-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
MA Gun Laws
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,574
Extra Requirements
She lost.
In the case of the Boston PD range test, the answer is Karen MacNutt.Scrivener said:
She lost.
"In the case of the Boston PD range test, the answer is Karen MacNutt.
She lost."
Not entirely correct.
She WON as to Boston's imposition of a range fee - the court struck that down.
And the range test PRE-DATES the 1998 safety course statute, making her case wholly irrelevant as to the point for which it is cited.
Next?
(C'mon Rob; you know better than that.)
She lost."
Not entirely correct.
She WON as to Boston's imposition of a range fee - the court struck that down.
And the range test PRE-DATES the 1998 safety course statute, making her case wholly irrelevant as to the point for which it is cited.
Next?
(C'mon Rob; you know better than that.)
Scrivener said:
Scrivener,
You seem to have a slight problem with either comprehension, or reading too fast. Let's look at Len's post again...
LenS said:
Now, the "by law" should not have been included in the ( ). So, in that respect, Len erred. If *I* understood what he was talking about, YOU (being a college grad and all) certainly should have. I already explained what he said to you earlier...
Lynne said:
Care to nit pick it more???
"Care to nit pick it more???"
Silly rabbit - of course I do! [lol]
As you've admitted, the post was incorrect as stated. Rather than just deal with that, we were treated to various protracted rationalizations as to how it was really correct.
Its proponents has now mutated that assertion into a different issue, the appeal process:
"As I said, the law allows chiefs to impose whatever requirements they feel like."
In this case "the law" now refers not to statutes or even case law (as district court cases are not usually reported), but unreported decisions.
I'm still waiting for that list of people who challenged such requirements.
Also the citations proving a court upheld the denial of a license solely on the basis of the applicant NOT complying with some chief's unauthorized "requirements."
Silly rabbit - of course I do! [lol]
As you've admitted, the post was incorrect as stated. Rather than just deal with that, we were treated to various protracted rationalizations as to how it was really correct.
Its proponents has now mutated that assertion into a different issue, the appeal process:
"As I said, the law allows chiefs to impose whatever requirements they feel like."
In this case "the law" now refers not to statutes or even case law (as district court cases are not usually reported), but unreported decisions.
I'm still waiting for that list of people who challenged such requirements.
Also the citations proving a court upheld the denial of a license solely on the basis of the applicant NOT complying with some chief's unauthorized "requirements."
Lynne is 100% correct, I put the "by law" in there to make it clear that the law does NOT require another course. BUT the chief/licensing officer under the guise of determining "suitability" may require a course each time, a range test, letters of reference from the Pope or anything else that his demented mind (unless he's truly one of the few good chiefs/licensing officers) can conjure up.
Since the law expressly allows the chief/licensing officer to determine who is "suitable" and who is "not suitable" to obtain a LTC (and what class/restrictions), the law has defacto given the chief/licensing authority carte blanche to make up "add-on" requirements.
Since the law expressly allows the chief/licensing officer to determine who is "suitable" and who is "not suitable" to obtain a LTC (and what class/restrictions), the law has defacto given the chief/licensing authority carte blanche to make up "add-on" requirements.
jcohen said:This thread reads like a Monty Python sketch. You guys (and girl) are hilarious when you bicker! [lol]
(Sorry for this meaningless comment but I have alot of commenting to due before I can get promoted from my lowly rank! How do you advance in rank on this board by the way? Can I be a Captain or a Commander some day?)
[lol]
Just keep posting luv....soon as you rack 'em up, you'll get promoted.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
license: time line
hello,
i completed my NRA safety 8 hour safety course in 2004 but i never followed through and got my license. my question is, is the certificate still valid? am i able to bring it to my local police station with an application for my license? thanks for your help and sorry if i sound like an amateur. i'm new to this.
hello,
i completed my NRA safety 8 hour safety course in 2004 but i never followed through and got my license. my question is, is the certificate still valid? am i able to bring it to my local police station with an application for my license? thanks for your help and sorry if i sound like an amateur. i'm new to this.
There's nothing in the law that would make it invalid. However, a lot of PD's will insist that the certificate be within the previous 6 months or 1 year. If you get that sort of BS, check with the instructor who issued you the original certificate; some of us are willing to provide one with a current date.
Ken
Ken
KMaurer said:
Thanks for the info. is it true that the officer taking the application can refuse a class A if he doesn't like the way you look? per say? i live in weymouth and i've heard nightmares about this whole process with the pd. there
Viking,
Yes, you hear right. And Sgt Brian King does indeed love to rake applicants (all of them from what I hear) over the coals! Don't expect an easy time of it.
If you are determined to get a LTC-A, unrestricted you would be best there paying for a Gun Lawyer (especially one from our NES forum - three to choose from: Cross-X, Jesse Cohen or Scrivener) to go over your application and give you advise BEFORE you apply. Also there is a thread here on how to apply for LTC and be successful. It is a Sticky in the Gun Laws Forum (I think), check it out.
Yes, you hear right. And Sgt Brian King does indeed love to rake applicants (all of them from what I hear) over the coals! Don't expect an easy time of it.
If you are determined to get a LTC-A, unrestricted you would be best there paying for a Gun Lawyer (especially one from our NES forum - three to choose from: Cross-X, Jesse Cohen or Scrivener) to go over your application and give you advise BEFORE you apply. Also there is a thread here on how to apply for LTC and be successful. It is a Sticky in the Gun Laws Forum (I think), check it out.
LenS said:
great great. thanks. this is the stuff i need to know about. i guess it's not imperitive for me to get a class A. it would be nice but a B will do, i don't want to have to hire a lawyer for my license, especially since i only have limited funds to work with. I have an application all filled out with all of the appropriate "lingo" from an old friend. he was a range officer. i will def go and check out the sticky to make sure i have all my bases covered. thanks for all of your advice!
My apologies for bumping this old thread, but while comparing a bunch of different licenses between myself and a few buddies some of us have:
Restrictions: All Lawful Purposes
and other have,
Restrictions: None.
Is there a difference?
Restrictions: All Lawful Purposes
and other have,
Restrictions: None.
Is there a difference?
I think the former instances are just issuing authorities doing "mental
throwbacks" to the way they used to do licenses. Apparently the
software they use now allows them to subsitute whatever they want to
appear. So in some misguided interest to make the licenses APPEAR
the same way the old ones did, they type that in.
If you think about it long enough, the terminology actually doesnt make
sense...
Restrictions: "All Lawful Purpouses". So in other words, this means
you can only use the license for UNLAWFUL purpouses, eg, robbing banks,
etc?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
A close friend of mine got one of the newer licenses marked that
way. While that verbiage made sense on the old licenses (the old
licenses say "Reason For Issuance" instead of "Restriction" ) it
definitely looks bizarre on the new ones.
Legally speaking, I don't know if that gaffe is really a problem or
not. I'm guessing that if it came down to blows that a court would
construe that the use of that "term" on the newer licenses was not
something to be taken in the literal. (Scriv or someone else correct
me if im wrong here.... I suppose it could be a dirty trap, but that'd
be one hell of a trap. Hey, here's your license... but you can't use it
for anything!)
-Mike
J
JellyFish
Boston issues restricted licenses that read:
Sport/Target Only: No Concealed Target
How's that for utterly stupid? Leave it to Meninostan...![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Sport/Target Only: No Concealed Target
How's that for utterly stupid? Leave it to Meninostan...
Mass F.I.D
Hello folks:
I am a Mass escapee. I left there in the late 70's. I have a Question was going through some old papers and found my old Mass FID card. It states on it "good until Suspended or Revoked" To my knowledge it has not been. Is it still valid?
Great forum, glad to have found you.
Hello folks:
I am a Mass escapee. I left there in the late 70's. I have a Question was going through some old papers and found my old Mass FID card. It states on it "good until Suspended or Revoked" To my knowledge it has not been. Is it still valid?
Great forum, glad to have found you.
Tweed
NES Member
No. It expired in 2000. It was a Y2K thing that the 1998 law took care of...
Nice souvenir, but the law in 1998 punched ALL our tickets . . . we've ALL been "revoked" in the respect that everyone was required to apply for new 4 year FIDs (which later were changed to 6 year).
Once you move out of state, it is my understanding that MA automatically cancels your LTC/FID, assuming they know about your move (at any time).
MA registration requirement.
I have found on a nother thread that it is not a requiremnet to register an ar-15 lower with an FA-10 since it is not a complete rifle. Does anyone have a refernce for this? And if I do, what do I put down for barrel length since there is no barrel?
thanks for the help, I only have 3 days left.
I have found on a nother thread that it is not a requiremnet to register an ar-15 lower with an FA-10 since it is not a complete rifle. Does anyone have a refernce for this? And if I do, what do I put down for barrel length since there is no barrel?
thanks for the help, I only have 3 days left.
You don't have to register it until it's assembled into a functioning
rifle. Under MA law, it's not a gun/firearm unless it's "capable or readily
capable of discharging a shot" (those arent the words, but are pretty damn close)
So after you finish your build, then you send in the FA-10 form.
-Mike
I have a question regarding UNconcealed carry. Is this ever appropriate or must you carry concealed whenever in public? I have searched the MA statutes for a clear answer and there is no mention of a specific method of carrying a firearm.
It isn't specifically prohibited by law, but most regard it as a sure-fire way
to get hassled and possibly lose your permit via the "unsuitable person"
method. Not a good idea.
-Mike
I just found this site through Calguns, great site. I may be moving from California to Cambridge and am wondering about my firearms, I have a Cal legal FAL (fixed mag) from DSA and a Sig 220R. Can I keep the DSA or am I out of luck.
Welcome to the forum podobo! First - are you REALLY sure you want to move to <gag> Cambridge????? I'm not familiar with your firearm, however, I don't think there's a problem with any guns you bring into MA with you. C-X? Len? I really would rethink Cambridge tho....unless you love liberals, that is. <shiver>
Stay the hell out of Cambridge, if you can possibly avoid it. Arlington is
up the street and is "gun friendly" in comparison. ( In MA the licenses are
issued on a per town/city basis, and depending on the chief in each town
you will get different results.... the big city chiefs (eg Boston, Cambridge,
Worcester, Springfield) tend to either be antis or just issue restricted
licenses, or make you do all sorts of extra unecessary
BS in order to get a license.
FWIW, to answer the other question, you can probably "un neuter" your
FAL here, provided you obtain the appropriate license to own it. If it's
a post 94 gun, it just cant have a bayo lug, collapsible stock, or
flash hider. Normal magazine is OK, though, as long as its of preban
manufacture. (which most FAL mags are). If the gun was made pre fed AWB, (before 9/94) you
can do anything with it that you can do in any other free state, more or less.
-Mike
