I got a response from the Criminal History Systems Board

J

JellyFish

You might remember that I sent a rant to Romney and some other politicians about Boston's idiotic LTC requirements. I finally got a response, here it is.

I have not responded back to her yet but I view her comments as total bullshit. All of Boston's requirements are solely geared toward discouraging law abiding people from getting LTCs. Menino hates folks like myself and everything is set up to put road blocks in front of us.

The response begins now:


Your correspondence to Governor Romney and Lt. Governor Healey regarding license processing by the Boston Police Department was referred to me for reply.

I am sorry that you find the licensing process by the Boston Police Department (BPD) difficult to work with. There is validity, however, to the requirements you mention below. The birth certificate provides necessary information regarding citizenship and other demographic information that is used to conduct the statutorily required background checks. You are also requested to provide a utility bill which assists them in determining residency. Under the statutes authorizing the issuance of a license to carry (LTC) firearms and the firearm identification (FID) card, jurisdiction is an element to be considered; the BPD may not issue a LTC or FID card to a non-citizen, or to a non-resident.

With regard to the proficiency test, although you may feel it is unwarranted, the main concern is public safety. One way to help protect the general public is to ensure that individuals who possess guns can handle them safely and effectively. You may be interested in a case which challenged the authority of the Boston Police Commissioner to require a range test by LTC applicants. The Appeals Court determined that the licensing authority has broad general powers, and with the Commissioner's responsibility to determine suitability "the imposition of a test focusing on the safe handling and proficient firing of a firearm is not an unreasonable exercise of that power." Karen L. MacNutt v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 410 Mass. 1104, 577 N.E.2d 309 (1991).

Thank you for expressing your concerns and frustrations with this process. Please understand that the BPD receives applications upwards of a thousand individuals per year, and they need to be diligent in their determination of eligibility and suitability and must review all applications according to the same standards. Because not every applicant is a "law-abiding citizen" such as you, the department must utilize standards that will ensure the safety of all members of the public.

Should you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me by phone or by e-mail.

Caroline Sawyer, Director of Firearm Support Services

Criminal History Systems Board

200 Arlington St., Suite 2200, Chelsea, MA 02150

617-660-4782
 
I had the occassion to speak to Miss (?) Sawyer several months ago on a question on licensing requirements. She seemed like a very nice woman and was quite willing to help me understand the point we were discussing. Given the state of affairs with firearms ownership in Massachusetts and the way licensing is set up, I think her answer was the only one she could give.

I would suggest a brief reply thanking her for her time and her letter. My impression is that she is on our side and such a reply would help keep it that way.
 
That letter reminds me of the Charlie Brown telephone conversation. "Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah....." OMG a whole thousand applicaitons..... What ever are they to do?
 
I had no intention of lashing out at her but I did want to point out some of the problems inherent in what she mentioned. In a polite, respectful way of course. I'm not a jerk that would be abusive toward someone like her as she's basically helpless given the way the law is set up. The Boston PD are licensing gods and they know it.

FPrice said:
I had the occassion to speak to Miss (?) Sawyer several months ago on a question on licensing requirements. She seemed like a very nice woman and was quite willing to help me understand the point we were discussing. Given the state of affairs with firearms ownership in Massachusetts and the way licensing is set up, I think her answer was the only one she could give.

I would suggest a brief reply thanking her for her time and her letter. My impression is that she is on our side and such a reply would help keep it that way.
 
I'm not a jerk that would be abusive toward someone like her as she's basically helpless given the way the law is set up.

I hope you didn't think this was what I was hinting at. That was not my intent. I just like to insure that we as a firearms-owning community cultivate those who seem to be on our side.

My apologies for any misunderstanding.
 
Oh no problem, sorry if it seemed I was overreacting. I'm very tired and haven't been to bed yet. Damn insomnia. :(

FPrice said:
I hope you didn't think this was what I was hinting at. That was not my intent. I just like to insure that we as a firearms-owning community cultivate those who seem to be on our side.

My apologies for any misunderstanding.
 
FPrice said:
I had the occassion to speak to Miss (?) Sawyer several months ago on a question on licensing requirements. She seemed like a very nice woman and was quite willing to help me understand the point we were discussing. Given the state of affairs with firearms ownership in Massachusetts and the way licensing is set up, I think her answer was the only one she could give.

I would suggest a brief reply thanking her for her time and her letter. My impression is that she is on our side and such a reply would help keep it that way.

+1 A letter is a good idea. That is the most detailed response I've seen from a public official in a while.
 
Caroline Sawyer is, as stated in the letter, the Director of Firearm Support Services and is a wonderful person. She is NOT anti-gun.

She is also a lawyer and, as such, I am rather surprised she cited the now-obsolete MacNutt case as the basis for Boston's testing pogrom. Rest assured I will discuss it with her.........
 
"the imposition of a test focusing on the safe handling and proficient firing of a firearm is not an unreasonable exercise of that power."

That there is the key word... Something our founding fathers would be proud of.
 
Scrivener said:
Caroline Sawyer is, as stated in the letter, the Director of Firearm Support Services and is a wonderful person. She is NOT anti-gun.

She is also a lawyer and, as such, I am rather surprised she cited the now-obsolete MacNutt case as the basis for Boston's testing pogrom. Rest assured I will discuss it with her.........

You may think that it's obsolete, and I may agree with you 100%, but until some gun owner decides to cough up the court costs and attorney fees to contest it (or some gun-friendly attorney decides to argue the case pro bono) that's the only precedent and we only have our opinions. [frown] [sad]

Ken
 
KMaurer said:
You may think that it's obsolete, and I may agree with you 100%, but until some gun owner decides to cough up the court costs and attorney fees to contest it (or some gun-friendly attorney decides to argue the case pro bono) that's the only precedent and we only have our opinions.

That case may be coming - especially if the GOAL BOD acts favorably on a request for assistance to bring precisely that issue into court. [wink]
 
Scrivener said:
That case may be coming - especially if the GOAL BOD acts favorably on a request for assistance to bring precisely that issue into court. [wink]
One can hope... Keeping my fingers crossed....
 
I agree with the "thank you for responding" letter. And, as bad as it is, at least she said,

Because not every applicant is a "law-abiding citizen" such as you, the department must utilize standards that will ensure the safety of all members of the public.

Not all of them will even write something like that since they'd feel the urge to vomit.
 
derek said:
That letter reminds me of the Charlie Brown telephone conversation. "Waah Waah Waah Waah Waah....." OMG a whole thousand applicaitons..... What ever are they to do?

wow, that's like 4 per working day... I bet they give the liscensing officer special training to prevent repetative stress syndrome....
 
Back
Top Bottom