Marlboro

[Lynne]

Okay, CRS is setting in. I know some of you live in Marlboro (Ross?). One of our students called us today. He's going for a renewal in Marlboro and he was told he needed to bring in his safety certificate. He wasn't sure if they meant he needed to bring in the 4 year old one, or a new one. Have any of you been told the same thing when renewing in Marlboro? I don't remember reading that here.

 

[dwarven1]

If he's renewing an LTC previously issued in Marlboro, then he doesn't need to bring anything. If he's renewing a permit issued somewhere else, then he needs to bring his proof of the class he took.

I just went in yesterday morning and applied with Sgt Moran. He needs to make an appointment in advance - 508-485-1212 is the non-emergency number for the MPD. Apparently they use the advance time to run part of the background check - Sgt Moran just went down the list and started clicking off no's even before he looked at my app.

The Sgt says that the permit should be back in 3-4 weeks. We'll see.

 

[Lynne]

If he's renewing an LTC previously issued in Marlboro, then he doesn't need to bring anything. If he's renewing a permit issued somewhere else, then he needs to bring his proof of the class he took.

I just went in yesterday morning and applied with Sgt Moran. He needs to make an appointment in advance - 508-485-1212 is the non-emergency number for the MPD. Apparently they use the advance time to run part of the background check - Sgt Moran just went down the list and started clicking off no's even before he looked at my app.

The Sgt says that the permit should be back in 3-4 weeks. We'll see.

I'm pretty sure he got his license in Marlboro 4 years ago, but I'll double check with him. He said that's what they told him when he called. Thanks Ross.

 

[dwarven1]

I'm pretty sure he got his license in Marlboro 4 years ago, but I'll double check with him. He said that's what they told him when he called. Thanks Ross.

did they ask him if it was a Marlboro renewal?

 

[Lynne]

did they ask him if it was a Marlboro renewal?

That I don't know. He works with Ed, so I'll tell him to run that by him.

 

[LoginName]

If he's renewing an LTC previously issued in Marlboro, then he doesn't need to bring anything. If he's renewing a permit issued somewhere else, then he needs to bring his proof of the class he took.

I just went in yesterday morning and applied with Sgt Moron. He needs to make an appointment in advance - 508-485-1212 is the non-emergency number for the MPD. Apparently they use the advance time to run part of the background check - Sgt Moron just went down the list and started clicking off no's even before he looked at my app.

The Sgt says that the permit should be back in 3-4 weeks. We'll see.

Where in the MGL's does it say that the applicant has to bring in their proof of firearms safety training for a renewal... regardless if the person is applying in a different community or not?

Sgt. Moron (or his Chief), hasn't figured out that the under conditions of the law, the original license wouldn't have been issued unless the applicant had previously passed an approved firearms safety course?

More discretionary/"may issue" BS. [sad2]

 

[Lynne]

More discretionary/"may issue" BS. [sad2]

That's exactly what it is. MGL's don't require it, but the chief can dictate it.

 

[LoginName]

That's exactly what it is. MGL's don't require it, but the chief can dictate it.

Yeah, I know ... preaching to the choir and all that.


Still, sounds like Sgt Moron needs a good Nolan Ryan fastball to the face.

(Am I allowed to post something like that? )

 

[dwarven1]

Still, sounds like Sgt Moron needs a good Nolan Ryan fastball to the face.

(Am I allowed to post something like that? )

Yup, you're allowed to make as big an idiot of yourself as you want to. Personally, I like Sgt Maloney... and although Marlboro won't issue an ALP to a first time applicant, they DO issue ALP's to everyone else.

Isn't the whole rationale behind giving the discretionary power to the chiefs that they know their town best and who's in it? Sounds like Chief Leonard is just doing that. (since he makes policy, why don't you flame him rather than the guy who fills out the paperwork?) Personally, I'd prefer that they just give out ALPs to everyone who applies (and isn't disqualified by a record or by being a nutjob), but this town is a whole lot better than, say, Boston, Brighton, Cambridge, Hudson (where I used to live), Worcester, etc. At least you CAN get an ALP here. Sure, you gotta do a little extra paperwork, and they want you to take a $20 one evening class at the Worcester PD, but... end result: All Lawful Purposes.

