- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
It is a tribute to Bump's integrity that a Democratic auditor would tackle this issue, however, she failed to distiguish between a Primary LTC and a Principal LTC ![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
MA State Auditor's report on firearm license issuance
- Thread starter thorin
- Start date
Truth be told, now that 'independent' data verifies and fact-checks Comm2A's own data, there's no reason why anyone can challenge the findings. That, in and of itself, is net-positive. The State just added to Comm2A's credibility.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
The commentary attached to this report does not squarely place the blame with the non-compliant local PDs and in fact to some degree makes them out to be beleaguered servants of the public.
It is highly unlikely that anyone down on Beacon Hill is going to pick this document up and use it to demand local authorities comply with current law, and even if they did they would be shouting in a dark empty room.
However, with exculpatory language like above there is a good chance someone will pick it up and say the burden on local authorities must be relieved by A.) Increasing the time frame to 120 days. B.) Doubling the fee to allow more resources. C.) Both A and B.
Ultimately data only means what the presenter wants it to mean. It is about the spin!
It is highly unlikely that anyone down on Beacon Hill is going to pick this document up and use it to demand local authorities comply with current law, and even if they did they would be shouting in a dark empty room.
However, with exculpatory language like above there is a good chance someone will pick it up and say the burden on local authorities must be relieved by A.) Increasing the time frame to 120 days. B.) Doubling the fee to allow more resources. C.) Both A and B.
Ultimately data only means what the presenter wants it to mean. It is about the spin!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
It is a matter of the PDs choosing not to devote resources for things they do for you so that they have resources to do things to you.
Ever see a sign in a PD lobby "BAC tests not administered for the next 3 weeks since the alcohol testing officer will be on vacation"?
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Absolutely, and neither the Auditor nor the DCJIS forcefully calls them out on it, why?, because it is go-along-to-get-along in a one party state. You will never win in this state, you can only draw satisfaction from being an annoyance (which I do
)
Absolutely, and neither the Auditor nor the DCJIS forcefully calls them out on it, why?, because it is go-along-to-get-along in a one party state. You will never win in this state, you can only draw satisfaction from being an annoyance (which I do
They have no authority over the cities/towns or their PDs, so they can't do anything.
Apples and oranges - we're talking about a State 'metric', but the law involving this metric didn't include any penalties for meeting it, nor any performance incentives. Whomever created this 'number' was an idiot, since it means nothing.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
I understand that, thank you, I was addressing the language of the bureaucracy.
How is that not a law? "shall" is pretty clear, it never means, "if you get around to it" or, "if it's convenient", or, "if you agree with the law" or anything else other than "must"
The fact that there's no penalties doesn't make it not a law. (even if it makes it effectively not-a-law)
Funny you should ask. Under ch. 140 sec 129B you can't possess a handgun in your home if you only have an FID. But under ch. 269 sec 10, having an FID card is a defense for possessing a handgun without a license. So in effect, it's illegal to possess a handgun if you have an FID card, but you can't be prosecuted for it.
Last edited:
If you wanna get snippy, then the law could be interpreted to mean that they can deny your request if they can't meet the 40-day deadline....that could be considered a 'reason for such denial'.....SO....you could interpret the long-lead-times as "we're doing you a favor by not denying it outright to meet a deadline that means nothing to anyone but YOU"....
Right, but they're not doing that, either.
If they were forced to actually deny people in writing (like the law says) at 40 days there would be a shitstorm of lawsuits, which the state would (ultimately) loose because they couldn't actually articulate reasons for any of those denials.
So instead they simply do nothing, in violation of the law.
It's asinine to suggest that they're doing anyone any sort of favor by dragging their heels or refusing to actually do their job.
Nowhere in the law does it say that "failure to meet the 40 day deadline is not an acceptable justification for denial of the permit", so such lawsuits would fail in a MA courtroom. Now you've set legal precedent for license denials....and you're moving backward. You sure you want to 'go there'?
I added the red /green status from https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...uide-to-gun-rights-in-your-Massachusetts-town to the spreadsheet. All towns in compliance are green. There were a couple of blue (not enough info). Unfortunately I cannot figure out how to attach a PDF or excel version of the document to the post.
Of the towns that were meeting the deadline, here is the red/blue/green status--blue is not enough info.
