Carroll should write about the biggest source of abuse in the entire system: the "unsuitable person in the eyes of the chief" option for the LTC. I'm sure countless people get rejected for race, sex or other discriminatory reasons every year.
-
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***
Help from Boston Globe: Illegal Licensing!
- Thread starter Fsorrent
- Start date
Dear mr. Carrol,
I understand you are researching illegal activities relative to applications for a License to Carry Firearms.
In xxxxxxxxx, the police dispatcher processed my application. I was told by her that the chief only issues unrestricted licenses to applicants such as police and correction officers. I was instructed that a separate letter was required to be included with the application in order to apply for an unrestricted license. Because she discouraged me so, I paid an attorney $200 to assist me in drafting the letter, however I was issued a restricted license anyway.
In the meantime, it is estimated that over 75% of the communities in Massachusetts issue unrestricted Licenses to Carry Firearms, as does the Mass. State Police to out of state applicants. That means for example, a licensed resident of nearby North Attleboro, Mansfield, or Norton, or of any other state in the country may carry a firearm in my town of xxxxxx but I may not.
While this makes absolutely no sense, I am aware that many other communities are even worse, such Salem, Peabody, and Canton.
In the United States, some 40 states are considered "Shall Issue" states with a specific legislated standards that apply to all applicants equally. Because I travel a lot, I have permits from states such as NH, Maine, Florida, and Utah. Because three of these states have entered into reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions, I can carry a firearm in approximately 30 states. The processes are straight forward and the requirements regarding training, documentation, criminal and mental health history are clear from the application. No superfluous documentation is required by the licensing authority nor are restricted or second class licenses issued.
Regardless of how any person feels about guns or gun control, the issue at hand is fairness and effectiveness. I hope you will see that the procedure in Massachusetts is neither.
GOAL submitted S.1361 - An Act Relative to Fair Licensing which is now buried in Study and will likely never again see the light of day. Passage of this law would create a fair system and allow Massachusetts to join with the 40 other states where local politics or personal fiat have no place in a state wide licensing system.
Thank you,
I understand you are researching illegal activities relative to applications for a License to Carry Firearms.
In xxxxxxxxx, the police dispatcher processed my application. I was told by her that the chief only issues unrestricted licenses to applicants such as police and correction officers. I was instructed that a separate letter was required to be included with the application in order to apply for an unrestricted license. Because she discouraged me so, I paid an attorney $200 to assist me in drafting the letter, however I was issued a restricted license anyway.
In the meantime, it is estimated that over 75% of the communities in Massachusetts issue unrestricted Licenses to Carry Firearms, as does the Mass. State Police to out of state applicants. That means for example, a licensed resident of nearby North Attleboro, Mansfield, or Norton, or of any other state in the country may carry a firearm in my town of xxxxxx but I may not.
While this makes absolutely no sense, I am aware that many other communities are even worse, such Salem, Peabody, and Canton.
In the United States, some 40 states are considered "Shall Issue" states with a specific legislated standards that apply to all applicants equally. Because I travel a lot, I have permits from states such as NH, Maine, Florida, and Utah. Because three of these states have entered into reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions, I can carry a firearm in approximately 30 states. The processes are straight forward and the requirements regarding training, documentation, criminal and mental health history are clear from the application. No superfluous documentation is required by the licensing authority nor are restricted or second class licenses issued.
Regardless of how any person feels about guns or gun control, the issue at hand is fairness and effectiveness. I hope you will see that the procedure in Massachusetts is neither.
GOAL submitted S.1361 - An Act Relative to Fair Licensing which is now buried in Study and will likely never again see the light of day. Passage of this law would create a fair system and allow Massachusetts to join with the 40 other states where local politics or personal fiat have no place in a state wide licensing system.
Thank you,
Last edited:
Mass Chiefs of Police Association newsletter - check out page 9
http://www.masschiefs.org/documents/April 2008 Newsletter.pdf
http://www.masschiefs.org/documents/April 2008 Newsletter.pdf
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
75% of communities issue unrestricted????
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,648
- Likes
- 33,790
Look at page 22. Peter Dowd is trying to convince police departments turning guns over to the assignee of the original owner must file not on an FA-10s, but 4473s, ATF multiple handgun sales forms, and run a NICS check before each transfer .... or turn the guns over to his bonded warehouse for ransom.