I actually enjoyed the class, BTW... and learned a lot.

 

[Adam_MA]

Yup, you're allowed to make as big an idiot of yourself as you want to.

 

[Scrivener]

No, it ISN'T discretionary

Here's the controlling statute AND CMR:

G.L.c. 140, § 131P. Basic firearms safety, certificate; instructors.

(a) Any person making application for the issuance of a firearms identification card under section 129B, a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms under section 131 or 131F, or a permit to purchase under section 131A, who was not licensed under the provisions of this chapter on June 1, 1998, shall, in addition to the requirements set forth in said sections 129B, 131, 131A or 131F submit to the licensing authority a basic firearms safety certificate; provided, however, that a certificate issued by the division of fisheries and wildlife pursuant to the provisions of section 14 of chapter 131, evidencing satisfactory completion of a hunting safety course, shall serve as a valid substitute for a basic firearms safety certificate required under this section; and provided further, that any applicant for a firearm identification card for the sole purpose of purchasing or possessing chemical mace, pepper spray or other similarly propelled liquid, gas or powder designed to temporarily incapacitate shall not be required to complete any basic firearms safety course as a prerequisite for receiving such card. Persons lawfully possessing a firearm identification card or license to carry firearms on June 1, 1998 shall be exempt from the provisions of this section upon expiration of such card or license and when applying for licensure as required under this chapter. No application for the issuance of a firearm identification card or license to carry shall be accepted or processed by the licensing authority without such certificate attached thereto; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any officer, agent or employee of the commonwealth or any state of the United States; (ii) any member of the military or other service of any state or of the United States; (iii) any duly authorized law enforcement officer, agent or employee of any municipality of the commonwealth; provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, is authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the weapon so carried or possessed and is acting within the scope of his duties.

(b) The colonel of state police shall promulgate rules and regulations governing the issuance and form of basic firearms safety certificates required by this section. Said colonel shall certify certain persons as firearms safety instructors and shall certify safety course curriculum. Such certification shall be for a period of ten years, unless sooner revoked by reason of unsuitability, in the discretion of said colonel. The department of state police may impose a fee of $50 for initial issuance of such certification to offset the cost of certifying instructors. The fee for certification renewal shall be $10. Firearms safety instructors shall be any person certified by a nationally recognized organization that fosters safety in firearms, or any other person in the discretion of said colonel, to be competent to give instruction in a basic firearms safety course. Applicants for certification as instructors under the provisions of this section shall not be exempt from the requirements of this chapter or any other law or regulation of the commonwealth or the United States. Upon application to the colonel of state police, said colonel may, in his discretion, certify as a firearms safety instructor any person who operates a firearms safety course or program which provides in its curriculum: (a) the safe use, handling and storage of firearms; (b) methods for securing and childproofing firearms; (c) the applicable laws relating to the possession, transportation and storage of firearms; and (d) knowledge of operation, potential dangers and basic competency in the ownership and usage of firearms.

(c) Any firearms safety instructor certified under the provisions of this section may, in his discretion, issue a basic firearms safety certificate to any person who successfully completes the requirements of a basic firearms, safety course approved by the colonel. No firearms safety instructor shall issue or cause to be issued any basic firearms safety certificate to any person who fails to meet minimum requirements of the prescribed course of study including, but not limited to; demonstrated competency in the use of firearms. Instructors certified under the provisions of this section shall forward to the department of state police the names of those persons who have received basic firearms safety certificates. Local licensing authorities; as defined in section 121, shall, upon receipt of an application for a firearm identification card or a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms, make inquiry to the department of state police to confirm the issuance to the applicant of a basic firearms safety certificate.

