"Licensing Problem Areas" - MCOPA

I like the bit in the suitability section- "criminal record with no convictions." Um, if there are no convictions, does that mean someone is still a criminal?
 
SteveCase said:
Absolute bullshit
Click to expand...

Not at all. His POINT is that if you think issuing a restricted license will somehow make your community safer, you're deluding yourself. The person is either suitable or not. Without getting into the viability of the whole 'suitability' debate (which I do not support) I agree with his point. It's a small step in the RIGHT direction of MA becoming a Shall Issue state for all licenses - or even better a free state like VT.

BTW, this is a dupe. Was posted by Derek I believe some months ago.
 
Last edited:
Bob P said:
Not at all. His POINT is that if you think issuing a restricted license will somehow make your community safer, you're deluding yourself. The person is either suitable or not. Without getting into the viability of the whole 'suitability' debate (which I do not support) I agree with his point. It's a small step in the RIGHT direction of MA becoming a Shall Issue state for all licenses - or even better a free state like VT.
Click to expand...

If that was his point, it was lost on me. I read it as him saying that even if we have restrictions on our LTC's, we are just going to ignore them and carry if we feel like it. While none of us support having restrictions on our LTC's, I know I won't carry until I have an unrestricted class A and I would be surprised if there are many who will risk getting their (albeit restricted) LTC taken away should they get caught carrying on a restricted LTC.
 
Missing the NW said:
If that was his point, it was lost on me. I read it as him saying that even if we have restrictions on our LTC's, we are just going to ignore them and carry if we feel like it. While none of us support having restrictions on our LTC's, I know I won't carry until I have an unrestricted class A and I would be surprised if there are many who will risk getting their (albeit restricted) LTC taken away should they get caught carrying on a restricted LTC.
Click to expand...
I think his point is that 1) a criminal is going to carry even though he doesn't have an LTC, and 2) if a restricted LTC holder decides to carry anyways, he'll do just that. Yes, if he gets caught, his LTC can be revoked, but the chances of catching him are slim.
 
Missing the NW said:
If that was his point, it was lost on me. I read it as him saying that even if we have restrictions on our LTC's, we are just going to ignore them and carry if we feel like it. While none of us support having restrictions on our LTC's, I know I won't carry until I have an unrestricted class A and I would be surprised if there are many who will risk getting their (albeit restricted) LTC taken away should they get caught carrying on a restricted LTC.
Click to expand...

Then yes, you missed his point. The author of that article is a proponant of simplifying the current laws. I prefer GOAL's proposal but as far as COP's go, he's not as bad as many.
 
Missing the NW said:
If that was his point, it was lost on me. I read it as him saying that even if we have restrictions on our LTC's, we are just going to ignore them and carry if we feel like it. While none of us support having restrictions on our LTC's, I know I won't carry until I have an unrestricted class A and I would be surprised if there are many who will risk getting their (albeit restricted) LTC taken away should they get caught carrying on a restricted LTC.
Click to expand...

I personally know people that carry on restricted licenses for exactly the reason stated. They take personal protection and the protection of their family very seriously but live in red towns. They roll the dice and take their chances with the law. It's no more bullshit than saying that people who are adamant about having ready access to a firearm for home defense will ignore the storage requirements.
 
ochmude said:
I personally know people that carry on restricted licenses for exactly the reason stated. They take personal protection and the protection of their family very seriously but live in red towns. They roll the dice and take their chances with the law. It's no more bullshit than saying that people who are adamant about having ready access to a firearm for home defense will ignore the storage requirements.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to say, but you said it far more clearly.
 
ochmude said:
I personally know people that carry on restricted licenses for exactly the reason stated. They take personal protection and the protection of their family very seriously but live in red towns. They roll the dice and take their chances with the law. It's no more bullshit than saying that people who are adamant about having ready access to a firearm for home defense will ignore the storage requirements.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I can certainly understand the need to be able to protect loved ones.

On another note, what are the odds that Class B towns (such as mine) might be affected by any of this?
 
Missing the NW said:
Fair enough. I can certainly understand the need to be able to protect loved ones.

On another note, what are the odds that Class B towns (such as mine) might be affected by any of this?
Click to expand...

I don't see MCOPA being able to 'reform' itself internally. Too many egos involved, too much like herding cats.
 
Missing the NW said:
On another note, what are the odds that Class B towns (such as mine) might be affected by any of this?
Click to expand...
Between slim and none, and Slim done left town.

This is just a recommendation from Chief Ron Glidden (though it has MCOPA's imprint). Anti-gun chiefs are still going to be anti-gun, and they can freely ignore Chief Glidden's advice.
 
If I got b-rammed, I'd move. I was on track to get my LTC-A upgraded to no restrictions when we decided to move to Washington, but that's the only reason we didn't move as soon as the restricted LTC's came through. Fortunately, I'll never have to deal with Mass. BS laws again after next Thursday as I'll never set foot in this pesthole again.
 
