LTC Reasons for Issuance / Restrictions and GOAL

[KMaurer]

There's been a lot of talk about how GOAL has screwed things up by somehow causing the "reason for issuing" that licensing authorities place on some LTC's to become restrictions. I went back to the beginning of this, re-read all the sections of MGL and a lot of other material and talked with some other people.

The general consensus of licensing authorities and the courts has always been that things that are put on a license in the "reason for issuing" space are and always have been restrictions. This never was a real concern before Chapter 180, since violation of these reasons/restrictions never carried any sanction, except that the licensing authority could revoke the license because one was no longer "suitable".

After the changes enacted by Chapter 180, the question of whether these things really were restrictions and, if so, just what did they mean, became more serious since violations no carry serious penalties. Everyone pretty much accepted that they were restrictions until a single district court decision held that they were nothing more than "reasons". This was contrary to every other decision by other Massachusetts courts, but somehow led a lot of people to believe that the "Target & Hunting Only" on their license was no longer constituted an impediment to carrying concealed. Some police added to the confusion by telling people who asked about "restrictions" on the Class A LTC's, that they could still carry concealed.

In order to avoid some gun owners from getting screwed as a result of their wishful thinking, GOAL asked EOPS what its interpretation of the law actually was. After consideration of both the law and court decisions, EOPS stated that it believed that such entries were in fact restrictions, which was pretty much what they'd always believed. EOPS also took it on themselves to clarify that position by changing the wording on the license template from "reasons" to "restrictions".

So what's really changed? Nothing really, except that now when an applicant complains to his or her rep about some arbitrary restriction on an LTC, the local chief can't defuse the concern by telling the rep that it isn't really a restriction and that they person can still carry for protection. GOAL is also preparing to get the long list of often confusing and meaningless language used clarified and limited. For example, some licensing authorities issue job-related licenses with language such as "dba Northeastern Security". OK, what the hell is that supposed to mean? That the person can only carry while on the job or that they can only carry while the business exists? Is "Protection of Life and Property" supposed to mean that I can shoot the guy trying to run off with my car stereo? Not hardly! Of course there is also the essentially infinite list of silly typos and ad hoc restrictions created simply because the authority felt compelled to put something in the blank, but couldn't limit themselves to "ALP".

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

I beg to differ.......

"In order to avoid some gun owners from getting screwed as a result of their wishful thinking, GOAL asked EOPS what its interpretation of the law actually was."

As explained to me by Jim Wallace himself, GOAL pushed for the change because some people called claiming they did not understand what their Reason For Issuance meant. Rather than directing these cretins to a dictionary, GOAL took it as a mission to change a situation that was not even a problem and actually held a weak, but viable fall-back protection (the Ipswich decision) and changed it.

"After consideration of both the law and court decisions, EOPS stated that it believed that such entries were in fact restrictions, which was pretty much what they'd always believed."

Which was a statement of the obvious and what any reasonably sentient license holder would realize without further intermeddling.

"EOPS also took it on themselves to clarify that position by changing the wording on the license template from 'reasons' to 'restrictions'".

As explained to me by GOAL staff, GOAL pushed for the change through its seat on the GCAB. Thus, it was GOAL which was the prime mover; not the state (which was happy to further aggrandize its power, however).

"So what's really changed? Nothing really, except that now when an applicant complains to his or her rep about some arbitrary restriction on an LTC, the local chief can't defuse the concern by telling the rep that it isn't really a restriction and that they person can still carry for protection."

WRONG! What's "really changed" is that ALL licenses are restricted, the slight protection against criminal prosecution for carrying outside the scope of one's LTC is GONE and the abusive bureaucrats who demand multiple "letters of reference," signed "releases" to do background checks, doctors' letters and interrogations in the station before processing apps now have yet another excuse to fabricate restrictions. Stellar improvement.....

" GOAL is also preparing to get the long list of often confusing and meaningless language used clarified and limited."

The time to do that was BEFORE the LTCs were changed; not after. We now have RESTRICTED licenses and NO improvement in the laundry list of reasons/restrictions. As the restrictions are now formally in place, licensing authorities have no burning need or desire to limit themselves to a list from the FRB.

Do you really think PDs that require "agreements" on TRANSPORTING firearms and issue LTCs restricted to "Target & Transport" will use such lists? Get real. This is a setback, however desperately those responsible for it wish to rationalize their actions. [evil]

 

[KMaurer]

What's "really changed" is that ALL licenses are restricted

That's right; mine is restricted to "All Lawful Purposes". Is anybody here crazy enough to think that licenses used to permit you to do unlawfyul thiings?

Regardless of what some people might like to believe, carrying concealed on a license that was stamped "Target and Hunting Only" in the sapce labelled "Reason for Issuing" will now and always (since Chapter 180) would get you into exactly as much trouble as it would now that that space says "Restriction." That is and always has been EOPS's opinion; that is and always has been standard operating procedure for every prosecutor; and with a single district court case exception, it is and always has been the opinion of every court in the Commonwealth. So except for people living in fantasy land absolutely nothing has changed.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

Fact and fantasy

"That is and always has been EOPS's opinion; that is and always has been standard operating procedure for every prosecutor; and with a single district court case exception, it is and always has been the opinion of every court in the Commonwealth."

What EOPS thinks is irrelevant. EOPS does not issue licenses nor does it prosecute alleged violations of restrictions.

"...and with a single district court case exception...."

THAT exception gave at least some protection to those charged w/carrying outside the scope of their Reason For Issuance - as did the express language on the LTC itself - because one cop interpreted the RFI his way as opposed to what the licensing authority meant and/or the licensee understood it to be. Given the penalties and costs of defending oneself against that criminal prosecution, a little protection is MUCH better than none. Thanks to mindless intermeddling to address a non-existent problem, that protection is GONE. That IS a change.

" So except for people living in fantasy land absolutely nothing has hanged."

No, except for people living in fantasy land - borne of desperate attempts to rationalize an unnecessary and ill-considered action - there are two obvious changes:

1. The RFI has been changed to an express RESTRICTION; and

2. The slim protection from the Ipswich decision is therefore GONE.

What has NOT changed? The laundry list of assinine RFIs used by chiefs too obtuse or power-obsesssed to follow Chief Glidden's recommendations that they issue LTC-A/ALP or not at all.

QED

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Reason

What has NOT changed? The laundry list of assinine RFIs used by chiefs too obtuse or power-obsesssed to follow Chief Glidden's recommendations that they issue LTC-A/ALP or not at all.

The more essential question - will having a laundry list to choose from in the MIRCS system reduce, increase or not impact the until now increasingly common tendancy for departments to issue ALP? (Yes, I know there are exceptions - but I am aware of a number of towns which went from "you had to know someone" to "you have to have a clean record"). This issue could end up affecting far more people than the rare case when an individual is prosecuted for "violation of restriction."

To those who think requiring the chief to state a reason for the restriction, I offer NY City as an example. As onerous as licensing is, they are very good about providing reasons - the two words "insufficient need" cover it. Unless, of couse, you think a MA court is not going to defer to the police on that issue.

 

[Skald]

I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that if the ipswich case is just a single case in which it bucked the trend of the courts overall, then the guy in that case had one hell of a lawyer arguing for him.

Also, best way to avoid going to court and getting in said trouble is to make things clear, in which case GOAL did.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Also, best way to avoid going to court and getting in said trouble is to make things clear, in which case GOAL did.

Huh? People ALWAYS had the option of treating the "reason for an issuance" as a "restriction". There is ZERO additional protection the GOAL action achieves for a gun owner who would have followed this very common strategy absent GOAL's help.

Maybe GOAL can take the next step of lobbying for a federal law to remove the ambiguity regarding carry in a post office - after all, but this logic, we are better off with an absolute prohibition than with a law on which legal scholars disagree.

 

[KMaurer]

Huh? People ALWAYS had the option of treating the "reason for an issuance" as a "restriction". There is ZERO additional protection the GOAL action achieves for a gun owner who would have followed this very common strategy absent GOAL's help.

Maybe GOAL can take the next step of lobbying for a federal law to remove the ambiguity regarding carry in a post office - after all, but this logic, we are better off with an absolute prohibition than with a law on which legal scholars disagree.

Of course people have always had the "option" of treating that big "Target and Hunting Only" stamped on their license as if it were a restriction. After all, that's what almost everybody interpreted as being. Except for the very small minority that actually believed that stamp was just a meaningless suggestion, nothing's really changed here. The concern that clear definitions of what various restrictions are supposed to mean seem a little stretched to me. The ambiguity of many restrictions had little if anything to do with moving licensing authorities toward issuing more ALP licenses, and reducing or resolving such ambiguities won't provide much incentive to for them to reverse course.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

Our point precisely

" The ambiguity of many restrictions had little if anything to do with moving licensing authorities toward issuing more ALP licenses, and reducing or resolving such ambiguities won't provide much incentive to for them to reverse course."

Then GOAL's "achievement" is, by your own analysis, a nullity. NO definitions, NO fallback protection of the Ipswich decision; NO progress towards making ALP the basis for issuance. The only "achievement" is the imposition of express restrictions on all LTCs.

Yes, that was a brilliant application of leverage, with such a stellar result. [roll]

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The concern that clear definitions of what various restrictions are supposed to mean seem a little stretched to me. The ambiguity of many restrictions had little if anything to do with moving licensing authorities toward issuing more ALP licenses, and reducing or resolving such ambiguities won't provide much incentive to for them to reverse course.
Ken

I'm concerned is it could cause a move away from ALP.

Prior to the GOAL effort, the only thing resembling state leadership on this issue was encouragement from a certain public official to issue ALP to pretty much all qualified applicants.

The EOPS is publishing a list of "model restrictions", and they seem to be pretty competent at implementing on-line interfaces. It would not surprise me if the MIRCS system is updated to make it easier to add these restrictions.

I see the very real possibility of a downside, and very little chance of an upside.

The issue is not that moving from ambuguity to a clear definition would have any relation to the type of license issued - it's the indirect effect of having a list of model restrictions provided by EOPS - something which has never before been done.

As a side node - if someone is being charged with a violation of law, any ambuguity will make it easier for the defendant's attorney to negotiate a reasonable deal. The more "iron clad" the case against the defendent, the less the liklihood of concessions in pre-trial plea discussions.