Lowell Unrestricted LTC Class

To me it sounds like racketeering? Didn't think a government entity could require the use of a specific private business in such a manner.
Yes, it is illegal even if they aren't getting a kickback (which I believe is highly likely). Any city/town official/committee member must abide by the state's ethics laws. My Wife and I had to attend meetings and do online seminars annually, signing certificates after passing the tests, etc.

Also, speaking as an NRA instructor who is certified to teach a bunch of NRA courses, the only (handgun-related) course that is not an 8 hr course is Home Firearm Safety (4 hrs and if you add Mass gun laws it is 5+ hrs). And NRA insists that you can't add anything to their courses and must use their copyrighted material. So adding anything to it means that you do it after completing the NRA course (and NRA Basic Pistol is an 8 hr course with shooting). So something is very fishy here wrt the course being offered as well.
 
Yes, it is illegal even if they aren't getting a kickback (which I believe is highly likely). Any city/town official/committee member must abide by the state's ethics laws. My Wife and I had to attend meetings and do online seminars annually, signing certificates after passing the tests, etc.

Also, speaking as an NRA instructor who is certified to teach a bunch of NRA courses, the only (handgun-related) course that is not an 8 hr course is Home Firearm Safety (4 hrs and if you add Mass gun laws it is 5+ hrs). And NRA insists that you can't add anything to their courses and must use their copyrighted material. So adding anything to it means that you do it after completing the NRA course (and NRA Basic Pistol is an 8 hr course with shooting). So something is very fishy here wrt the course being offered as well.

How far back will you reprint or reissue student's certificates for, if say, the name on the original certificate was wrong?

Everything you said is absolutely fascinating. I'd stumbled upon quite a few things that seemed 'unique", but I wasnt sure. My initial reaction had been to make a stink, but when they agreed to do the private class I kind of figured I'd jump through the hoops, cross my Ts, and deal with it if I had a problem getting my license.

Like I said, I had assumed when it had "NRA Basic" in the name that it was the same class I could re- take anywhere... so I did.... but it wasnt... and now here I am. 🤔
 
Thank you. That's exactly what I was saying. I really don't think there is anything nefarious going on.
You mean other than the unlawful requirement?

How would this work for someone who is exempt from the training requirement? Like someone who held an LTC when the training requirement was added and is grandfathered?
 
You mean other than the unlawful requirement?

How would this work for someone who is exempt from the training requirement? Like someone who held an LTC when the training requirement was added and is grandfathered?
Yes. Exactly. Aside from LPD'S unlawful requirements, infringement on constitutional rights, failure to exceed the threshold of even this commie state's laws, and making arbitrary decisions on the spot, I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. Thank you for clarifying. 🙂

As for someone who is grandfathered in, I'm speculating, but I suspect that they'd make up the rules as they go, like they do with everything else. If someone let their LTC expire, I'd bet the farm on them requiring all new certifications.... or atleast trying to. I'm pretty sure theyd have the applicant review the "grandfather, schmandfather" statute.
 
How far back will you reprint or reissue student's certificates for, if say, the name on the original certificate was wrong?

Everything you said is absolutely fascinating. I'd stumbled upon quite a few things that seemed 'unique", but I wasnt sure. My initial reaction had been to make a stink, but when they agreed to do the private class I kind of figured I'd jump through the hoops, cross my Ts, and deal with it if I had a problem getting my license.

Like I said, I had assumed when it had "NRA Basic" in the name that it was the same class I could re- take anywhere... so I did.... but it wasnt... and now here I am. 🤔
NRA requires the student to register online these days and the instructor submits a report that all those that registered took the course and passed. Once it is submitted, it can't be changed. "In the old days", we issued certificates (NRA and state) and to re-issue an NRA cert cost us $7.00 from NRA + shipping (likely another $7.00-10.00). Now the student goes online to generate the NRA certificate after the instructor confirms attendance and passing any test. Similarly, MSP requires us to submit a roster of attendees immediately after each class and some PDs verify it with the MSP. So it isn't a simple matter of printing a new (new date) certificate. Yes, I could replace a lost certificate with the exact same info from when a student took a class (dates, etc.), but I'm sure that many instructors don't keep detailed records like I do, so that could be difficult. In all cases, info must match up between certificate and what is reported to NRA/MSP.
 