M1911 said:
Between slim and none, and Slim done left town.

This is just a recommendation from Chief Ron Glidden (though it has MCOPA's imprint). Anti-gun chiefs are still going to be anti-gun, and they [STRIKE]can[/STRIKE] freely ignore Chief Glidden's advice.
Click to expand...

FIFY

Having sat thru numerous of Glidden's seminars and discussed licensing with him, I think that it's safe to say that his personal beliefs (somewhat different than what gets published under the MCOPA banner, as he must toe their party line) are:

- Having multiple types of licenses is ridiculous and confusing to many in LE as well as citizens.

- That chiefs should either issue unrestricted Class A LTCs or refuse to issue any license under "suitability".

- That if a chief doesn't trust someone to do the right thing with LTC-A/None, that it is foolish for that chief to think that the person will abide by any restrictions on a license?
 
While his angles are somewhat positive to the issuance of class As, I feel that this entire article was unfortunately written under the color of the COPs keeping their discretion intact- this is a message to the chiefs- "don't screw it up, or they'll take away our authority altogether."
 
Friday said:
While his angles are somewhat positive to the issuance of class As, I feel that this entire article was unfortunately written under the color of the COPs keeping their discretion intact- this is a message to the chiefs- "don't screw it up, or they'll take away our authority altogether."
Click to expand...

Oh, yes it was. They are actively looking for an alternative system. Luckily they have so thoroughly abused the one they had their options may be limited.
 
Friday said:
While his angles are somewhat positive to the issuance of class As, I feel that this entire article was unfortunately written under the color of the COPs keeping their discretion intact- this is a message to the chiefs- "don't screw it up, or they'll take away our authority altogether."
Click to expand...

Yep, but by the time they finally get their act togther and the Napoleon's in line it will, hopefully, be too late.

EDIT

Terraformer beat me to it.
 
Bob P said:
Then yes, you missed his point. The author of that article is a proponant of simplifying the current laws. I prefer GOAL's proposal but as far as COP's go, he's not as bad as many.
Click to expand...

Agree !
Within the current structure provided by MA Laws and Regulations, If the local COP's see this as an 'instruction' for how to process licenses it is an improvement. Doesn't need to end here, but this is better than where we have been, especially if you live in some of the RED towns
 
Friday said:
While his angles are somewhat positive to the issuance of class As, I feel that this entire article was unfortunately written under the color of the COPs keeping their discretion intact- this is a message to the chiefs- "don't screw it up, or they'll take away our authority altogether."
Click to expand...

I seem to recall someone (could have been Len) mentioned that this was the exact angle that Chief Glidden took when addressing other chiefs on the matter. Basically, he was warning that the chiefs needed to stop abusing their power or they were going to lose it.
 
pdm said:
New Hampshire? [wink]
Click to expand...

I'll take it! I'll take it!! [smile] [smile]

Friday said:
While his angles are somewhat positive to the issuance of class As, I feel that this entire article was unfortunately written under the color of the COPs keeping their discretion intact- this is a message to the chiefs- "don't screw it up, or they'll take away our authority altogether."
Click to expand...

That is precisely what the message is all about!

ochmude said:
I seem to recall someone (could have been Len) mentioned that this was the exact angle that Chief Glidden took when addressing other chiefs on the matter. Basically, he was warning that the chiefs needed to stop abusing their power or they were going to lose it.
Click to expand...

Yup, it was probably me. This is indeed the case that Ron keeps tying to make. But it falls on deaf ears in some localities. [thinking]

We can only hope that all discretion is removed, but I think that this is a very slim chance in MA unless we topple almost all the current legislators.
 
I was surprised to read this:

Individuals Moving to another Community
If a licensee moves to a new community, he or she is required to notify both chiefs, plus the
Firearms Records Bureau in writing. In some cases the new community may issue unrestricted
licenses whereas the old community issued a restricted license. The licensee’s license from the
old community will remain valid until it expires. If a person chooses to renew his or her license
early in the new community so he or she can obtain an unrestricted license such person may
legally do so by paying the $100 license fee. However the old community must “expire” the
license via MIRCS. Contact the Firearms Record Bureau for details. There are several
communities who have refused to do this for their former residents. Nothing is to be gained by
forcing a former resident to maintain a LTC with your restrictions once he or she moves to a new
community. Expire the license and let the new community license him or her as they wish.
Click to expand...

Too bad this is a suggestion and not an edict.
 

Similar threads

ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
A Taxing Problem
Replies
11
Views
532
snax
snax
Anyone else see a problem here ?
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
drgrant
drgrant
Solve the supply problem one way, so of course .......
Replies
3
Views
307
paul73
paul73
Weatherby accuracy problems
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
2K
mac1911
M
Back
Top Bottom