Acton
Ashburnham
Ashby
Ashfield
Avon
Beverly
Blackstone
Buckland
Charlton
Chester
Dartmouth
Deerfield
East Brookfield
Easton
Everett
Gosnold
Granby
Groton
Hatfield
Holbrook
Holland
Lenox
Lynnfield
Middleborough
Milford
Monroe
Monson
North Reading
Pelham
Pembroke
Pepperell
Salem
Saugus
Shirley
Southbridge
Sturbridge
Sutton
Swansea
Westborough
Of the towns that were meeting the deadline, here is the red/blue/green status--blue is not enough info.
Acton
Ashburnham
Ashby
Ashfield
Avon
Beverly
Blackstone
Buckland
Charlton
Chester
Dartmouth
Deerfield
East Brookfield
Easton
Everett
Gosnold
Granby
Groton
Hatfield
Holbrook
Holland
Lenox
Lynnfield
Middleborough
Milford
Monroe
Monson
North Reading
Pelham
Pembroke
Pepperell
Salem
Saugus
Shirley
Southbridge
Sturbridge
Sutton
Swansea
Westborough
Last edited:
MachineHead
NES Member
It's like peeling off the stickers on a Rubik's Cube and moving them around.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
And if you had a permit to purchase you could have one delivered, or maybe not, but nobody knows since as far as anyone can tell none have ever been issued.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
Remember it's not illegal to be illegal in MA.
I think they had an error here, so I fixed it for what it should have said.
Sadly, it's not just MA, though it's probably more obvious in MA.
Correct, it only applies to government agents, and their friends or family.
Last edited:
Took me a couple days to come to this obvious conclusion, but as the "chief lawyer and law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts", the Attorney General will take immediate action to bring the non-compliant departments into compliance with the law.
Oh you can be prosecuted for it.And after spending thousands of dollars of your own money defending yourself you'll probably win. By being broke and not in jail.
With the bonus prize of not meeting suitability requirements the next time around!
Mark from MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,657
- Likes
- 11,891
This is bizarre thinking even for MA.
I wrote my reps and included the report, they are both pro gun. But it will be interesting if they even reply. Told them if the PD cant follow the law it should be null and void and citizens relieved of the burden of licensing. Wont happen. But its good to stick this report in their face and ask them wtf they are gonna do about it
My guess is if they do reply it will be some pissing and moaning about not having enough time, recources, or money. In which case i ill use that excuse next time my car doesnt pass inspection and i just dont have enough time, recources or money to get it fixed. When ithe cop pulls me over im sure it will all be ok
Last edited:
amm5061
NES Member
It's only illegal if you're legal!
My town honestly has no excuse for this bullshit. We had a strange woman wondering around the neighborhood. She was obviously high on something; stumbling around, trying to get into houses and cars of the neighbors. So we finally called the cops to come get her because you never know what tweakers are gonna do, and I didn't feel like confronting her and possibly having to shoot her if she turned violent and tried to break in.
I kid you not, FIVE cruisers, an ambulance, and the fire chief responded. It was a shit show. Now tell me how out of proportion that response is, and now try telling me that they don't have the resources to file LTC applications in a timely manner.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Mark from MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,657
- Likes
- 11,891
It's only illegal if you're legal!
My town honestly has no excuse for this bullshit. We had a strange woman wondering around the neighborhood. She was obviously high on something; stumbling around, trying to get into houses and cars of the neighbors. So we finally called the cops to come get her because you never know what tweakers are gonna do, and I didn't feel like confronting her and possibly having to shoot her if she turned violent and tried to break in.
I kid you not, FIVE cruisers, an ambulance, and the fire chief responded. It was a shit show. Now tell me how out of proportion that response is, and now try telling me that they don't have the resources to file LTC applications in a timely manner.
We all know they have the time, money and resources. We all know chiefs want the control. One would think if they wanted to retain control they would make sure that LTC's are processed in a timely manner, in accordance with the 40 day law. Alas, they (PD's) are not even smart enough to figure that one out. Of course, with no legal recourse on our end......what's to stop them from doing whatever they want.
Nothing....
I got a response from my senate person. Said that they would see what's GOAL's stance is on it, and did they include police departments with part timers. Basically a BS response, alluding to the fact they don't have resources. Unfortunately I let her have it with facts about how they are licensing a civil right, the police and state don't follow their own laws, and there is no accountability to citizens and it's disgusting. No excuse can be provided for the facts in this report other than to jettison the law, or fix it and add real teeth for which the police department or state will be accountable for.
Lets face it, Nothing is going to happen about this, if anything, they will add days to the waiting time, and be accountable for nothing like most others said already.....about what to expect from a one party state where legislators vote themselves a fat raise in the midst of a deficit.
Last edited:
