GOAL Files Emergency Legislation

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
1,626
Likes
301
Location
Marlboro, MA
I have heard that some PDs don't accept renewal applications greater than 30 days prior to expiration of license, which totally blows my mind!

I plan on applying 6 months out if I can, but don't have to worry about that for little while.

Most departments won't accept anything more than 90 days before it expires.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
2,124
Likes
761
It's interesting to see where the state's priorities are. We have 2 processes: FA10s and license renewals. The state decides that the FA10 process is the one that needs automation. A suspicious person might think there is an agenda here.

When I did my renewal, I made an appointment with the dept. secretary. She asked me the questions from the form and typed in my responses. She printed it and I signed it. Why do we need to make an appointment to submit paperwork? Do others have an actual interview during this appointment?

As much as I don't like my personal information going into anything electronic, at least I can see some benefit to putting the application process online rather than FA10. It would eliminate one of the delaying tactics (appointment to submit the application) and we would have hard numbers that point out which departments or agencies are taking longer. I'm envisioning some kind of tracking application like FedEx uses.

I think I saw this idea further up: A lifetime LTC until you are proven unworthy. I doubt that will happen soon (loss of revenue and no periodic background checks.) How about a system where you have a lifetime LTC but every 6 years, pay $100 to have them do a background check? Worthy until proven unworthy. Maybe pay it forward - $200 on initial app and then $100 every 6 years after. That way you've already payed for the next background check and the state/local PD can automatically start the process based on how backed up they are. Put the onus on them instead of it being on us to totally reapply. Instead of us trying to stay legal and them dicking us around, they can dick themselves around all they want but we'll still be legal.

Of course no license is how it should be. If there is public interest served by having a license, the public should pay for it - not me. Same with background checks.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
I think I saw this idea further up: A lifetime LTC until you are proven unworthy. I doubt that will happen soon (loss of revenue and no periodic background checks.) How about a system where you have a lifetime LTC but every 6 years, pay $100 to have them do a background check? Worthy until proven unworthy. Maybe pay it forward - $200 on initial app and then $100 every 6 years after. That way you've already payed for the next background check and the state/local PD can automatically start the process based on how backed up they are. Put the onus on them instead of it being on us to totally reapply. Instead of us trying to stay legal and them dicking us around, they can dick themselves around all they want but we'll still be legal.
Yeah, that's what the legislation and this thread is all about.

There's no reason why in this day in age they can't set up a system where things that would otherwise show up on periodic background check will cause an instant review by the licensing authority. The need for a periodic check and a fee to do it is unnecessary. Additionally, any periodic mandates may well create the same problem this legislation is designed to prevent.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,684
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Yeah, that's what the legislation and this thread is all about.

There's no reason why in this day in age they can't set up a system where things that would otherwise show up on periodic background check will cause an instant review by the licensing authority. The need for a periodic check and a fee to do it is unnecessary. Additionally, any periodic mandates may well create the same problem this legislation is designed to prevent.
Until one is convicted, one's suitability should not change. Until conviction, you are presumed innocent (or at least the Constitution instructs you should be).

Unfortunately, we know that even the Federal Prohibited Persons standard violates this thanks to Lautenberg, but the more important point is that if one's status as "prohibited" changes, it should not be a secret to the licensing authority and should be easily connected with your license at that point as a result of said order or conviction.

Otherwise, leave law-abiding people alone. This dragnet approach is not only unconstitutional, but horrendously inefficient, error prone and now exposes agencies and employees to civil liability.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
69   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
53,040
Likes
11,670
Location
90% in NH
Yeah, that's what the legislation and this thread is all about.

There's no reason why in this day in age they can't set up a system where things that would otherwise show up on periodic background check will cause an instant review by the licensing authority. The need for a periodic check and a fee to do it is unnecessary. Additionally, any periodic mandates may well create the same problem this legislation is designed to prevent.