Can any of the attorneys on this list clarify this point - do police departments turning guns over to designated parties need to have an FFL in order to do so?
I don't know exactly where the justification for that would be coming from. The applicable MA law (C 140 S 129d) states that the police are not the ones doing the transfer in such a situation. The original owner has the right to transfer the guns privately and, upon written notice of the transfer, the police are required to produce the guns within 10 days. I would also assume, but the law doesn't come right out and say, that the 4 gun transfer limit wouldn't apply. I would assume, though, that the FA-10 requirements would.
(One additional note: C 209a S 3b does say that the guns can only be transfered to a licensed dealer if the surrender was due to a restraining order.)
Last edited:
Very nice. They're circling their wagons.
Page 8!!
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
The fact that it is on the page right before the critique of GOAL is even funnier...
Something sure smells!
Dowd runs a full-page ad in that magazine regularly, if not every issue. He is in the business of being THE "bonded warehouse" for the MA law enforcement community and sends flyers to every department advertising his services. Indeed, he closed his retail gun shop to run this new business. He is also noted for abusing his authority by requiring the ransom of ALL guns at one time, instead of those guns the lawful owner can redeem as and when that owner chooses to, despite the complete and utter absence of any legal basis for his requirement.
Credit his exhortations accordingly.
I hate to say I told you so, but...
There is no good that can come from a Liberal Communist Rag digging into which specific town busts gun owners in the chops and which one gives an LTC-A without breaking a sweat. The lawful gun owners are going to get buggered here...
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 403
Do not get confused here!!
This is an advertisement for Peter Dowd's business....This is in no way an INTERPRETATION or POLICY of the Mass Chiefs Assoc.
He does not know for what he speaks.
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
Do not get confused here!!
This is an advertisement for Peter Dowd's business....This is in no way an INTERPRETATION or POLICY of the Mass Chiefs Assoc.
He does not know for what he speaks.
The only one "confused" appears to be you. Rob made it quite clear that Dowd spoke for Dowd; not the MCOPA.
What part of "Peter Dowd is trying to convince police departments..." did you miss?
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 403
I was well aware of how Rob had posted it but based upon some subsequent posts I was concerned that some were taking it the wrong way.
I apologize for wanting to make sure people understood.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
My only question is what is the relationship between Peter Dowd and Yankee Artifacts? (since YA is run out of the former Village Guns which is attached to Peter Dowd's place. I'll be very unhappy if I find out that I've been supporting Mr Dowd by buying at YA.)
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,648
- Likes
- 33,790
I think Dowd knows EXACTLY of what he speaks. It appears to me he is using his own creative interpretation to attempt to scare PD's into turning guns over to him so he can hold them for ransom. If a PD is concerned with servicing citizens (and not in the way that a bull services a cow), it will give the owner of the guns a reasonable time to arrange a lawful transfer through an FFL before turning them over to Dowd to squeeze money out of them.
Last edited:
I was well aware of how Rob had posted it but based upon some subsequent posts I was concerned that some were taking it the wrong way.
I apologize for wanting to make sure people understood.
WHAT "subsequent posts" would those be? I read them and discern no evidence of any "confusion."
Precisely. And many departments are happy to avail themselves of his services, as it takes the (wholly unenforced) duty to maintain the guns properly, cleans out the evidence room and gets someone else to do all the paperwork. Dowd backs up his van, does his thing, and leaves the PD with a list of firearms received, complete w/serial numbers.
As for giving gun owners a chance to effect a transfer - a certain town in Bristol County transferred my client's guns to Dowd upon receipt of my letter notifying the department that we would be transferring the guns to a duly licensed individual.
Then there's a scam where you have to make an appointment to recover your own property - a week or more away, during which time the daily storage fees continue to accrue.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 403
Ummmm...your last post for one.
That is what I meant by "confusion".
Many departments use bonded warehouses for the reasons you listed. This does not mean that they "subscribe" to Peter Dowd's interpretation or are being pursuaded to do so by him.
My Department uses a bonded warehouse..when all other options are exhausted. We by no means agree with Peter Dowd.
Page 8!!
The fact that it is on the page right before the critique of GOAL is even funnier...
Something sure smells!
