Letters of Reference

[LordVector]

Hello everyone. Long-time lurker, second time poster.

I am currently working on obtaining my LTC in Waltham, MA. Beyond the standard requirements for MA, the city of Waltham requires (from the packet):

"You must supply (3) letters of reference, addressed to the Chief of Police...these letters must be typed and include the writers' name, address, date of birth, and a valid phone number (Reference letters cannot be from family members)"

I spoke briefly with the licensing officer about this. I asked about the content of the letters and the impression that I got was that in writing the letters, my references should assert that I'm an good, law-abiding individual who will not be using my LTC for harm, etc.

The only problem I have with this is that it's not particularly specific. I know that if someone asked me to write one of these for them, I would just stare at them blankly and have no idea what I would write in such a letter. Does anyone have any experience with these things and/or suggestions for guidelines to give the people I ask for these letters?

Thanks,
LordVector

 

[taz-2005]

Mine just said person has known me x amount of years and is a law abiding member of the community. In total it was three sentences long; no need to write a novel

 

[Patriot]

Do a standard letter of reference. Screw that gun bullshit. Just have
some people that know you and would write you a good one do it. Let
him (COP) deal with the stupid formats. Don't do what one candidate I
interviewed for a postition once did. He gave me a reference, which I
called to check on, and the reference told me the guy was an a**h***.


I hired him anyway but it practically took all my attaboys to get it by
HR.

TBP

 

[Scrivener]

Why provide ANY "letters of reference?" There is NO such requirement - the FA 25/26 IS the state-issued and approved application and it requires 2 references. Period.

Next crisis......

 

[bpm990d]

I agree in principle, but only if you can spell Pyrrhic Victory and know what it means.

 

[Scrivener]

I agree in principle, but only if you can spell Pyrrhic Victory and know what it means.

What you tolerate, you validate;
What you put up with - YOU DESERVE!

 

[sixdouble532one]

I gave a list of achievements and such and had the town selectman's husband write one, my neighbor who is a criminal Justice professor at NEU write one and my old Scout master write one. No problems.

 

[bpm990d]

We all have to pick the mountain that we will die on over the issue. When I lived in MA, I was lucky and managed to get an ALP, but I didn't get it on the first go around, only on a renewal. I saw the writing on the wall and I moved out of state.

On my first attempt, I put down ALP for the reason I was applying. The Chief said no, and asked me to fill out the application again. For about 10 seconds I thought about being a PITA and saying, no that is my application. Either accept it of deny it! I wanted to get a LTC and get a .22 pistol to shoot. I settled for a target and hunting, and was very content to shoot it at the club.

As with many situations, strategy is an important consideration. It might be better to jump through the departments hoops, but make a effort to inform the city council members that the department is doing something inappropriate, and might be opening the city up to legal difficulty. If you jump through the hoops, don't just put up with it though. Do somthing.

B

 

[Weerd Beard]

...And "hill to die on" is such an apropreate term. All tho I disagree with all the hoops local COPs make us jump through simply because they are anti-gun. But if we refuse and they decide to fight back, our only refuge is Lawyers like Scrivener. (Interested in doing some Pro Bono work?)

The alternative is to go though the BS that MassBackwards did waiting for months and months for his licence to come back.

Oh, Vector you better ask me for one of thems letters! Won't be even a bit of bother, buddy!

Arrrr

-Weer'd Beard

 

[Pilgrim]

When I applied and then later newed my app, I put down the 3 references they wanted. There were all either active or retired local cops.

I had no problem.

 

[MarkM]

Letters of reference are just another way to exclude someone.

You have the background check to see if they are a criminal, what else do you need?

This kind of BS just discriminates against good people who unfortunately don't know local police, or college professors, or former judges, or the chief's mistress, or anyone else the chief "trusts".

 

[drgrant]

What you tolerate, you validate;
What you put up with - YOU DESERVE!

Sorry, but not everyone has thousands of dollars to lawyer up over
a little technicality. I'd rather spend that money on guns or ammo, or
put it towards a fund that would be used to obtain residency in another
state. IMO there are better battles to be waged, eg the whole issue
about many places not issuing A/ALP.

What is joe commoner going to do? March down to the PD and assert that
their requirement is wrong? I'm sure theyll just issue him a license, right
then and there, because he said that.

 

[Scrivener]

Sorry, but not everyone has thousands of dollars to lawyer up over
a little technicality. I'd rather spend that money on guns or ammo, or
put it towards a fund that would be used to obtain residency in another
state. IMO there are better battles to be waged, eg the whole issue
about many places not issuing A/ALP.

Thank you, Neville Chamberlain. Because you and those like you are supinely accomodating the bullies' demands, MORE demands, and more outrageous demands are being made.

First it was 2 letters instead of just 2 references.

Then it became several letters (I've seen as many as 5 "required"), on letterhead, with additional restrictions as to whom they could be from.

Then it was doctors' letters PLUS the "letters of reference."