Obie, the current system is already designed to do this, at least within the state. PDs get an Email alert of "subsequent activity" on any accusation/warrant/arrest for someone with an active LTC/FID and they are supposed to review it to determine what action they should take. This was explained to me by Glidden and Guida (IIRC) some time ago. One concern they have is that if you are picked up in another state, the system does not automatically report to CJIS and the local PDs.

Now I have no idea how efficient (or not) this system is, only that it is there and it does work.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
846
Likes
75
Location
Land of the free...
Obie, the current system is already designed to do this, at least within the state. PDs get an Email alert of "subsequent activity" on any accusation/warrant/arrest for someone with an active LTC/FID and they are supposed to review it to determine what action they should take. This was explained to me by Glidden and Guida (IIRC) some time ago. One concern they have is that if you are picked up in another state, the system does not automatically report to CJIS and the local PDs.

You see the problem with this?
 

PennyPincher

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
13,865
Likes
7,374
Location
Texas
Any news on this piece of emergency legislation? It was filed a month ago and people are still getting jerked around by their towns and expiring. (according to our LO my husband's renewal will take 3 weeks or so from the day he got photographed and finger scanned).
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,372
Likes
700
Location
Needham, MA
Any news on this piece of emergency legislation? It was filed a month ago and people are still getting jerked around by their towns and expiring. (according to our LO my husband's renewal will take 3 weeks or so from the day he got photographed and finger scanned).

Have you read the last couple posts? Any kind of pro-gun legislation is a non-starter during the freakout period. It's probably better not to draw the legislature's attention right now.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,097
Likes
4,415
I disagree. They want "a conversation" and compromise. It is time to compromise. We allow certain things to stay if they give us some of what we want. I say we allow AR-15's to remain instead of pushing to get M-16's, which is what the military has. In exchange, we get 30 round magazines, flash suppressors, and silencers. DEAL?



;-)

FULL COURT PRESS
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,090
Likes
16,466
Compromises can easily turn into double crosses. When Canada put 10 round limit (5 rifle), no grandfathering, into effect, competition shooters objected (argue self defense in Canada and no one in power will take your argument seriously) and a provision for a "hi cap competition license" was added to the law. Everyone thought the issue was addressed.

Then the banners turned up the heat, and the official position became "After consultation with gun control advocates and sportsmen, it has been determined that the needs of public safety outweigh the legitimate needs of competitors and no such licenses shall be issued.". When the head of IPSC Canada at the time testified before parliament, he was permitted to do so only on the condition he not include any discussion of the impact of the magazine capacity limit in his testimony.

Then, there was WA. Our side agreed to a waiting period (this was pre-Brady/NICS), and the other side agreed to change "may issue" to "shall issue" and to exclude CCW holders from the waiting period. Although unsuccessful, the other side reacted to passage of the law by attempting to have shall issue repealed.
 
Last edited:

dwarven1

Appleseed Instructor
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
27,699
Likes
1,999
Location
Starksboro, VT
I disagree. They want "a conversation" and compromise. It is time to compromise. We allow certain things to stay if they give us some of what we want. I say we allow AR-15's to remain instead of pushing to get M-16's, which is what the military has. In exchange, we get 30 round magazines, flash suppressors, and silencers. DEAL?

NO.

We're done with compromises. "Compromise" to a gun-banner means "I won't push to take EVERYTHING from you, just some things". Enough!

OK, there IS one compromise I'd be willing to make. They get rid of gun-free zones and in return we'll allow them to pass national carry-permit reciprocity.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,097
Likes
4,415
NO.

We're done with compromises. "Compromise" to a gun-banner means "I won't push to take EVERYTHING from you, just some things". Enough!

OK, there IS one compromise I'd be willing to make. They get rid of gun-free zones and in return we'll allow them to pass national carry-permit reciprocity.

Ross, read it again, this time OUT LOUD. Also notice the winky face after? I said we'll let them keep the M-16's, and they will allow us AR-15's with 30 rounders, silencers, flash hiders, and bayonet lugs (I missed that one, but meant to put it). I'd say that is reasonable enough for now. Next time, we'll take the M-16's and let them keep the SAW's.
 