... that page is a riot."Don’t skirt the issue by sending an e-mail or by leaving an anonymous
air freshener on the employee’s desk. "
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Additionally, the dude in the picture looks like he just had an encounter
with someone who didn't use enough deodorant.
-Mike
Tell Matt Carroll he can get a list of complaints from GOAL
or he should join NES and read the complaints himself
Scrivenger created a topic where NES members listed what Matt Carroll is requesting
or he should join NES and read the complaints himself
Scrivenger created a topic where NES members listed what Matt Carroll is requesting
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 403
Your last post was NOT so clear. One could interpret the implication that the Department you referred to in your last post was influenced by Dowd's legal interpretation to send the guns there.
I am certainly not confused by it nor did I ever say that you or Rob were confused by it.
OK, I admit it. Now you've got me confused. Could you possibly quote the precise text from one of Keith's posts that in some way implied or even suggested that some department had in fact been influenced by Dowd's marketing piece. OTOH, do you honestly believe that his repeated ads have been completely ineffectual in attracting business from any department? Let me be very clear: I don't need nor am I asking for an clarification of what the law requires or what Peter Dowd is trying to do, simply what text from which of Keith's posts you're claiming is unclear.
Ken
MaverickNH
NES Member
... and so my bet:
The Globe publishes a "fair and balanced" article that highlights "a very few instances" of "slightly off-law" licensing practices, numerous gripes and complaints about the system from gun-nuts, and quotes from CoPs on how they protect the public from people who would otherwise legally obtain high-capicity, high-power assault weapons and shoot up everyone like VT, etc., and how MA is so much better than states where "shall issue" laws limit a CoP's ability to stop bad people from having guns.
Published before June, they might even note that even the SCOTUS has not yet ruled whether RKBA is an individual right or that belonging to state-controlled militias.
CoPs will invoke the FUD Factor (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to make the public know that their "interpretation" of discretionary licensing allows them to add stipulations they see fit to tailor ownership and carry of deadly weapons in THEIR jurisdictions to meet the needs of THEIR community.
If this works against us, I wouldn't be surprised. Out of GOAL's control, and now in control of the Globe.
The Globe publishes a "fair and balanced" article that highlights "a very few instances" of "slightly off-law" licensing practices, numerous gripes and complaints about the system from gun-nuts, and quotes from CoPs on how they protect the public from people who would otherwise legally obtain high-capicity, high-power assault weapons and shoot up everyone like VT, etc., and how MA is so much better than states where "shall issue" laws limit a CoP's ability to stop bad people from having guns.
Published before June, they might even note that even the SCOTUS has not yet ruled whether RKBA is an individual right or that belonging to state-controlled militias.
CoPs will invoke the FUD Factor (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) to make the public know that their "interpretation" of discretionary licensing allows them to add stipulations they see fit to tailor ownership and carry of deadly weapons in THEIR jurisdictions to meet the needs of THEIR community.
If this works against us, I wouldn't be surprised. Out of GOAL's control, and now in control of the Globe.
I got a response back from Matt Carrol with a "sounds interesting" and a promise to get back to me.
Too many chiefs are loose cannons abusing their discretion and forgetting who they work for. The light of day has a cleansing effect. I don't know how this article is going to turn out - good or bad - but the bull shit needs to be exposed.
Too many chiefs are loose cannons abusing their discretion and forgetting who they work for. The light of day has a cleansing effect. I don't know how this article is going to turn out - good or bad - but the bull shit needs to be exposed.
Matt Carroll e-mailed me.
Matt Carroll e-mailed me - I just spoke to him on the phone. He seems very cognizant of our frustrations. I talked about my experience and feelings about the licensing ambiguities and lack of fairness. I told him I am waiting for DC versus Heller to be decided. I'm glad I did this. Somebody once said it's stupid to do nothing because you can only do a little.
Matt Carroll e-mailed me - I just spoke to him on the phone. He seems very cognizant of our frustrations. I talked about my experience and feelings about the licensing ambiguities and lack of fairness. I told him I am waiting for DC versus Heller to be decided. I'm glad I did this. Somebody once said it's stupid to do nothing because you can only do a little.
I don't know when. I don't even know if he is going to take sides. But he seems very much aware the system is rife with problems. He has good insight into this, he has gotten a big response from GOAL members.
Just an article that indicts the legislature and government hacks for incompetence would be a partial victory in my eyes.
