MA LTC Question

[mdh]

Re: Don't listen to dispatchers

Their volume is in inverse proportion to their knowledge.

LOL! You speak the truth!

BAD assumption. Anything other than "ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES" is now - thanks to GOAL's counterproductive intermeddling - a RESTRICTED license.

UGH!! That's just great!! That makes a lot of sense... allow someone to have a gun, but not have any practice with it unless they're shooting at other people in a life/death situation. Way to go Lowell!

I understand the "employment" restriction would limit carry to employment related tasks, which in my case could still be fairly flexible... but what would a "protection" restriction limit? Any ideas? Seems to me I could claim I'm using it for protection at any time... unless they're going to require me to present an exigent circumstance that I would need protection for... (transporting cash, valuable goods, etc...) And without said items, I'd be in violation? I dunno... I'm just speculating but it seems too vague.

 

[Lynne]

mdh, the best thing to do is to call and speak with the person who either issues the licenses (as defined by the chief) or the chief himself and ask. Ask what exactly they will need from you, other than the safety course and photos. The guy at the desk probably isn't the one handing them out.

 

[dwarven1]

IIRC, a friend of mine used to have a license with "Personal Protection" on it. That was about 15+ years ago, though, so I don't know if it would mean the same.

Your best bet is to talk with Jesse Cohen (username=jcohen) or Darius Arbabi (username=Cross-X), who are lawyers who specialize in the lovely gun laws we have in this state. You can get their contact info at www.massgunlaw.com

And in spite of my constant teasing of Cross-X, he does know what he's doing and I wouldn't have recommended him if I didn't have complete confidence in him. (we just like to rag on each other )

Ross

 

[KMaurer]

Anything other than "ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES" is now - thanks to GOAL's counterproductive intermeddling - a RESTRICTED license.

I know that we'd all like to live in a world where there are absolutely no restrictions of any kind restricting firearm ownership/possession/carry, just laws against real crimes. While organizations that only advocate for that sort of paradise look good on paper, they hardly ever manage to move the world in that direction. The simple reality is that licenses that specified some limited list of reasons for issue have always been restricted. I'm sure that Darius and Jesse could give a few names of people who regret that they every believed otherwise if it weren't for confidentiality.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

Not quite

"The simple reality is that licenses that specified some limited list of reasons for issue have always been restricted."

In point of fact, a decision from the Ipswich District Court holds otherwise. It held that, unless the license expressly stated "RESTRICTED" on it, the Reason For Issuance was JUST that - a reason; not a restriction.

Now that GOAL has gotten us LTC's with "RESTRICTION(S)" for the block where "REASON FOR ISSUANCE" used to be, that argument is gone. And you KNOW invertebrate bureaucrats will be looking to fill that box.......

Absolutely the STUPIDEST thing GOAL has done in the 20+ years I've been a member. [evil]

 

[Rob Boudrie]

GOAL Action

I do not think GOAL made a good move for three reasons:

1) Someone charged with "violation of reason for issuance" (now "restriction") will not have a chance of beating it based on ambiguity in the law. GOAL seems to think it's good that the ambiguity is removed - even if it resolves the ambiguity in a manner in a complete "worst case" manner

2) Until now, the only leadership licensing agencies had was some unofficial encouragement to issue ALP. Now, the computerized MIRCS system will offer a menu of "model restrictions". Somehow, I don't think this is a good thing.

3) Even if departments were required to state the reason for refusal, there is no reason to believe that the reason "insufficient need" would be any more "challangeable" than the "insufficient need" determination made by the NYPD when someone who is not a person power and influence requests unrestricted NY City pistol permit.

But, what leaves me the least impressed is the attempt to polish a turd. If GOAL had said "We asked for a clarification, and got this undesireable response" I would have resepted that. I find it hard to respect them trying to tell me that the outcome was a "good thing."

 

[traveler57]

All this advice is very, very good. But since each town in MA has a different PD and chief, every town will have it's own unknowledgable LEOs and S&%# to wade through. So maybe someone from your town will post and give some specific advice and/or experience.

But, for my story, I used Darius Arbabi, and did ALL my homework in advance. It was the most informative hour I have spent on any subject in a long time. And my vote (as is Darius') is for full preparation.

A full, 2 page "reason" letter, 3 written letters of reference, (one in my town, one in another town, and one in Maine, all knowing me for over 10-25 years.), my Pistol class certificate, etc. etc. all in a clean folder. My "reason" letter even mentioned as far as the USMC in the 70s, my church, my number of years in my town, etc. I even filled out the standard form, but my local PD uses the computerized system, so the form was tossed in the trash after the PC forms were filled in.

Some might call it overkill, but when the chief and I sat down at his PC for the application, he took one look at the folder (and it's weight) and scanned all the papers inside, the next 15 minutes of filing in the PC forms was a snap. And when I said I would only want a ALP, he agreed immediately. And, no, I didn't have a reason listed like "I carry large sums of money." Unless you really live a dangerous life, you will only be able to make up something that will surely sound made up to the chief. And I didn't even put the words "personal protection" in my letter, otherwise he would have asked for more "why" questions.

Again, my original point is that every town is different, some green on the list and some red.

Again, have everything in order, don't leave out anything that they can catch you on. It takes only one thing, and they can deny your permit if you give them a reason to. Also, I knew to never bring up my 2nd Amendment rights, as this would be losing arguement with any MA LEO, in my opinion.

BTW, I got my LTC A ALP in 21 days. And, yes, I wave, smile and say hello to my chief every chance I get.

 

[Scrivener]

Exceeding authority

"3 written letters of reference, (one in my town, one in another town, and one in Maine, all knowing me for over 10-25 years."

"Letters of reference" are NOT required; only two references. The F 25/26 expressly states that.

Licensing authorities routinely abuse their authority by imposing unnecessary and unauthorized "requirements" such as letters (Holbrook wants SEVEN; Walpole wants 3 on business letterhead; Brookline further demands that they NOT be from family members, elected officials or police!).

Note that Franklin used to, and may still, require applicants to sign a moronic "release" authorizing the PD to conduct the criminal records check that is clearly inherent in the process, as well as that "Acknowledgment on the Limitations of the Use of Deadly Force."

Sharon, among others, wants a letter from your doctor and conducts an interrogation (excuse me, "interview") in which all the information the PD is NOT entitled to (how many guns do you have, how much ammo, etc.) is entered into the PD computer.

Brookline, among other abuses, demands applicants sign an "transport agreement," a matter wholly covered by statute. It also issues licenses for "Target and Transport" and demands qualifications each year, in blatant violation of the statute on that subject.

In short, YES, prepare. It is much easier to file a competently prepared app than to try and appeal a denial because someone was too ignorant to know what "defendant" means, too lazy to look it up and thereby blew Question 10. False answers are an automatic disqualifier AND grounds for criminal prosecution.

Know what the PD is authorized to get, what it WANTS to get and just what you are willing to give them. You have two choices: Kowtow to the abuse and hope fawning gets you your permit, thus aiding and abetting the power-trippers; or refuse. Your permit, your rights, your integrity, your call.

 

[traveler57]

Scrivener


No, Franklin PD didn't "require" anything. They actually just said "come on down, anytime, and we can take your application using the computer." All the preparation was from my side. To be clear, the PD did NOT require anything that I did extra. And, no, I did not sign any additional papers or waivers, etc.

And yes, I realize that the form only has 2 spaces for reference names. And no, you don't have to have written letters from your references, and there is no requirement to put their phone numbers, just their addresses.

But the whole point was that with three well written letters, with phone numbers, it put the PD in a postion of seeing me in the correct light.

I am fully convinced that my preparation was exactly what got me my LTC in only 3 weeks, (others have stories of waiting months) and what got me the ALP with zero questions asked.

So, again, some will call it overkill, but I know that it was well worth the
extra effort for me.

And, as you point out, you really only get one chance at getting your permit; if you are denied, you are toast. (Or have to plead your case to the review board.) So, in any "one chance only" type situation, I am always going to go the route of the extra mile.

Just one man's opinion and experience.

 

[Scrivener]

Misinformation

"And, as you point out, you really only get one chance at getting your permit; if you are denied, you are toast. (Or have to plead your case to the review board.)"

You are seriously misinformed. You haven't been going to that OTHER Mass forum, a morass of such erroneous drivel, have you?

The FLRB has ZERO jurisdiction over a "suitability" denial. In fact, it does not have jurisdiction over denials at all.

What it DOES do is remove certain offenses from being statutory disqualifiers for applicants that meet the criteria. That does NOT guarantee issuance of an LTC by the city/town and it is NOT a substitute for District Court for such denials.

I'm pleased to hear that Franklin has dropped the nonsensical surplusage and now uses MIRCS to process apps as they ought to be processed. It was never a really bad town, but did have its quirks.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Preparation

Part of the preparing an application properly is doing enough research to know what to expect from the PD and act accordingly. Some towns are fairly good about things, and you don't need to do anything beyond show a clean record and list all lawful purposes. On the other extreme is Brookline which has a reported 23% approval rating - and that's for restricted licenses. I've never used the services of an attorney when preparing an application, but that has largely been because I have never had to the misfortune to deal with a town which was not reasonable (by MA standards, of course) in their dealings with applicants.

 

[Bolt308]

MA LTC

I'm on my fourth renewal in the state. The police in this town are pretty good about everything. The hardest part is that they only do licencing 1 day a week durring business hours. The last time I was surprised that it only took 15 minutes for the b.s. at the station & 3 weeks for my LTC to arrive.

 

[KRL]

would becoming a state police certified instructor...

get one's license upgraded from restricted to All Lawful Purposes?
There seems to be a separate category (restriction?) in my town's license application (Newton). Anybody reapply to get a better LTC with instructor certification?

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

Some might call it overkill, but when the chief and I sat down at his PC for the application, he took one look at the folder (and it's weight) and scanned all the papers inside, the next 15 minutes of filing in the PC forms was a snap. And when I said I would only want a ALP, he agreed immediately. ... BTW, I got my LTC A ALP in 21 days.

I would call it overkill. And while I admire your effort and determination, I also think that you may have contributed to setting the bar a little higher for the next applicant. I don't mean to offend you or any LEOs on the board but submitting an attorney-prepared application booklet and kissing the chief's ass sends a message that doesn't, or shouldn't, need to be sent.

I wrote my application out in ten minutes, dropped it off at the police station with a check, and also had my ALP Class A license in three weeks. I also am fortunate to live in a town with a hassle-free licensing process.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

PS - While I fully support GOAL and will continue to do so, I also agree that, with the benefit of hindsight, this licensing issue "clarification" was not a great idea.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

PS - While I fully support GOAL and will continue to do so, I also agree that, with the benefit of hindsight, this licensing issue "clarification" was not a great idea.

I am disappointed with how GOAL handled it afterwards. If they had said "we made what we thought was the best move at the time, but would not have done so if we had known what the result would be", I would respect it. The current position makes about as much sense as "Gee honey, I wrecked the car but it's a good think since we needed a new one anyhow."

When an organization tries to paint a bad move as something postive, it undermines credibility with the membership. When I make a mistake at work, I don't try to claim it was a success - I own up to it, deal with it, and move forward.

As a separate issue, I am concerned that GOAL operates on the "strong lobbyist" approach. I had a converstation with a GOAL director and learned that fundamental and basic strategic issues are not a matter of board consensus, but are decisions made by the lobbyist (Jim Wallace) who speaks for GOAL and regularly briefs the GOAL board.

A lobbyist needs to be able to think on his feet and deal with situations as they arise, and I have no reason to doubt that Jim is very skilled at this. Even so, issues of fundamental and basic strategy, such as those which result in a carefully posed question from, or position statement from, GOAL, do not need to be handled by a lobbyist thinking on his feet, but should be the result of careful consideration by the board. Since the "restriction question" was a matter of GOAL approaching the EOPS, there is no reason this could not have been a board decision ... except for the board's decision to not get involved at that level.

If this issue had been a GOAL board decision, I am not certain that the outcome would have been different, however, I do believe that there would have been a thorough discussion of risk vs. benefit.

None of this would prevent GOAL speaking with a single voice. I'm talking about the board doing it's job in a meeting; not suggesting that each GOAL board member start making public statements or acting as independent lobbyists for GOAL.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sitting on the BOD of our Community TV organization, I've learned a few things!

- We do not make decisions on programming,
- We really aren't involved in policy setting of the operations,
- We decide to authorize large expenditures, but don't get involved in what those positions should be, what the hiring criteria should be, etc.

All of the above are decisions made by the Station Manager, not the BOD.

This was an eye-opener, since I've served on the BOD of a number of fraternal orgs and they are much more into the nitty-gritty of the orgs themselves. Community TV, on the other hand runs like a "real corporation" and the BOD only gets to discuss/vote on the 40,000' overview.

GOAL may be run by a similar set of by-laws where their BOD doesn't get involved in operational matters or even matters of org policy! I don't know, I never asked and I'm not sure what they can tell anyone. I do know that each BOD member signs a very tight non-disclosure agreement that holds well after they leave the BOD, so they must be very tight-lipped or face potential legal action.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

GOAL, Board

I don't know the specifics of the GOAL bylaws, however, boards generally have a lot of authority - including the authority to change the bylaws, or at least bring changes to the membership.

I'm on the board of a shooting organization (USPSA), which faces similar issues. Although we don't have blatant anti-gunners, we do send a single representative (the USPSA president) to the world body meeting, where that one individual speaks for the organization. The president needs to think on his feet, however, whenever "key issues" are anticipated the president seeks the consensus of the board as to the organization's position in advance.

Allowing the lobbyist to set policy is a GOAL board decision. They are either choosing not to exercise their authority on key strategic decisions, or choosing not to seek that authority if they do not have it. In either case, the current system is definitely a "weak board" .... by their own choice.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Sitting on the BOD of our Community TV organization, I've learned a few things!
- We do not make decisions on programming,

While you do not make day to day decisions on individual programming, I'd be willing to be the board would step in and set some overall guidelines if the station manager announced the station would be a "100% hunting channel", or an "All disco station."