Last edited:

glide

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
3,225
Likes
551
Location
North of MA
So now they know they don't have to issues licenses in accordance with the law. Why bother issuing/renewing them at all?

Does GOAL have anything to say about this, or is it just going to be another one of those things they start and never follow up on?
 

dwarven1

Appleseed Instructor
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
27,699
Likes
1,999
Location
Starksboro, VT
Ross, read it again, this time OUT LOUD. Also notice the winky face after?
Doug... read mine again.

So now they know they don't have to issues licenses in accordance with the law. Why bother issuing/renewing them at all?

Does GOAL have anything to say about this, or is it just going to be another one of those things they start and never follow up on?

Glide,

The State House issued a statement that they were not going to take this up after the Newtown shooting. Not a whole hell of a lot we can do at this point.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
4,853
Likes
2,319
I have not been following this thread much....but I do think there are a couple minor compromises (with minor risks).

Everyone crows about the gun show loophole....close it with a *voluntary* "consumerized NICS" check. No one wants to sell guns to criminals so It would get used. Any non-zero usage supports our claim that gun owners are a responsible group and self policing the usage numbers would be great politucal theatre for the NRA.

Other compromises could involve language and tax credits for safe storage and gun safes.




NO.

We're done with compromises. "Compromise" to a gun-banner means "I won't push to take EVERYTHING from you, just some things". Enough!

OK, there IS one compromise I'd be willing to make. They get rid of gun-free zones and in return we'll allow them to pass national carry-permit reciprocity.
 

glide

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
3,225
Likes
551
Location
North of MA
Doug... read mine again.



Glide,

The State House issued a statement that they were not going to take this up after the Newtown shooting. Not a whole hell of a lot we can do at this point.

So like I said, the PD's cannot be compelled to comply. Except possibly through the courts.

So why should anyone donate to GOAL over Comm2A? GOAL can't get traction in any legislative efforts.

I am being completely serious with that question. If their hands are always tied, it's time to step aside.
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,940
Likes
2,111
Location
Southcoast of PRM
So like I said, the PD's cannot be compelled to comply. Except possibly through the courts.

So why should anyone donate to GOAL over Comm2A? GOAL can't get traction in any legislative efforts.

I am being completely serious with that question. If their hands are always tied, it's time to step aside.

glide, I understand your point. I'll continue to support GOAL along with COMM2A. My reasoning? GOAL has an uphill battle to get pro civil rights bills enacted. I understand that. They have more success in preventing more restrictive laws from getting passed. They can't make things better right now, but I believe they help prevent things from getting worse.

If COMM2A continues to score some significant wins in the courts, then GOAL supported bills might gain more traction. I don't expect the MA legislature to suddenly experience a change of heart on this issue, however if they keep piling up a series of court losses it makes them look foolish. If they take the stance that Chicago has, they'll start to piss-off the courts. Branches of government protect their turf, and the judicial branch is no exception.

I'll support both organizations until I'm convinced that I'm just spinning my wheels.
 

lupis42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
3,520
Likes
539
Location
Marlborough, MA
So like I said, the PD's cannot be compelled to comply. Except possibly through the courts.

So why should anyone donate to GOAL over Comm2A? GOAL can't get traction in any legislative efforts.

I am being completely serious with that question. If their hands are always tied, it's time to step aside.

Easy counterpoint - remember how that One-Gun-A-Month bill of Deval's sailed through the legislature? No? GOAL.
We don't want to wait until these shitty ideas become law before fighting them.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
974
Likes
129
Compromises can easily turn into double crosses. When Canada put 10 round limit (5 rifle), no grandfathering, into effect, competition shooters objected (argue self defense in Canada and no one in power will take your argument seriously) and a provision for a "hi cap competition license" was added to the law. Everyone thought the issue was addressed.