It's called "incrementalism" and you are aiding and abetting it each time you put up with unlawful and unreasonable demands in the hope they won't deny YOU.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the entire purpose of these abuses is to discourage, delay and ultimately DENY your right to the guns you don't want to spend money defending.

Brilliant policy........

 

[bpm990d]

Fighting these stupid policies is a worthy thing. However a frontal attack is not the best policy. Like I said, make noise about it to people that have the ability to influence the Chief. If you go in for a frontal attack, you may very well get denied. At that point, you have been denied a LTC, and even if you move to another state, you will still lawfully have to check the little box that says you have been denied in another jurisdiction. And then you will have to go through the whole thing and explain that you were standing up for your rights blaa, blaa, blaa; yadda, yadda, yadda. “Honestly it’s not in the Mass Laws, the Chief was being a jerk and I’m not a bad guy, please give me a permit, that’s why I left Mass.”

Hey diddle diddle, right up the middle is silly in most political or military contexts. Do what they ask you and get the permit. Then get pissed and do somthing and work to remove them or make life uncomfortable for them.

YMMV

B

 

[Chris]

What you fail to acknowledge is that the entire purpose of these abuses is to discourage, delay and ultimately DENY your right to the guns you don't want to spend money defending.

So... I take it you haven't even bothered to apply for a license, carry a copy of the Bill Of Rights around with you, and plan to take the police and state to federal court when you are charged over a violation of your Second Amendment Rights?

I agree 100% that a hell of a lot of people in power are abusing that power illegally. That doesn't help the vast majority of us who work hard just to get by in dealing with those who can call upon the financial reserves of the King against you.

In some towns or cities, liek Carver, you can get the powers over the chief to send him packing, but in many eastern cities, there is so much corruption already on the top, your issue is of no concern.

Imagine what recourse you have in Boston to refuse the Moon Island test? Even Karen McNutt failed in that battle.

And then, on top, you have the state government that is CLEARLY violating it's OWN constitution as well as that of the Federal Government and yet are free to do so.

Your high and mighty attitude is all fine and dandy, but in practical terms, your advice is 100% useless.

The Sheep in this commonwealth are so willing to be sodomized by the state we can't even get 30% of the firearm license holders to band together to speakout against the abuse. And you want a simple citizen to tell the Chief of Police of a major city to go fondle his bum over three letters? Yea, now there is real smart legal advice.

Sure. if I was wealthy enough to know my family would be safe and I could handle the virtually unlimited assault by the state that would be put upon me, I'd LOVE to stand my ground and tell the dictator wanna-bes that my rights are not theirs to violate. But I, and any one of us who tried that would be squashed like a bug so flat that the remains would not be identifiable. Truth would never appear in the media. Every public presentation would seek to show you as undesireable as possible. You'd be declared a domestic terrorist long before you ever got your day in court. OR, if you were clean enough to be unable to denounce, you would be ignored completely.

The sad part is that those who COULD possibly take such a stand would never find themselves in a position to have to defend it. Regardless of such denials, the wealthy ARE treated differently. If you are never charged, you can't fight back.

Hell, I don't have to explain the way the legal system works to you. The fact of the matter is that the ONLY way change will occur is if public opinion changes. Until then, nobody cares that Gun Owners are treated worse then sex offenders by the state.

 

[Adam_MA]

+1 Chris..
Very well put!

 

[Scrivener]

Sure. if I was wealthy enough to know my family would be safe and I could handle the virtually unlimited assault by the state that would be put upon me, I'd LOVE to stand my ground and tell the dictator wanna-bes that my rights are not theirs to violate. But I, and any one of us who tried that would be squashed like a bug so flat that the remains would not be identifiable. Truth would never appear in the media. Every public presentation would seek to show you as undesireable as possible. You'd be declared a domestic terrorist long before you ever got your day in court. OR, if you were clean enough to be unable to denounce, you would be ignored completely.

Your paranoia runs rampant. A "virtually unlimited assault by the state?" Please. You're not that important.

Refuse to provide the letters and state why in the cover letter you submit w/the app. Perhaps the chief - probably after discussion w/town counsel - decides not to push the issue and thus invite a challenge and issues the license.

Perhaps not. You file the appeal, based in whole or in part upon the chief's unlawful "requirements" and:

1. The matter is settled prior to trial once town counsel gets involved; or

2. You go to court, costing the town money and attracting attention to the chief's policy.

Neither constitutes being "squashed like a bug so flat that the remains would not be identifiable."

Gross exaggeration as an excuse for obeisance. Yes, that's a worthy strategy......

 

[Adam_MA]

Keith,
As an attorney, would someone retaining your services be better off having you involved in the entire process? For instance, how do you feel, an application submitted by an applicant with an attorneys assistance better the chances that that applicant is treated fairly, and within the limits of the law?

Adam

 

[Len-2A Training]

Mod Hat On!

Let's keep it civil and on topic.

There are at least 3 schools of thought here and at least two of them are effective:

- BOHICA - just do as you are told, hold your tongue and hope for the best. Places like Boston this is about all that you can do.