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sitting on the BOD of our Community TV organization, I've learned a few things!
- We do not make decisions on programming,

While you do not make day to day decisions on individual programming, I'd be willing to be the board would step in and set some overall guidelines if the station manager announced the station would be a "100% hunting channel", or an "All disco station."

Other than raising the issue of "community service" requirement for community TV, I doubt that the BOD would get involved.

Also, CTV speaks with "one voice" and that is the voice of the station manager. We were "temporarily evicted" from our rented studio/offices due to finding out that the town-owned building was unsafe (ceiling beams were rotted away), so we found some commercial rental space. The town kept saying that they were planning on fixing up the building (in ~3 years) and that CTV would be back (we were paying significant rent to the town) when the BOD had voted NOT to ever return there. We couldn't say anything at these town meetings, only the Station Manager could address the issue (she has since made it clear to them that we aren't returning, that's why I can state it here).

 

[Scrivener]

Speaking of setting examples,

"I wrote my application out in ten minutes, dropped it off at the police station with a check..."

Did you keep a copy of your app? Can you prove when it was submitted?

If your answer to either is "NO," you have set yourself up for a potential problem.

While I'm glad you got your license (and I'm guessing it was a renewal) without difficulty, times change, chiefs change, policies change. Failure to document exacerbates the repercussions of those changes.

Anticipation is the essence of preparation. File accordingly.


OH - as of yesterday, there was STILL no formal adoption of the "approved," "recommended." "generally accepted" or any other restrictions on the MIRCS menu. You remember - the ones that were to be part and parcel of the "improvement" that came from replacing "Reason For Issuance" with "RESTRICTION(S)"..........

News as I hear it. 8)

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

Yes, I kept a copy of my application, and no, I didn't submit it via certified mail or anything, as I saw no reason for that. It was an initial application, not a renewal.

"What you tolerate, you validate."

Does that mean that if we not only tolerate a gun licensing bureaucracy, but go out of our way to make it more cumbersome, that we are thereby validating that same bureaucracy?

 

[Garys]

FWIW, if you download the Mass. FID/LTC application and have Adobe Acrobat (not Reader) you can fill in the form using your computer. Adobe is a bit expensive and not everyone has it on their home PC, but I thought I'd mention it.

Gary

 

[mdh]

Ok folks, here's the followup!

Finally decided to apply at WPD and hope the person I initially dealt with was speaking out of turn.

What a different experience I had this time around! I prepared all my paperwork, pictures, etc and showed up with everything neatly in a folder. The Seargent actually seemed amazed by how prepared I was! He asked me several times if I've ever done this before and said that it was probably the most complete application packet he's ever seen. He was extremely friendly and helpful the whole time. As he read over my form he mentioned that he just wants to make sure everything is filled out correctly so they pass it right through and I'll get the permit ASAP.

Then we got to the Reason For Issuance. The whole time I was fearing that he'd scoff at my "All Lawful Purposes per MGL...blahblah" statement and tell me tough luck. I was WRONG AGAIN!!! He read that line, gave me a funny look (at which point i was thinking ohhhh %*@#!) and said "All lawful purposes... VERY GOOD! Most people don't put the right thing there... this looks perfect".

Whew!!

I guess now I just have to wait... and wait.

I can't thank you guys (and girls) enough for your help! Hopefully i'll get my "unrestricted" LTC as a result!

 

[Lynne]

Excellent news mdh! Good luck!!

 

[KMaurer]

FWIW, if you download the Mass. FID/LTC application and have Adobe Acrobat (not Reader) you can fill in the form using your computer. Adobe is a bit expensive and not everyone has it on their home PC, but I thought I'd mention it.

Gary

If you don't mind avoiding large for-profit vendors, OpenOffice is free and allows you to do the same thing. Of course doing that might be the first step down the slippery slope of ditching Misro$oft completely.

Ken

 

[dwarven1]

If you don't mind avoiding large for-profit vendors, OpenOffice is free and allows you to do the same thing. Of course doing that might be the first step down the slippery slope of ditching Misro$oft completely.

I loaded OpenOffice on my laptop when I had to rebuild the hard drive and couldn't find my Office2K disk. Not bad, but it's enough different than Word and Excel that it's pretty distracting. Still, i'm giving it a try. Just wish it would stop nagging me about saving in Office formats!

 

[Admin]

you get what you pay for.

 

[mdh]

UUUGHHHH!

Just got a call from WPD. "The Sargeant that processed your app. didn't realize that our chief does not issue permits to business owners in town. You'll have to apply in the city you reside in. Sorry."

This is just great...

 

[Admin]

UUUGHHHH!

Just got a call from WPD. "The Sargeant that processed your app. didn't realize that our chief does not issue permits to business owners in town. You'll have to apply in the city you reside in. Sorry."

This is just great...

How much time did that cost you?