Then the banners turned up the heat, and the official position became "After consultation with gun control advocates and sportsmen, it has been determined that the needs of public safety outweigh the legitimate needs of competitors and no such licenses shall be issued.". When the head of IPSC Canada at the time testified before parliament, he was permitted to do so only on the condition he not include any discussion of the impact of the magazine capacity limit in his testimony.

Then, there was WA. Our side agreed to a waiting period (this was pre-Brady/NICS), and the other side agreed to change "may issue" to "shall issue" and to exclude CCW holders from the waiting period. Although unsuccessful, the other side reacted to passage of the law by attempting to have shall issue repealed.



THIS DAMMIT.

You cannot Trust what they say.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,097
Likes
4,415
So like I said, the PD's cannot be compelled to comply. Except possibly through the courts.

So why should anyone donate to GOAL over Comm2A? GOAL can't get traction in any legislative efforts.

I am being completely serious with that question. If their hands are always tied, it's time to step aside.

Which is why I kept saying GOAL needs to go back to getting good candidates elected. It seems they gave up on that.
 

dwarven1

Appleseed Instructor
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
27,699
Likes
1,999
Location
Starksboro, VT
So like I said, the PD's cannot be compelled to comply. Except possibly through the courts.

So why should anyone donate to GOAL over Comm2A? GOAL can't get traction in any legislative efforts.

I am being completely serious with that question. If their hands are always tied, it's time to step aside.

This is why: http://www.wickedlocal.com/sharon/n...s-gun-lobby-with-lack-of-progress-on-gun-bill

BOSTON —
Gov. Deval Patrick blamed firearms lobbyists Monday for his gun control legislation’s lack of progress amid another murder of a child over the weekend, drawing a quick rebuke from the Gun Owners Action League, who called Patrick’s bill flawed and ineffective.

Hours after speaking with the mother of Jaewon Martin, the 14-year-old murdered on a Boston basketball court Saturday, Patrick told reporters, “Look, there’s a lot of volume that the gun lobby has in this building, but it seems to me that people in neighborhoods, those mothers that are losing their children on the streets of our cities, the law enforcement who are having to deal with the proliferation of illegal firearms out there, used in the course of crime – those voices need to be raised, and those voices are greater in number, and I think at the end of the day greater in significance than the gun lobby.”
The state’s top firearms policy group said Patrick had mischaracterized lobbyists’ work.

James Wallace, executive director of GOAL, replied, “My first question is: Who’s the gun lobby? … I don’t lobby for guns, I lobby for people. That’s one of the tools they use to dehumanize us. We lobby for . . . civil rights and public safety.”
Patrick’s bill, stuck in the Judiciary Committee, would restrict lawful gun owners to one purchase per month and prohibit machine gun possession for anyone but law enforcement or the particular weapon’s licensed owner.

The measure also makes it a felony to possess guns while committing some crimes that would otherwise be misdemeanors. Patrick would also establish “dangerousness hearings” for gun crimes, allowing prosecutors to seek no-bail rulings from judges in dangerous criminal trials. A similar provision was included in the Senate’s crime bill.

The proposal has seen little traction on Beacon Hill, although recent decisions have demonstrated that current events can drive policy.

Just because we're having tough sledding getting the bad laws overturned does NOT mean we're not doing anything.
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,909
Likes
3,588
Which is why I kept saying GOAL needs to go back to getting good candidates elected. It seems they gave up on that.

This again? GOAL is not a PAC. If you want to form a PAC, go for it. It's not in GOAL's charter.
 

jasons

Moderator
Moderator
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
15,909
Likes
3,588
So like I said, the PD's cannot be compelled to comply. Except possibly through the courts.

So why should anyone donate to GOAL over Comm2A? GOAL can't get traction in any legislative efforts.

I am being completely serious with that question. If their hands are always tied, it's time to step aside.

There are people posting in this thread who are on Comm2A's board. Why don't you ask them if they think that GOAL is worth supporting. I suspect they will say yes.
 
Top Bottom