Denied LTC- What are my next options

Why do we have to lawyer up? This EXACT situation happened to me. SAME EXACT (riding a motorcycle at night on a permit) Technically 'OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE' I did go to court and it was all dismissed! But the bottom line is it was criminal and I appeared in court and I answered no to question 10.

Me and the LTC officer had a little chat about it like some adults do and I fixed my app and initialed it and everybody was happy! End of story.

I can see if going to talk to them doesnt work then maybe a lawyer, but it wont hurt to go try. Throw the lawyer thing at them and its fight on, you may win but you will pay!
 
TZCHRIS said:
Why do we have to lawyer up? This EXACT situation happened to me. SAME EXACT (riding a motorcycle at night on a permit) Technically 'OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE' I did go to court and it was all dismissed! But the bottom line is it was criminal and I appeared in court and I answered no to question 10.

Me and the LTC officer had a little chat about it like some adults do and I fixed my app and initialed it and everybody was happy! End of story.

I can see if going to talk to them doesnt work then maybe a lawyer, but it wont hurt to go try. Throw the lawyer thing at them and its fight on, you may win but you will pay!
Click to expand...

Because there are 351 licensing officers and each one is different. It's a crap shoot. Green town, no problem. Now I ask you does the OP live in a green town where common sense and reason prevails? No, he lives in Boston where getting even a restricted license is an ordeal. You are either very naive or very stupid and I hope sincerely it is the former and not the latter.

I'm sure you didn't have to take a shooting test for your a restricted license either [rolleyes]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I just believe the world would be a little better place if we could handle things like adults some times and leave the lawyers out of it. I think its worth a shot?

When that doesnt work just go out on the balcony with your 12 GA, that solves all problems (so I'm told)
 
ThePreBanMan said:
Driving without a license, insurance, or registration IS a criminal offense in Mass. Malice or lack thereof is irrelevant. The law is the law. Technically you should have answered yes and wrote in an explanation.

Now this is presumption on my part - but the licensing authority probably found an arrest that you didn't disclose and explain. That was the reason for the denial. Now that you have been denied I BELIEVE you're disqualified for life - unless you turn it over on appeal.

You need a lawyer at this point. I would agree to avoid Jesse Cohen. I would contact the Armed citizen's legal defense network.
Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.
See if they can point you in the right direction.
Click to expand...

The bolded part is absolutely WRONG!! Denials MUST be disclosed on ALL future applications (including other states, at least on all that I've read) and explained however.

Lawyers aren't always needed and I see a better and cheaper solution below.


JayMcB said:
I can give a thumbs up to Keith Langer. Expect to pay, but you will get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

Fully agree here . . . but only if Chris' suggestion (and mine) doesn't work.


TZCHRIS said:
Why do we have to lawyer up? This EXACT situation happened to me. SAME EXACT (riding a motorcycle at night on a permit) Technically 'OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE' I did go to court and it was all dismissed! But the bottom line is it was criminal and I appeared in court and I answered no to question 10.

Me and the LTC officer had a little chat about it like some adults do and I fixed my app and initialed it and everybody was happy! End of story.

I can see if going to talk to them doesnt work then maybe a lawyer, but it wont hurt to go try. Throw the lawyer thing at them and its fight on, you may win but you will pay!
Click to expand...

Not every chief/LO is trying to torture the applicants, they have a job to do and lying on the application has a penalty called out in the law (denial and perjury charges). The first thing I would do is make an appt with the chief and explain why you did what you did with remorse in your voice and behavior during the meeting. Ask if you can fix it and do so if he/she will allow it. If not, it's time to see Keith Langer or Jason Guida, but NOT before you try yourself. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Also there is an overabundance of tinfoil on NES. NOT every issue has to be deleted from the forum and lawyer up. The OP's case is very straightforward, his requesting advice and at least some of it here is helpful, the PD already knows the issue . . . and if they stumbled on this thread they would understand that the OP was confused wrt what transpired and was not intentionally lying (as opposed to purposefully covering it up). I see nothing he posted here that if exposed would hurt his case to get his LTC. I wish him good luck and think he will prevail without a lawsuit!
 
derektrance said:
Before you go calling Jesse or anyone, I'd suggest writing to the chief.
When I first applied, I was denied to to some juvenile run ins with the law that I thought were sealed. After he denied me, I wrote him a letter basically stating hat I would go through the appeal process if I had to, but I felt we could probably work it out as that just causes a hassle for everyone. He agree'd I went back in to the station and he sent my license in after I literally just copied down what they pulled of my record onto my application. He said they automatically deny anyone's record that does not match and most people just go on their way and never contact them or appeal. And most people figure if they don't have a guilty verdict, it's not on your record, but they have everything.
Click to expand...

