IMPORTANT: Denied an LTC-A ALP??? Please send me your letters.

SecondAmdFirst

SecondAmdFirst

Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,546
Likes
78
Location
Palmer, MA
Feedback: 5 / 0 / 0
Hello fellow NES members.

Based on some of the responses from representatives at the H.2259 hearing, I am trying to get together a stack of letters that will be presented to the community. Specifically, some reps. felt it was best to leave "suitability" in the hands of the Chief of Police in each town. Furthermore, LEOs have refuted claims that applicants have been denied for arbitrary reasons. In order to illustrate that this in fact does occur, I want you to contact me with your letters via PM. I will review the letters, make edits as needed, and then give an address to where they can be sent. Below I have listed the guidelines to ensure that each letter has a maximum impact. This is very important to show the CLEOs cannot be trusted to ensure suitability, so please get on this as soon as you can. If you want the laws changed, then each of you need to get involved. If we lose this fight it is because we failed to do enough.

- Please write a detailed account of the license you applied for, the timeline, the process, any written documentation received, additional items requested (e.g. doctor's note, letter from employer, etc.), time from application to receiving the license, and what you were approved for.
- List any fee charged that was out of the ordinary, or if you were told you must take the course from the police department. These requests are illegal and will help demonstrate a pattern of rights being violated.
- Do no reply if you have any criminal history, DUIs, restraining orders, orders of protection, or any other potential disqualifiers. The idea is to show the representatives that upstanding citizens with absolutely clean records are being denied for no reason whatsoever. This will maximize the impact of such letters. We do not want reps. to start looking into individuals and find out there was a clear reason for unsuitability. If you have any such items on your record, nobody here needs to know, just don’t participate in this letter campaign.
- Please avoid rambling or going off on tangents. We have seen a limited attention span and want to keep on point and to the facts.

If anyone has any thoughts or suggestions beyond what I have indicated, please let me know (try to keep to PMs so this stays organized). Thanks for your time and help in this important matter.
 
Coyote33 said:
At first, I thought this was the resurrection of this thread:
Why were you issued a restricted LTC?
Click to expand...

No, I want to get a stack of letters like Jim showed up with yesterday on Beacon Hill. I will work with everyone to review and edit the letter. Once completed, you can mail a signed copy to me and I will keep them in my safe until we send them into the committee. I will probably scan them as well for people who want to review it online (unless someone objects to that).
 
I'm sure most of us at least know of someone who has been "persuaded" away from applying for a restriction-free LTC by their licensing authority, as opposed to an outright denial after submitting an application. Does this qualify for your purposes?

ETA: Great idea. Thanks for doing this. +4 (I think) to you.
 
What if you applied for ALP but were instead issued restricted with no explanation as to why? I have a feeling most CLEOs are doing this, and thus not leaving a paper trail to prove their rational.
 
upStomp said:
I'm sure most of us at least know of someone who has been "persuaded" away from applying for a restriction-free LTC by their licensing authority, as opposed to an outright denial after submitting an application. Does this qualify for your purposes?

ETA: Great idea. Thanks for doing this. +4 (I think) to you.
Click to expand...

I would like to see those as well, but of coarse the actual denials will carry the most weight.
 
EcHo said:
What if you applied for ALP but were instead issued restricted with no explanation as to why? I have a feeling most CLEOs are doing this, and thus not leaving a paper trail to prove their rational.
Click to expand...

I still want to see those letters. Just clearly state that you were denied and the LEO refused to provide a reason. If they want to follow up with you, then include your contact info and they can follow up. If we have enough letters, it is going to be hard to ignore a pattern.
 
I've had a couple of questions on format. Below is my proposed idea. If someone has something to add or feels we can improve on the structure, please let me know.

First paragraph just introduce yourself and give a summary of issues encountered during the experience. Second paragraph provide a quick timeline of what happened in chronological order. Third paragraph provide details on any particularly suspicious or offensive requirements/inquiries. Last paragraph, thank the person for their time, tell them how fairness in this law is important, and again briefly summarize the high points.
 
SecondAmdFirst said:
I would like to see those as well, but of coarse the actual denials will carry the most weight.
Click to expand...

No, those are your golden witness statements. One of the things that going to a few of these hearings has made clear, the lack of a paper trail on non-denial denials (lets call them "soft denials") is allowing the power structure here to claim there is no harm and their is no problem. Putting a mountain of statements together that shows there are soft denials happening is absolutely crucial to stopping suitability.
 
LenS said:
Nope, one bill = one public hearing. I've never known of a second hearing on the same bill during the same legislative session.
Click to expand...

