restrictions without renewal
- Thread starter adweisbe
- Start date
I think I may have been misquoted.
What I recall telling you is that you don't need to wait for your current LTC to expire before you apply for a new one.
You will, however, have to pay the $100 application fee for your new LTC. If your new one is granted, your old one will be terminated before your new license takes effect.
Nevertheless, you have to pay again.
What I recall telling you is that you don't need to wait for your current LTC to expire before you apply for a new one.
You will, however, have to pay the $100 application fee for your new LTC. If your new one is granted, your old one will be terminated before your new license takes effect.
Nevertheless, you have to pay again.
Okay, now to convince the idiot secretary that I can do it. The licensing officer believes I can but the secretary has turned me away with excuses four times now and she won't let me schedule an appointment.
The only reason to fight the $100 (if it were the case that it were not necessary) comes from Scriv. Whatever you tolerate you validate.
The only reason to fight the $100 (if it were the case that it were not necessary) comes from Scriv. Whatever you tolerate you validate.
Last edited:
Ask the Secretary to call and ask Caroline Sawyer (atty and in CHSB management) if she's in doubt about the legality of doing this. It is a perfectly legal and acceptable way to get the "none/ALP" LTC.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Different departments have different policies. Medford does not always issue ALP. Stoneham where I currently live does.
LenS, she has said she would call CHSB to see if it was allowed 3 times so far and never has. I called CHSB and asked them to call her and still haven't heard back from her. I finally got the phone number of the officer who does the licensing and I know he isn't quite as deluded as her so it should be easy to get an appointment.
LenS, she has said she would call CHSB to see if it was allowed 3 times so far and never has. I called CHSB and asked them to call her and still haven't heard back from her. I finally got the phone number of the officer who does the licensing and I know he isn't quite as deluded as her so it should be easy to get an appointment.
I don't see how that applies so much- in order to facilitate your
request, they want to issue you a new permit... which requires paying
the fee, etc. There isn't any mechanical way they can do it
without issuing a new license.
IIRC, the only wallhack that exists on not paying the $100 on a
"new" license is if your existing one is lost or stolen... other than
that, if you want to play you have to pay.
-Mike
Hence
The reality is that changing the database entry and printing a new card is trivial. CHSB or local departments choose to have procedures and/or regulations that prohibit it. AFAIK the law remains silent on changing restrictions.
Mechanically they could print licenses and drop them from a plane if they had half a mind to. There is no magic, just a database and a card. AFAIK the law remains silent on modifications to existing licenses.
In this case the barrier is more political than anything
else. An existing license is still goverened by your OLD issuing
authority. Only -THEY- have the right to modify/revoke your
license, etc. So at a minimum, you're looking at a "turf battle"
problem. Stoneham does not "control" your existing license,
whoever issued it does.
-Mike
I would not assume that the old chief has control over the license. Like I said, I think the law is silent on that particular issue and it is practice and CHSB regulations that determines what is done. Security on the database is probably so lax that any licensing officer with permissions can edit the records to remove the restrictions and reprint the license of basically anyone in the state. I bet they don't even put an audit trail in the records to record who made what changes and when.
You "assume" wrong!
Whether it is MGL or MA CMRs, it is law/reg that ONLY the issuing authority can modify or revoke/suspend a LTC!!
You want a new one with no restrictions from your new town BEFORE the old one expires? Pay up and go thru the procedure again . . . the new one expires 5-6 years from issue date!
You don't want to do this? Beg issuing chief to remove restrictions (good luck on that one!
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
) or live with the restrictions until your LTC expires.It's really quite simple!!
I assumed nothing.
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
The intellectual dishonesty on this forum is tiring. I was not positing that anything specific was the case. I have only posited absence of information which you have not rectified with your snarky comment.So you don't have a cite for either and you aren't sure which it is? That is called an assumption. Additionally you are agreeing with my original premise which makes your argument a straw man argument. Positing that something may be the case unless evidence exists to contradict it is not the same as saying something is the case. Both you and Dr. Grant seem to be struggling with that.
Last edited:
I'll freely concede that the law doesn't cover what you're
asking for very well, if at all. Logically speaking, however, it
stands to reason that nobody can modify a license except for
the issuing authority- otherwise we wouldn't be having this
discussion... and people could just go to a 2A friendly PD
and have their restrictions lifted or just dodge anti towns
altogether. (As it stands now, there is some part of the law
which states that one must get a permit in their town of residence
or where they own a business, anything beyond that isn't
allowed, IIRC. )
As far as cites go, take a look at the fine print on the
bottom of C140, S131 which says:
"The secretary of the executive office of public safety or his
designee may promulgate regulations to carry out the purposes of
this section. "
Course who knows what latitude is granted by that, but I am
guessing it is considerable... and that's probably not the
only control lever that exists, either.
My point was based on "on the ground" experience. What you're
asking for is something that doesn't "functionally" exist. I've
never heard of anyone having a license "modified"
except by the issuing authority. I get the distinct impression
that there is some sort of rule (either via CHSB or whoever) that
states that one IA cannot modify a license issued by another.
It would be interesting to know what CHSB says about this, but
I would bet that the answer your going to get is something along
the lines of "That isn't normally done". The only way to
change their minds is more than likely via legal action, the cost of
which will probably outstrip the cost of a reapplication by some
order of magnitude.
I won't argue with you WRT the merit; obviously the system
SHOULD be that way... but IMO if the system was that way, we
wouldn't be talking about this. IA's wouldn't have sole authority
to issue licenses to residents, and one could basically do the
equivalent of "CLEO shopping" until you found a 2A friendly
police chief.
-Mike
asking for very well, if at all. Logically speaking, however, it
stands to reason that nobody can modify a license except for
the issuing authority- otherwise we wouldn't be having this
discussion... and people could just go to a 2A friendly PD
and have their restrictions lifted or just dodge anti towns
altogether. (As it stands now, there is some part of the law
which states that one must get a permit in their town of residence
or where they own a business, anything beyond that isn't
allowed, IIRC. )
As far as cites go, take a look at the fine print on the
bottom of C140, S131 which says:
"The secretary of the executive office of public safety or his
designee may promulgate regulations to carry out the purposes of
this section. "
Course who knows what latitude is granted by that, but I am
guessing it is considerable... and that's probably not the
only control lever that exists, either.
My point was based on "on the ground" experience. What you're
asking for is something that doesn't "functionally" exist. I've
never heard of anyone having a license "modified"
except by the issuing authority. I get the distinct impression
that there is some sort of rule (either via CHSB or whoever) that
states that one IA cannot modify a license issued by another.
It would be interesting to know what CHSB says about this, but
I would bet that the answer your going to get is something along
the lines of "That isn't normally done". The only way to
change their minds is more than likely via legal action, the cost of
which will probably outstrip the cost of a reapplication by some
order of magnitude.
I won't argue with you WRT the merit; obviously the system
SHOULD be that way... but IMO if the system was that way, we
wouldn't be talking about this. IA's wouldn't have sole authority
to issue licenses to residents, and one could basically do the
equivalent of "CLEO shopping" until you found a 2A friendly
police chief.
-Mike
"Ahem."
I have. In a way.
I was issued an LTC for "Target Shooting and Hunting" in 1993 (or thereabouts) by Chief Ferraro of Chicopee. He stated that he did not issue permits for concealed carry (at least at that time - things may have since changed).
In 1995 I moved to my present town. My wife's (maiden) name supposedly turned up on a list of people a certain "guest" in Walpole was going to do away with. This led to my wife getting her LTC for Personal Protection and me getting a note from the town's COP which stated that I was allowed to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection. I was told to carry this with my license
I guess you could say that technically it didn't "modify" my existing license but as far as my PD was concerned, it allowed me to carry concealed. Thankfully I never had to test it out anywhere.
When I renewed my license to came through for "Personal Protection" and has been ever since.
You posted in response to:
Read the parenthetical statement and see how it modifies the rest.
Cross-X established in the 2nd post that a renewal was required. Plug it in to the sentence and you get "One is not compelled to fight for the $100 because it is required by law." This is why careful reading is necessary.
The conversation had moved from the issue of what the law is after Cross-X's post.
These statements posit that regardless of what the law/regs are one should pay up without a fight.
To which I respond:
A discerning reader will note that "if it were the case" means that the following only holds IF "it were not necessary."