This would probably be the best move first if that doesnt work then lawyer up.
 
TZCHRIS said:
I just believe the world would be a little better place if we could handle things like adults some times and leave the lawyers out of it. I think its worth a shot?
Click to expand...

I just read Mark's post after posting my reply. I didn't realize that it was Boston. However, I'm still with Chris. I've heard only good things about the BPD officer currently running the licensing department and I still think scheduling a "sit down" like adults could result in a peaceful resolution of the situation. If that doesn't work, legal action is still a possibility but why go in with a howitzer when a pea-shooter might suffice?
 
mark056 said:
Because there are 351 licensing officers and each one is different. It's a crap shoot. Green town, no problem. Now I ask you does the OP live in a green town where common sense and reason prevails? No, he lives in Boston where getting even a restricted license is an ordeal. You are either very naive or very stupid and I hope sincerely it is the former and not the latter.

I'm sure you didn't have to take a shooting test for your a restricted license either [rolleyes]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The chief I compromised in my above story was in CANTON. black as black gets. doesn't mean he's not a human. (Granted this was for my class B which is in a whole nother thread)
 
derektrance said:
The chief I compromised in my above story was in CANTON. black as black gets. doesn't mean he's not a human. (Granted this was for my class B which is in a whole nother thread)
Click to expand...

If the town is black he is not human, but neither is the devil and sometimes you have to cut deals with the devil.

Len, you and a few others here are victims of your own success. You have done such a great job of educating us on Mass gun laws since 2005, the immediate reaction is to say find a lawyer and don't discuss it further. Here we have a case where an applicant lied (perjured) himself on an application, was arrested on a criminal charge, appeared in court, paid a fine (exact disposition unknown) and now you say talk to the LO in Boston after being formally rejected and then you talk about an "overabundance of tinfoil" Len you were the one who taught us (at least some of us) to be cautious. We live in a state where there is no common sense and where you can supply hundreds of anecdotes yourself to support that statement. Sorry Len you've lost me there. What I have learned from you is to err on the side of caution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Mark, I understand your position and confusion. But having worked as a PO and having had a discussion with a few police chiefs in very anti-gun towns, one made it clear that he'd prefer people to come and meet with him to discuss issues and the other (prior chief in BLACK Canton) strongly implied that had a certain person (had very similar issue, except what he "forgot" to mention was that he was not only arrested but spent a few days in jail - sounded like an over the weekend issue) been contrite and met with him, he might have worked it out. Instead the guy from Canton was a loudmouth, going around bad-mouthing the chief for denying him on a renewal (computerization caught up with him), like it was all the chief's fault. End result was the guy had to wait out some time (unsure if more than a year or not) before re-applying with accurate information.

I just see no harm in meeting, being contrite and seeing if that helps prior to "going to war" with lawyers . . . especially when the law clearly puts the chief in the right.
 
@LEnS

I know they ask if you've been denied a license in Mass or another sate. But you're saying that such a denial doesn't automatically disqualify you in Mass? So if you've been denied in Mass you can reapply - with nothing changing - and subsequently be approved - without an appeal?
 
Glasgow Grin said:
Google MGL. C.140 s. 129B(8) and 131(H).

I'm not getting into a pissing match with wannabe lawyers. I know what the law says. He lied on his application. Do I agree with the law? No. However, the licensing officer is bound by it. If your position is that the licensing officer should just overlook it, then perhaps you should also just say "screw it" and carry without a LTC. Makes as much sense.
Click to expand...

This is the last I'll say on this. The definition of a lie is a false statement that you know is not true. Absent the knowledge that the offense was criminal, his statement was not a lie.

Further, the form itself says that anyone who KNOWINGLY files an application containing false information . . .

Don

p.s. thanks for the insult.
 
Last edited:
dcmdon said:
This is the last I'll say on this. The definition of a lie is a false statement that you know is not true. Absent the knowledge that the offense was criminal, his statement was not a lie.

Further, the form itself says that anyone who KNOWINGLY files an application containing false information . . .

Don

p.s. thanks for the insult.
Click to expand...

That, and $1.69 will get you a small coffee.
 
Ok. I guess you didn't read the MGL you referenced

Sec 131
(h) Any person who knowingly files an application containing false information shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years in a house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Thanks for the cite. You made my point for me.

Seriously though. Spare me the personal insults. We should be able to debate civilly.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
Because Jesse Cohen is an attorney that believes we should "compromise" our gun rights in the name of his idea of a greater good. I don;t know about you but I don't want a lawyer that compromises my rights, I want a lawyer that fights for them.
Click to expand...