(d) Any person applying for licensure under the provisions of this chapter who knowingly files or submits a basic firearms safety certificate to a licensing authority which contains false information shall be punished by a fine of not less that $1,000 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years in a house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(e) Any firearms safety instructor who knowingly issues a basic firearms safety certificate to a person who has not successfully completed a firearms "safety course approved by the colonel shall be punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years in a house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

515 CMR 3.05: Basic Firearms Safety Course Curriculum Approval Certification

(1) Applicability.

(a) Any person lawfully licensed with a FID card on June 1, 1998 shall not be required to complete the statutorily required BFS course or submit a BFS certificate for:

1. subsequent FID card renewals; or

2. subsequent LTC licensure and renewals.

(b) Any person lawfully licensed with a LTC card on June 1, 1998 shall not be required to complete the statutorily required BFS course or submit a BFS certificate for:

1. subsequent LTC renewals; or

2. subsequent FID card licensure and renewals.

(c) Any person licensed after June 1, 1998 who completed a BFS course for an initial FID card or LTC shall not be required to complete a subsequent statutorily required BFS course or submit a BFS certificate for FID card or LTC renewals.

In short, once licensed, keeping renewed means no further safety courses are required. Period.

Note also the complete, utter and total lack of requirements for a "practical" test, whether new or renewal, despite Brookline and Newton's claims to the contrary.

The mere fact that an unelected official decides on a whim to "require" something outside his/her authority to demand does not make it incumbent upon the applicant to comply. Putting up with such petulance reinforces it. Unfortunately, many people don't have the required resources to challenge such antics.

 

[dwarven1]

Thanks for the relevant post, Scrivener.

And to re-iterate what I said above, they DID NOT tell me to bring in a copy of that... either on this renewal OR my last one. I can only assume that the officer that your friend talked to didn't realize it was a renewal, Lynne.

 

[LoginName]

Yup, you're allowed to make as big an idiot of yourself as you want to. Personally, I like Sgt Maloney... and although Marlboro won't issue an ALP to a first time applicant, they DO issue ALP's to everyone else.

Dohhhhh! I guess I set myself up fot that one.

 

[dwarven1]

Dohhhhh! I guess I set myself up fot that one.

Big time. Don't worry about it, though... most everyone spouts off now and then. The secret is to do it in private and not on an internet forum for the world to see, though...

 

[Scrivener]

Thanks for the relevant post, Scrivener.

Thought it might help the OP - and anyone else encountering such nonsense - to have the actual language of the controlling law to wave in the obstructing officer's face.

I live to serve.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thought it might help the OP - and anyone else encountering such nonsense - to have the actual language of the controlling law to wave in the obstructing officer's face.

I live to serve.

So do I, but only after you file suit!

 

[Scrivener]

So do I, but only after you file suit!

At which point it is too little; too late.

The time for documentation - in writing - is BEFORE you are denied. An applicant that makes it quite clear he/she:

1. KNOWS the law;

2. Won't be abused, intimidated or jerked around; and

3. Proves the point in a documented writing

is an applicant the PD will take seriously.

If the applicant is still denied, the documentation becomes evidence of malfeasance.

Ergo, the "after you file suit" is, IMPO, virtually worthless.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Keith,

You missed my point completely!

I live to serve . . . the summons & complaint/subpoenas, ergo to earn a living as a Constable!

I figured that you of all people would get my warped humor here. Others may not be able to figure it out.

 

[dwarven1]

Others may not be able to figure it out.

Gee, thanks, Len... I got it and was laughing out loud. I think enough folks here know what you do to be snickering at that one.

 

[Scrivener]

I'm afraid I missed that one.

I was more concerned with people possibly getting the wrong idea about how and when to prepare for an appeal, which is BEFORE you even file the app.