I succinctly explained to those who thought it wasn't worth fighting in either case that it was indeed worth fighting if it were not required by law/regulation.
Both you and LenS are making strawman/tatutological arguments. Strawman in that you posit I have said what the regulations are or are not. Tautological in that of course it won't be done if it isn't allowed law/regulation. Neither of you has actually presented the law/regulation that would establish facts.
Last edited:
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
I assumed nothing.
So you don't have a cite for either and you aren't sure which it is? That is called an assumption. Additionally you are agreeing with my original premise which makes your argument a straw man argument. Positing that something may be the case unless evidence exists to contradict it is not the same as saying something is the case. Both you and Dr. Grant seem to be struggling with that.
This thread is not worth my time. Thanks Cross-X and those who had the wherewithal to exercise some intellectual rigor.
Y'know, Ariel... when people are trying to help, it's pretty boorish to verbally abuse them. You might want to try following my father's advice: "Keep your words short and sweet; you never know when you might have to eat them."
Yeah because LenS was being real nice and doing me a favor by telling me what I already know as if I didn't have a clue. I know when people are trying to help and that isn't how it is done. Intellectually honest people never have to eat their words because they seek consensus and truth and have no stake in any specific position in a debate.
Last edited:
Well, thats what I get for reading too fast, and the net result is
now thread confetti. I made the mistake of taking your
statement out of context, and running with it. Sorry.
These fries are now done.....
-Mike
You the man!Well, thats what I get for reading too fast, and the net result is
now thread confetti. I made the mistake of taking your
statement out of context, and running with it. Sorry.
These fries are now done.....
-Mike
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
No really I mean that. You'll go far if you can think freely enough to accept different understandings of another person's position in discourse. I could count the number of times I have seen it happen on one hand. Usually participants are more concerned with being smartier and rightier than reaching a consensus.
Last edited:
Good luck with it!
I attempted the same manoeuver in Melrose. My re-application sat on the IO's desk until my lease expired and I moved back to a red town.
This was despite several calls, visits and discussions with CHSB.
I think the loopholes in your idea of not having to pay the $100 are:
1) You have not physically lost your license so it is not a replacement
2) They are issuing you a new license
3) This is identical in circumstance to re-applying for your license had it expired. At which time you would pay $100.
Let us know how it turns out.
I attempted the same manoeuver in Melrose. My re-application sat on the IO's desk until my lease expired and I moved back to a red town.
This was despite several calls, visits and discussions with CHSB.
I think the loopholes in your idea of not having to pay the $100 are:
1) You have not physically lost your license so it is not a replacement
2) They are issuing you a new license
3) This is identical in circumstance to re-applying for your license had it expired. At which time you would pay $100.
Let us know how it turns out.
Lots of stuff going on in this thread but here’s my take…
Accepting your current LTC with restrictions = “Whatever you tolerate you validate."
Getting a new LTC with no restrictions = renewing early not “changing” current LTC which in turn equals paying the $100. New PD new LTC.
No restriction LTC = priceless…
Besides if the the PD is willing to help you there is no reason to piss them off with a lawsuit.![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Accepting your current LTC with restrictions = “Whatever you tolerate you validate."
Getting a new LTC with no restrictions = renewing early not “changing” current LTC which in turn equals paying the $100. New PD new LTC.
No restriction LTC = priceless…
Besides if the the PD is willing to help you there is no reason to piss them off with a lawsuit.
Right, you are paying for a new license and the whole background check,paperwork, etc. all over again. You aren't getting your LTC modified.
If they were able to modify it then it would work both ways. You could get a non-restricted LTC in a green city like Haverhill and when you moved to someplace like, say, Springfield the chief would be able to restrict your existing LTC (which they can't unless you do something bad and they revoke it). However, good luck renewing it when the time comes without restrictions being slapped all over it.
One thing- even in the sense of revocation, your new town -STILL-
cannot revoke it... although more than likely they would call up your
issuing authority and whine. This is more of a matter of semantics
than anything else, but it can make a big difference... eg, if you're
in friendly with the IA and the "new town" is whining about something
dumb (like an accidental loss of concealment type of issue) the IA
could easily just dismiss the whining. (long as it wasn't something
that would be a statutory disqualifier... )
-Mike