I don't know Jesse, but I want my lawyer to get me the best results for my case, and not care what his beliefs are. You might want to be an absolutist, and it's great if you are, but sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war. Any lawyer will tell you that. If you want to make a statement on principle and lose, that might be ok for your outcome. Other people compromise certain things to get a better deal. Not saying this is right, just real life.
 
bill o said:
Bingo. You could file the bogus charge at no cost or risk to yourself, and the poor guy would be wishing he'd never met you.
Click to expand...

You are now twisting the discussion into a MA beaten down dog paranoia festival.

The discussion was not whether one could be charged. It was whether the OP actually broke the law. He did not because he did not KNOWINGLY file an application containing false information.
 
The charge itself is not a disqualifier. Many people are confused by that question. My friend was arrested for oui and it was dismissed. He answered "no" in that question as well. Pd called him and asked him for clarification and chewed him out. Still gave him his class a. It's slimy that they never contacted you.
 
Don, if you are brought into the PD in cuffs, picture and prints are taken and given a court date, it is a real stretch to think that it is NOT a criminal matter. Police do not do all this for civil matters, never! So the burden of proving "you didn't know" would be real tough under cross-examination by a competent ADA/prosecutor.

------------

Being denied is not a lifetime DQ, but can be used as a basis to deny any future applications per MGL. It becomes discretionary on the part of the PD and is allowed for in the law.

------------

K7500, I have a hard time with folks that get "confused" by the wording of Q.10

10. Have you ever appeared in any court as a defendant for any criminal offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?
Click to expand...

It doesn't mention convictions, does it?

It says "appeared in any court", it doesn't even say you had to be arrested (you can be cited instead and the citation will have the "criminal" box checked)!

To claim confusion tells me that the person never READ the citation they were given (if not arrested) or has no idea why someone would take mug shots, lock them up in a cell and take fingerprints! If this confuses them that much, I fear that they may also become confused as to which end of the gun the bullets come out of and why that end should never be pointed at anyone/anything they don't intend to destroy.

If in doubt it will always pay off to put down too much info (a non-criminal traffic offense) than too little on the application. It will all come out in the wash anyway!

Maybe Mark056 is right and everyone in MA needs to hire a lawyer to read them the form and ask 100 questions to ferret out the truth before they apply for a LTC/FID? I so, that is sad and says something about us. [thinking]
 
I have contacted two lawyers for a consolation and will present all the facts and paperwork I have before them and see what my possible options are. In speaking over the phone with my an attorney who has had success with the BPD, it could be overturned with the background check pulling a another person check with the same name, the LT. Could let me reapply meaning waiting for an. Interview, passing the moon island again and another $100. Not to mention the lawyer fee. I'm just debating if the money is worth the process. What if I go throw all the motion and get denied again. They I just wasted time and money
 
10. Have you ever appeared in any court as a defendant for any criminal offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?

The parentheses could be read as defining all traffic offenses as non-criminal, as in "(excluding traffic offenses, which are non-criminal)".

After all, it is redundant to subset traffic offenses into criminal vs. non-criminal after the main clause clearly asks solely about criminal offenses. The parentheses is bizarre and misleading in the context of the main clause.
 
dcmdon said:
You are now twisting the discussion into a MA beaten down dog paranoia festival.

The discussion was not whether one could be charged. It was whether the OP actually broke the law. He did not because he did not KNOWINGLY file an application containing false information.
Click to expand...

I've heard first-hand stories of abusive licensing officers that you might not be aware of. Spare me the paranoia line.
 
Last edited:
Castro said:
They should just ask if you ever been arrested? If yes please disclose information. No getting that question confused
Click to expand...

The point is that a free person should have no interaction with the police for the purpose of asking permission to buy and own property. The point is that the concept of a firearms licensing officer should become an historical curiosity, in the same trash bin as other enforcers of anti-civil rights laws. Let people buy and sell property freely, and police officers do real police work.

Good luck with whatever you choose to do.
 
So I get the letter my denial letter today and found out the reason why....all I can do is laugh. Lets just say its not fun having a twin brother with a similar name who has an open case. FML
 

Similar threads

Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
566
67ray
67ray
Going to reapply for my FID/LTC back after it being revoked about 10 years ago.
Replies
17
Views
509
AMV
A
When are you a "gunsmith"?
Replies
16
Views
283
LakeTrout
L
LTC Renewal Received in Natick
Replies
1
Views
208
Eric W
E
LTC references
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
paul73
paul73
Back
Top Bottom