- Take it, but work behind the scenes to change the policy by dealing with the bosses who pull the chief's strings. This is usually the approach I take to injustice . . . it is usually effective for me in my town at least.

- Face off in a battle of wills. Hire an attorney and be prepared for a long and protracted, expensive battle. Trusting to the judges actually ruling per law and not per their personal beliefs (I don't have all the faith in this that I wish I had).

Not everyone has an unbounded wallet to fight with, or the political clout to change the rules.

So, let's not attack those that are helpless as individuals and don't have the means to defend against such injustices?

Regardless of belief, let's keep this a civil discussion without keep

Thank you,

The Management

 

[M1911]

1. The matter is settled prior to trial once town counsel gets involved; or

2. You go to court, costing the town money and attracting attention to the chief's policy.

#2 will also cost the plaintiff plenty of money. And what happens if you lose?

 

[LoginName]

Your paranoia runs rampant. A "virtually unlimited assault by the state?" Please. You're not that important.

Refuse to provide the letters and state why in the cover letter you submit w/the app. Perhaps the chief - probably after discussion w/town counsel - decides not to push the issue and thus invite a challenge and issues the license.

Perhaps not. You file the appeal, based in whole or in part upon the chief's unlawful "requirements" and:

1. The matter is settled prior to trial once town counsel gets involved; or

2. You go to court, costing the town money and attracting attention to the chief's policy.

Neither constitutes being "squashed like a bug so flat that the remains would not be identifiable."

Gross exaggeration as an excuse for obeisance. Yes, that's a worthy strategy......

In your personal experience and/or discussion with others, what is the success rate of the procedure you describe? How long did the process take from start to finish? How much did it end up costing the applicant?

I agree with both sides here... one, that complying with the chiefs bogus demands is tantamount to admitting and accepting defeat and only serves to allow them to add even more ridiculous demands/requirements.

However (two), realistically, butting heads with the CLEO is going to result
in complicating matters that most people don't have the time, resources or money to deal with. Even successfully challenging the chiefs decision, there's a very good chance of retribution, retaliation or harassment by the chief and his minions as long as that person lives in that community.

What's the current situation with the Brookline, Quincy, Worcester, etc police chiefs and their foolish requirements? What about the chiefs that a require doctors note? Has that situation been successfully challenged?

Last that I recall is that the chiefs have been challenged WRT to their particular denials, yet the challenges have either been unsuccessful or still in limbo. Wasn't it in Brookline that the judge didn't even show up for the hearing and the plaintiff and his lawyer weren't even informed?

We all know the real problem here and it's not squarly the fault of the CLEOs... it's the "May Issue" law the way that's its currently written that enables them to abuse the law and get away with it.

 

[Scrivener]

#2 will also cost the plaintiff plenty of money. And what happens if you lose?

It may be that a settlement will be "suggested" by the judge in chambers (but hey; no pressure!). If you're willing, take the hint.

IF not, your next avenue is to EITHER Superior Court (NOT my recommendation) or the Single Justice Session of the SJC. You will need to identify an error of LAW in the District Court's decision.

There is also the option of RE-applying and submitting a tailored app.

NOTE: IF you wish to challenge such BS as range tests, letters of recommendation, doctor's letters, etc., I suggest you bring an attorney on board AT THE BEGINNING. This is also true if you have to answer YES to any questions on Page 2.

You have a better chance of prevailing if the app is perfect than if you have made a mess of it. A botched app is just a new, higher hurdle to clear.

Imagine what recourse you have in Boston to refuse the Moon Island test? Even Karen McNutt failed in that battle.

What this poster ignores is that the law on this subject changed in 1998, years AFTER the case he attempts to rely on. As this subject has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, I won't waste everyone else's time regurgitating the reasons that case is irrelevant, if not actually useful, now.

 

[M1911]

It may be that a settlement will be "suggested" by the judge in chambers (but hey; no pressure!). If you're willing, take the hint.

IF not, your next avenue is to EITHER Superior Court (NOT my recommendation) or the Single Justice Session of the SJC. You will need to identify an error of LAW in the District Court's decision.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that there have been times when judges have both found in favor of plaintiffs during such license appeals AND told the town to pay the plaintiff's legal fees?

I'm assuming most lawyers who take such cases don't work pro bono for the majority of their cases.

 

[Coyote33]

Cross reference: GOAL - LTC Application Investigation Update

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Someone applies for a LTC or find in a bright GREEN town. The only thing is that the LEO processing apps takes the position that the SSN is required. Not disclosing the SS # will not prevent the PD from finding it out, and if you provide it, the LEO will issue an LTC-A/ALP without any grief.

So, do you provide the SSN and pick your license up in a few weeks, or refuse to provide it and retain counsel?

Similarly, taking a range test not required by statute can be cheaper than hiring an attorney, and may even the the license before you would have had your appeal hearing.

Sometimes, the applicant has to choose between doing what is best to get the license vs. proving a point.