Then I have no problem going rep. to rep. and showing them these letters. One way or another we are going to be heard. Furthermore, I suggest that any rep. that will not support our rights will find groups such as ours voting them out of office. We need to show them that things are going to change and we will not tolerate government representatives that do not actually represent us.
 
terraformer said:
No, those are your golden witness statements. One of the things that going to a few of these hearings has made clear, the lack of a paper trail on non-denial denials (lets call them "soft denials") is allowing the power structure here to claim there is no harm and their is no problem. Putting a mountain of statements together that shows there are soft denials happening is absolutely crucial to stopping suitability.
Click to expand...

"Soft denials.." an excellent turn of phrase. It would point out that the person wasn't issued what they applied for, yet they weren't completely denied. The same person, applying in a different locale, would probably have been issued a Class A, ALP. It goes directly to the heart of the unfairness in the licensing system.

Good point.
 
I'm submitting a letter. While I got my ALP, there were some issues surrounding non-legal requirements and a requirement that the safety course be conducted by an LEO in the department if I wanted to have any chance at ALP.
 
center442 said:
"Soft denials.." an excellent turn of phrase. It would point out that the person wasn't issued what they applied for, yet they weren't completely denied. The same person, applying in a different locale, would probably have been issued a Class A, ALP. It goes directly to the heart of the unfairness in the licensing system.

Good point.
Click to expand...

I came up with Soft denials on the fly the other day at the hearing. Feel free to repeat at will. It makes sense, lets use the phrase.
 
I can tell you that in Lowell they don't give you a reason and not even allow you to apply for ALP. I handed the detective our apps with ALL Lawful Purposes and she input sporting and hunting. There was actually a sign up at the time that said: "We do not issue unrestricted LTCs."

I contacted two separate attorneys before we applied and both of them said that if I wanted an ALP and I lived in Lowell: "Move."
 
Bill Nance said:
I can tell you that in Lowell they don't give you a reason and not even allow you to apply for ALP. I handed the detective our apps with ALL Lawful Purposes and she input sporting and hunting. There was actually a sign up at the time that said: "We do not issue unrestricted LTCs."

I contacted two separate attorneys before we applied and both of them said that if I wanted an ALP and I lived in Lowell: "Move."
Click to expand...

So please put down your whole experience and use the guidelines I gave. This is exactly the kind of stuff we want to present. What would be even better is if you can get back in there and snap a picture of that sign.
 
PM with my story SENT. I have some friends going through the system right now in other 'red' towns whom I've forwarded the link to, I'll see if I can't get their stories sent to you as they happen.
 
What do you need for identifying information on the letter? I have an ALP in a red town and I am up for renewal this year. I know that if it got back to the CLEO I would end up restricted.

Bob
 
HorizontalHunter said:
What do you need for identifying information on the letter? I have an ALP in a red town and I am up for renewal this year. I know that if it got back to the CLEO I would end up restricted.

Bob
Click to expand...

Hmmm, well I want to have actually identifiable folks, but I can certainly understand your situation. I worried about the same thing, but my renewal isn't up for almost 5 years and I will be long gone from this state by then. So while I'm still here I intend to fight for everyone's rights. I would say go ahead and write the letter. Just put the town you you're from and avoid any details that could help the chielf nail it to you specifically. It may even be worth mentioning that you are not giving all information our of fear of retalliation. This in the kind of shady dealings we need to bring to light.
 
I'm not so sure that this whole letter writing plan is such a good idea. As a tactic, it might be better to present the letters to GOAL and let GOAL use them as ammo if there is a need. To go marching indesciminately around the Statehouse presenting letters attacking the veracity and mindset of local police chiefs could poison personal opinions of H2259. In the very least I think you should contact Jim Wallace at GOAL and run this plan by him. GOAL has worked long and hard on H2259 and doesn't need someone out there operating as a renegade and burning GOAL's bridges.

No disrespect meant toward the OP, SecondAmdFirst. Just a request to slow down and be careful.
 
Also, no offense, but probably more people trust GOAL. I know I wouldn't send my personal info to a forum poster I'd never met.
 
jar said:
Also, no offense, but probably more people trust GOAL. I know I wouldn't send my personal info to a forum poster I'd never met.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

SecondAmdFirst, why not get together with someone at GOAL and do this right. Real letters vs forum PM's will have much more weight as well. The folks at GOAL, having experience in these matters, can use the information to greater effect.

Thanks for fighting for us. Lets just do this smartly.
 

Similar threads

Show me your latest purchase
Replies
11
Views
481
AmeriKHAN
A
Expiring medical marijuana card and obtaining LTC
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
2K
Pete85
P
ltc in worcester
Replies
8
Views
235
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Letters of recommendation?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
42!
42!
LTC renewal question
Replies
4
Views
177
Sam P
S
Back
Top Bottom