 

[Lynne]

Ed spoke to our student today. Here's the rest of the story. He's got a Class A and is going for a renewal. When we first gave him the class, we did a Home Firearms Safety course. He got his license with that. He was told by the Licensing Officer, that he needed to take another safety course. I know that he wasn't born in this country (Scotland), however, he's been here for a long time (does not have any lilt left in his voice). I don't know if he's a Naturalized American yet or not (I think he came here as a baby with his folks), however, that shouldn't make any difference. He brought down his certificate from 4 years ago, and that's when he was told he needed to take another course.

Keith, thank you for posting that. It saved me time looking for it. I'll print it out for him, but I don't think he's going to make a big fuss over it. He's afraid that if he raises a stink, they may find him "unsuitable".

I know this guy (I worked with him when I was there part time a few years back) and Ed's worked with him longer than me. I'm not going to charge him for, or put him through, another course. We've shot with him, and he's very safety conscious and careful. Read from that what you will. He'll have his certificate.

 

[Scrivener]

I don't think he's going to make a big fuss over it. He's afraid that if he raises a stink, they may find him "unsuitable".

Precisely the sort of invertebracy the cops and politicos like to see. How disappointing to see a fellow Scot forget his heritage.

Then again, we DID lose at Culloden..........

 

[Lynne]

Precisely the sort of invertebracy the cops and politicos like to see. How disappointing to see a fellow Scot forget his heritage.

Then again, we DID lose at Culloden..........

And a few others as well.

I've printed out what you posted (less your comments ) for Ed to give to him. Maybe he'll want to bring that in with him when he goes back.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Lynne,

Unless he is a citizen, he couldn't get a Resident LTC, as aliens are prohibited (unless the are NRs - caution to other readers, don't try to make sense of this, you'll only drive yourself insane!).

A member of my Masonic Lodge owns some gas stations (stop 'n robs) down in the New Bedford area. He has had an LTC for a number of years, was born in one of the Arab countries, served in the US military, etc. I think he moved to a new town and when he went in for renewal they put him thru the ringer - they demanded his citizenship papers, DD214, etc. I think he told me that he's now chewing up his 90 day grace period waiting on his LTC.

 

[Lynne]

Lynne,

Unless he is a citizen, he couldn't get a Resident LTC, as aliens are prohibited (unless the are NRs - caution to other readers, don't try to make sense of this, you'll only drive yourself insane!).

Then he's gotta be Naturalized because he got a Class A 4 years ago.

 

[dwarven1]

Lynne, I do know that Marlboro wants to see it's applicants take the course from the Worcester PD. Basically a scare lecture about legal ramifications if you do use your gun on someone who desperately needs it.

 

[Lynne]

Lynne, I do know that Marlboro wants to see it's applicants take the course from the Worcester PD. Basically a scare lecture about legal ramifications if you do use your gun on someone who desperately needs it.

Well...he's not taking his course through Worcester and he didnt' take his first course there either, and they can't dictate which certified instructor he takes it from. In my not so humble opinion, they're being dinks about it.

 

[Scrivener]

In my not so humble opinion, they're [Marlboro PD] being dinks about it.

A charitable assessment.

Note that the mere fact Marlboro (and Dedham and Brookline and Newton) "require" new certification for RENEWALS makes those departments far worse than "dinks."

Then again, people keep bending over for them, thus encouraging still more abuses.

 

[KMaurer]

Precisely the sort of invertebracy the cops and politicos like to see. How disappointing to see a fellow Scot forget his heritage.

Then again, we DID lose at Culloden..........

That sort of thing tends to happen when you start relying on the French for advice and military assistance.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

That sort of thing tends to happen when you start relying on the French for advice and military assistance.

Got THAT right!

Although fairness compels me to note that, absent the French, we would NOT have forced Cornwallis to surrender at Yorktown. French regiments augmented Washington's army and Admiral DeGrasse's defeat of the British Navy and subsequent blockade/shelling of Yorktonw made relief of Cornwallis impossible.

I believe we paid that debt in 1916.

And again 1942.

And yet again 1954.

Not that I'm counting..........