NRA requires the student to register online these days and the instructor submits a report that all those that registered took the course and passed. Once it is submitted, it can't be changed. "In the old days", we issued certificates (NRA and state) and to re-issue an NRA cert cost us $7.00 from NRA + shipping (likely another $7.00-10.00). Now the student goes online to generate the NRA certificate after the instructor confirms attendance and passing any test. Similarly, MSP requires us to submit a roster of attendees immediately after each class and some PDs verify it with the MSP. So it isn't a simple matter of printing a new (new date) certificate. Yes, I could replace a lost certificate with the exact same info from when a student took a class (dates, etc.), but I'm sure that many instructors don't keep detailed records like I do, so that could be difficult. In all cases, info must match up between certificate and what is reported to NRA/MSP.

Thanks for the response. I cant tell you how many posts I've read saying "NVM, forget what I said, listen to Len."
It's piqued my curiosity because in theory, Id be in the NRA database, (assuming they started before 2018), but ofcourse, it doesnt really matter since Lowell wants the classes taken within the past year.
 
Thanks for the response. I cant tell you how many posts I've read saying "NVM, forget what I said, listen to Len."
It's piqued my curiosity because in theory, Id be in the NRA database, (assuming they started before 2018), but ofcourse, it doesnt really matter since Lowell wants the classes taken within the past year.
NRA requires the student to register online these days and the instructor submits a report that all those that registered took the course and passed. Once it is submitted, it can't be changed. "In the old days", we issued certificates (NRA and state) and to re-issue an NRA cert cost us $7.00 from NRA + shipping (likely another $7.00-10.00). Now the student goes online to generate the NRA certificate after the instructor confirms attendance and passing any test. Similarly, MSP requires us to submit a roster of attendees immediately after each class and some PDs verify it with the MSP. So it isn't a simple matter of printing a new (new date) certificate. Yes, I could replace a lost certificate with the exact same info from when a student took a class (dates, etc.), but I'm sure that many instructors don't keep detailed records like I do, so that could be difficult. In all cases, info must match up between certificate and what is reported to NRA/MSP.
*just to clarify, I didn't want a new date on the certificate, just a copy with the same information. I would never ask anyone to re-date something, and ofcourse I would have paid whatever for the inconvenience.
 
*just to clarify, I didn't want a new date on the certificate, just a copy with the same information. I would never ask anyone to re-date something, and ofcourse I would have paid whatever for the inconvenience.
I wouldn't charge anyone to duplicate a MSP BFS cert or my own certs, using same info as original and I keep my records for all the years that I've been teaching (doesn't mean it is easy to find if mis-filed however). Can't do it with NRA certs anymore however.
 
I wouldn't charge anyone to duplicate a MSP BFS cert or my own certs, using same info as original and I keep my records for all the years that I've been teaching (doesn't mean it is easy to find if mis-filed however). Can't do it with NRA certs anymore however.
You've given me more information in a few paragraphs than the cumulative explanations I've gotten the past few months.
 
Are you in Lowell and did you get an Unrestricted? I took the class at On Target a few years ago, when they first opened and had a great experience as well. Lowell is demanding a new certification within the past year. On Target could have easily told me to get in line and wait until October, but they're really going out of their way to help me out.
Yes and yes.
 
Likely because it is the only public shooting range that will take on this task around Lowell. Nice place, good people.
That was how it was explained to me as well. Any instructor or range *could* jump through the hoops to become a "preferred" class, but only On Target has done it. I like them alot too. Good people with reasonable range and ammo prices.
 
That was how it was explained to me as well. Any instructor or range *could* jump through the hoops to become a "preferred" class, but only On Target has done it. I like them alot too. Good people with reasonable range and ammo prices.
And if no one offered this "special" (unlawful) class...... then the PD would have to drop it or lose in court. Good thing someone stepped up.
 
And if no one offered this "special" (unlawful) class...... then the PD would have to drop it or lose in court. Good thing someone stepped up.
If Lowell decided not to have any extra course requirement, but issued only restricted LTCs to unimportant people, the courts would almost certainly back up the PD. The current situation may not be ideologically pure, but the outcome is less bad that at least one alternative the court would not overturn.
 
If Lowell decided not to have any extra course requirement, but issued only restricted LTCs to unimportant people, the courts would almost certainly back up the PD. The current situation may not be ideologically pure, but the outcome is less bad that at least one alternative the court would not overturn.
Is this your position or Comm2a's when you support the "less bad" alternative? Nevermind, I give up. People WANT to comply and even the organizations in MA that say they will fight are slowly being convinced that they are better off just letting it be.
 
Is this your position or Comm2a's when you support the "less bad" alternative? Nevermind, I give up. People WANT to comply and even the organizations in MA that say they will fight are slowly being convinced that they are better off just letting it be.
Would you be willing to give up the "unrestricted" nomencalture on your LTC if it meant Lowellians did not have to take an extra course to get it on theirs?
 
And if no one offered this "special" (unlawful) class...... then the PD would have to drop it or lose in court. Good thing someone stepped up.

sure because if you were in Lowell you would just tell them no. They have always had strict issue conditions and the majority have been left to stand by the courts. As for the range they have been a good business and offer a way so people can obtain their license in Lowell.
 
I really like On-Target. Nice operation and good people. They're not the problem... Lowell Licensing is.
 
Thinking more about this "less bad" stuff.

We are in a battle of ideologies involving diametrically opposed viewpoints of the relationship of the individual to the government.

Its not a matter of winning it all at once, or winning battles on principle. Comm2A chooses our battles carefully engaging ones where p(win)*benefit(win) > (1-p(win))*cost(loss). In the case of Lowell, the original problem was restricted licenses. This is one area where we have seen improvement over recent years (Last I checked MA was 92% unrestricted LTCs). The course thing was not even on the table when we started pushing. Lowell came up with the "extra training" thing as part of the shift to allowing "ordinaries" to get unrestricted. That in and of itself was a win - especially for the people who no longer carry the JV version of an LTC in their wallet.

Unrestricted licenses are contagious. As they become the norm, PDs feel more comfortable issuing them, and they have the opportunity to see that the people getting such licenses are not contributing to a crime wave.

We didn't go after the training requirement and risk losing the win. In my opinion there is a very good chance the PD would have responded with "OK, no training requirement, no unrestricted LtC availability". Plus, people can still get restricted LTCs without the training which satisfies both the issuance to a suitable person as well as Heller requirements. In other words, a losing case.

It is not always about what is "better", but strategically picking battles based on probability of favorable outcome and benefit. Otherwise, we would just be tilting at windmills.
 
More unlawful requirements, Comm2a you listening?
There was a time when Lowell also required proof that one had already been a victim of a violent crime to get a permit. City council members, PD, and political donors were exempt from this provision.
Comm2A sued the Lowell PD several years ago because they rarely, if ever, issued unrestricted LTC. That suit was muted when their changed their policy to one where they will issue unrestricted LTCs to people who take some form of concealed carry training. Challenging this new requirement would be pointless, at least for the foreseeable future simple because the license is now available to anyone willing to meet the basic requirement.
 
Comm2A sued the Lowell PD several years ago because they rarely, if ever, issued unrestricted LTC. That suit was muted when their changed their policy to one where they will issue unrestricted LTCs to people who take some form of concealed carry training. Challenging this new requirement would be pointless, at least for the foreseeable future simple because the license is now available to anyone willing to meet the basic requirement.
I see no reason one is not required to take a course and have some formal training, you don't let people drive without it.
 
I see no reason one is not required to take a course and have some formal training, you don't let people drive without it.
Are you certain that this is MGL? Last I knew you could still get a DL without formal training by passing the tests, but your insurance premiums would be thru the roof.
 
Are you certain that this is MGL? Last I knew you could still get a DL without formal training by passing the tests, but your insurance premiums would be thru the roof.
Unlike LTCs one can present proof of having been licensed in another state as a substitute for proof of formal driving training.
 
Unlike LTCs one can present proof of having been licensed in another state as a substitute for proof of formal driving training.
Not what I was referring to. Last I knew (and this was some years ago), you could get a learner's permit at a different age if you didn't go thru a driving school. IIRC it was 6 months later than if you did take a drivers ed program. Then you could get your DL. So drivers ed wasn't mandatory, just quicker and cheaper (insurance).

I don't know if that has changed in recent years however.
 
Not what I was referring to. Last I knew (and this was some years ago), you could get a learner's permit at a different age if you didn't go thru a driving school. IIRC it was 6 months later than if you did take a drivers ed program. Then you could get your DL. So drivers ed wasn't mandatory, just quicker and cheaper (insurance).

I don't know if that has changed in recent years however.
This was in upstate NY:

The drivers ed encouragement when I was in high school was that you could get your full license (valid in evening hours as well as day) at 17 if you had driver ed from a public high school but had to wait until 18 if you did not. They effectively prevented driving schools from becoming a thriving industry. It's the one class that actually got kids to sign up for summer school (although when I did it, schools had not yet invented the concept of fees for any service not required by law). The public school programs were even allowed to let kids drive with an instructor without a learner's permit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom