MA Gun Laws

Yes and no. You need to comply with the law, but I don't know why you need to follow the FRB's directions. Specifically, the law that requires you to report a change of address doesn't say anything about using a specific form (not that their form isn't handy) or about photocopying your license. If they want to pay me for the photocopies, I'll send them. Until they do (or until they pass a law requiring it) I'll simply do what the law requires.

Ken
 
Moving within the same city -- laws?

I'm a Peabody resident with a Class A restricted carry license. I'll be moving from my home to a condo with my family over the summer. We don't know the exact room number where we'll be. The place is still being built. How should I bring this up the police and when?
 
Laura,

Welcome to the forum!

When you move, just send the form as noted above. No discussion with any PD is required. They don't re-issue the LTC. That's all there is to the process.
 
Yup, legally you MUST notify if your ADDRESS changes. Thus, if you move to a new street in the same town you MUST notify. Failure to do so within the alloted time (don't recall #), it is grounds for denial of any future LTC!

Part of the purpose of notification is so that they can send you your renewal notice. It won't be delivered even 1 street over 2 years from now!
 
SiameseRat said:
I've moved but still live in the same town. A LEO told me that I don't have to file anything because I'm still under the same PD. Anyone heard otherwise?
Click to expand...

Even if only your zip code changes (the town/city is expanding so they redistrict the zip codes) or your street address changes, i.e., your 100, but they put a house in front of you, so you become 100A, etc.
It's ANY change (with the exception of the four digits following your zip code).
 
Just to complicate things here in Somerville a bit more. I heard that Mel Story retired from the Somerville Police Department yesterday. Mel was the administrative captain who handled all the firearms related stuff under Chief Bradley'a regime. It is my understanding that no one has been named as a successor for the role so you may even have a problem finding someone to report your change of address to!!

Bugie
 
Nah, you MUST do it by Certified Mail, Return Receipt (see law). You don't care what they do with it once you get a receipt from the PD claiming it was delivered. It is strictly CYA to make sure you don't give them a reason for denial of renewal.
 
LenS said:
Yup, legally you MUST notify if your ADDRESS changes. Thus, if you move to a new street in the same town you MUST notify. Failure to do so within the alloted time (don't recall #), it is grounds for denial of any future LTC!
Click to expand...

They must be notified within 30 days (according to the law), however, there's no where on the sheet where it asks for the date of the move, or change of address. Just make sure it's done and in well before you renew.
 
You don't really need a name.

Just address it to Chief of Police.

You MUST do it by Certified Mail, Retn Recpt Requested. Same thing to CHSB and the issuing chief. Check the EOPS website for precise address (CHSB) and details. You do NOT need to use their form and you do NOT need to give them a photocopy of your existing license. . . they made that up, but it is not required by law.
 
Restrictions, Reasons

GOAL recently contacte the Executive Office of Public Safety asking for a ruling on the meaning of the word "reasons for issuance", and clarifiication on this issue of "is it a restriction?". As a result of this, the EOPS is arranging for all new licenses to bear the wording '"Restriction" instead of the phrase "Reason for Issuance", and produding a list of model restrictions for police departments to choose from.

To GOAL's credit, Jim Wallace send email asking that I phone him, which I did. Jim thoughts regarding the benefit of a lack of ambiguity are described in this month's GOAL Outdoor Message.

With all due respect for the good work that GOAL does, I disagree with Jim on this one. My predicion is that the introduction of a restriction field, and a list of "model restrictions", will result in a decrease in the number of towns that issue unrestricted licenses over the long term. Until now, the only guidance on the "restriction" issue coming from a quasi-governmental agency was the recommendation for "All Lawful Purposes."

So, was this a good thing or a step backwards?
 
I disagree with it as well. I understand there may have been some confusion over what was put in the "Reason for Issue" box, but it couldn't have been a WIDE spread thing, and could easily have been fixed by said departments being informed of the confusion and how to rectify it. I see coming up with a list of denial reasons (pick one from column A and two from column B) as being yet more confusing for the LEO on the street who has to decipher the meaning of the license and whether or not the person carrying is legal, but that's MHO.

We've gone from "no compromise" to playing a bit of ball a little too easily, but that's MHO as well.
 
Restrictions

Some of GOAL's reasonsing was that ambiguity lest gun owners open to an adverse ruling. I don't htink this is a problem, since:

- Gun owners who have a reason for issuance other than "All lawful purposes" or "Personal protection" would have been well advised (and were so advised if they took any course I taught) to act as if this was indeed a restriction, despite the possible ambiguity. Changing the reason to "restiction" does not offer any benefit that was not available by proper education of license holders as to the current nature of the "reason for issuance."

- Despite GOAL's concern, I saw absolutely no indication that there was a chance a MA court would rule that "all lawful purposes" did not allow concealed carry.

- Although the possibility of prosecuting someone target shooting on a "personal protection" license had been raised, I have never heard of this happening and find it hard to imagine a case would be brought. If this was a concern, the best course of action would have been to encourge ALP instead of protection as a reason for issuance.

History will be the judge. If we see more towns issuing unrestricted licenses, I'll be glad to admit I was wrong. But, if we see towns that now issue ALP start to choose a restriction, we'll know this was a bad move.
 
Got the latest The Outdoor Message yesterday and there is a further explanation of their reasoning for doing this.

You might check the website www.goal.org and see if this is also posted there.

Personally, I don't think this changes anything. As Chief Glidden says, "only the issuing authority knows what THEY MEAN" when they put anything on the "reason for issuance" (soon to be called "restriction").

I also do not think that this will change the way chiefs do their business, and I'm not so sure that if the EOPS list of "recommended" restrictions isn't mandatory (e.g. MIRCS would have to use a drop-down menu so they couldn't deviate from the approved list), that many chiefs will pay any attention to the recommendations. Local chiefs HATE TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO, by ANYONE! They'll listen to what the guy signing their paycheck says, but have a "screw everyone else" attitude to what others tell them to do. [This is from experience, I've worked for 3 of them here.]
 
Len -

I hope you are right.

What I see is this:

Old:

No guidance from the state, except an urging from the chair of the GCAB to issue ALP.

New:

A list of model restrictions on a pulldown menu.

It would seem to be that issuing an unrestricted carry license is becoming a much more "affimative" action on the part of the chiefs. I have no doubt that many chiefs will do business as usual, but am concerned that some may prefer to choose something else when given a menu.
 
Now what I'd like to see (since I'm not holding my breath for nationwide Vermont-style carry/possession/purchase laws) would be a list of restrictions, with a requirement for the licensing authority to put in writing his/her reasons for putting that particular restriction on that particular individual. They're always telling the world that they know their applicants and that there are reasons for their "discretion"; let them put it in writing if they've got the stones to do it. If they don't give any reason specific to the individual applicant, the license gets issues for ALP.

Ken
 
force "reasons for restriction"

Yes, I think Ken has the key to this issue. If the license is changed to show "Restrictions" then we should co-lobby to get the reason for the restriction in writing. I think this is one thing we have wanted for a long time. Put the burden on the chief of "why not" ALP, and not force the owner to prove "why." We just don't all carry $10,000 in cash on us late at night, to use as our reason "FOR" ALP.

I am new to GOAL and gun ownership in Mass, so maybe I am saying nothing new.
 
Does anybody here live in Belmont?

I got my licence issued this spring in Medford, but I have since moved (and filled the notification form out).

I have a Class A restricted, but I'd like to convert it to the CCW licence. Frankly I didn't trust the Medford Police to be square with me on how best to do this.

I have a suspision that Belmont is a little less of a "Gun Grabber" town than Medford was.....any inside info?

-Weer'd Beard
 
WB,
based on the folks over at Packing.org you'd have had better luck before you moved. Dunno if anyone here can offer some more Belmont-specific advice.
 
There is no "improvement" just as there was no real confusion. Anyone who did not have a firm grasp of what their RFI meant was simply too lazy to open a dictionary.

The "improvement" REMOVES an emergency, fall-back position provided by a single district court decision, expressly IMPOSES restrictions on all LTCs and has yet to produce the vaunted (and exceedingly dubious) achievement of a standard list.

In short: GCAB and EOPS leaped on the chance GOAL gave them to impose restrictions on ALL licenses while the ostensible improvement of standardized reasons is still a mere empty promise.

Excuse me if I don't yell myself hoarse in the cheering section on this one.... [roll]
 
Re: force "reasons for restriction"

traveler57 said:
Yes, I think Ken has the key to this issue. If the license is changed to show "Restrictions" then we should co-lobby to get the reason for the restriction in writing. I think this is one thing we have wanted for a long time. Put the burden on the chief of "why not" ALP, and not force the owner to prove "why." We just don't all carry $10,000 in cash on us late at night, to use as our reason "FOR" ALP.

I am new to GOAL and gun ownership in Mass, so maybe I am saying nothing new.
Click to expand...
The standard reason for denial in discretionary states is "insufficient need."

It you want examine other places where the applicants receive a formal reason for denial, in the form of an "insufficient neet" letter, look at NYC, NJ or MD.
 
The "improvement" ... expressly IMPOSES restrictions on all LTCs .... GCAB and EOPS leaped on the chance GOAL gave them to impose restrictions on ALL licenses ....
Click to expand...

Pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra. My license reads "All Lawful Purposes". Please explain what restrictions have been added to my LTC that weren't there before. Was my license valid for unlawful purposes prior to this change, or does "ALP" now have some super-secret hidden meaning that none of us are aware of? If you can't answer that simple question, the please stop spreading disinformatzia. We get enough of that from the Boston Globe and John Rosenthal. They don't need any help.

Ken
 
News Flash for the uninformed

"Pure unadulterated Bravo Sierra. My license reads 'All Lawful Purposes'".

How very wonderful for you. So does mine, but that does not alter the fact that ALL LTCs produced since JULY have "Restriction" in what used to be the "Reason For Issuance" block.

Since we're discussing the RECENT change effected by GOAL's solution to a NON-problem, it necessarily follows that the change does not - and cannot - affect PREVIOUSLY issued licences.

Do try to keep up....
 
Oh, I don't have any problem keeping up. Let's got back to the question I asked. When my chief issues a new license for All Lawful Purposes, what restriction is there that wouldn't have been there if not for the nasty incompetents at GOAL?

1) Would the license have allowed one to use the firearm for illegal acts? or

2) Is there some secret restriction beyond "All Lawful Purposes" that wasn't on old licenses? or (my bet)

3) Is it simply a load of crap that "All licenses are now restricted"?

Simple logic says it's got to be one of those, unless we're back in the land of "it depends on the definition of 'is'".

Ken
 
Back
Top Bottom