Mass CCW Permit requirements!

[bostonasphalt2]

Even better - an extortionist who leaves a paper trail!

Sounds like a certain town on Rte. 9, halfway between Worcester and Amherst. Did it get the idea from Meffuh or the other way around........

oh? which town would that be?

I've heard that a certain B-ramming town inside 128 refers applicants to a particular instructor in town for their basic pistol class. They do, in fact, shoot a gun, and the course is offered for the low, low price of $425.

B-rammers close to Boston?! You dont say! haha

 

[usnma]

When I took my course I didn't fire one single round and I didn't even handle any firearms but in the end I still got my certificate.

Same here. I took it at a place in Plainville that is no longer there. Oh well.

 

[Scrivener]

Same here. I took it at a place in Plainville that is no longer there. Oh well.

Top of the hill where Rte. 106 meets Rte. 1?

 

[Batbox]

Really? And what makes you think only "people who are already very familiar with guns" are taking courses run by such irresponsible excuses for both instructors and law enforcement officers?

I'd bet those with the LEAST knowledge of firearms are those MOST likely to take such worthless courses, simply because they don't know any better and do what the PD told them to.

careful reading will show that i didn't say i thought only 'people who are already familiar with guns' would take these cheapo courses. i also don't believe that the only people who buy guns are competent to use them properly and safely (with or without a class), but that doesn't make me inclined to remove that right from everyone.

 

[BWhite]

When I was living in Boston I had to go to Moon Island Boston Police Range to qualify .

 

[yanici]

When I was living in Boston I had to go to Moon Island Boston Police Range to qualify .

Can you describe in detail what the qualifying test consists of and how it's scored. I find it interesting.

 

[Scrivener]

careful reading will show that i didn't say i thought only 'people who are already familiar with guns' would take these cheapo courses. i also don't believe that the only people who buy guns are competent to use them properly and safely (with or without a class), but that doesn't make me inclined to remove that right from everyone.

And a careful reading will show that I never said you did.

:However, the crap courses you are happy to see available so the competent can meet the safety certificate cheaply means those same crap courses are equally available to - and granting certificates to - the UNknowledgable, the UNschooled and the INcompetent.

And they'll be carrying and shooting with that same utter unpreparedness.

 

[M1911]

I've had some new shooters join our club who took such classes, bought a gun, and had never fired a gun before. Not a good thing.

 

[Titan]

And a careful reading will show that I never said you did.

:However, the crap courses you are happy to see available so the competent can meet the safety certificate cheaply means those same crap courses are equally available to - and granting certificates to - the UNknowledgable, the UNschooled and the INcompetent.

And they'll be carrying and shooting with that same utter unpreparedness.

And they'll be no worse off than those in free states who have no mandated training, but realize out of their free will that they should get some regardless.

You know, in some states they even allow folks to buy motorcycles without any additional motorcycle-specific training.

We're all too used to living in MA!

 

[Friendly D]

"12 rounds double-action (single or double handed) at 7 yards, and 18 rounds (single or double handed, single or double action) at 15 yards. The guns we used were 4" .357 revolvers (I think a 686 to be exact) with .38 special ammunition. The test was relatively easy, as you only need a score of 210 (out of 300) to pass. If you can fire an 8-inch group at 15 yards, this will be easy and take about 20 minutes."

 

[Len-2A Training]

However, the crap courses you are happy to see available so the competent can meet the safety certificate cheaply means those same crap courses are equally available to - and granting certificates to - the UNknowledgable, the UNschooled and the INcompetent.

And they'll be carrying and shooting with that same utter unpreparedness.

I've had some new shooters join our club who took such classes, bought a gun, and had never fired a gun before. Not a good thing.

And they'll be no worse off than those in free states who have no mandated training, but realize out of their free will that they should get some regardless.

We're all too used to living in MA!

Titan hit the nail on the head.

I'm 99% certain that Scriv was shooting before 1998. I know that when I got my LTC in the mid-1970s that I had never shot a handgun before and never taken a course (they were rarely given at any gun clubs and there was no Internet to find a list of instructors on). I joined a gun club, asked some regular pistol shooters to give me some tips, practiced gallery shooting and even shot with the pistol team for one season. No NDs and no property damage ensued.

I'm a firm believer in training, but NOT in gov't mandated training requirements.

How did we all survive w/o "Big Brother" telling us what course to take, what score would be acceptable and testing on our shooting skills? . . . see my sig line, it's true if you really believe what you have posted here.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I've heard that a certain B-ramming town inside 128 refers applicants to a particular instructor in town for their basic pistol class. They do, in fact, shoot a gun, and the course is offered for the low, low price of $425.

Christ, that is almost the price of the Sig multi-day training!!!

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Maybe but there is a better way to handle this. See below.



Again see below for suggestions on ending this practice with a big "thud"! What they are doing is illegal according to MGLs (Ethics laws).



Indeed, either you don't want to give away free legal advice or you are slipping counselor!

Since this is a direct violation of State Ethics Laws, the way to put a stop to it is to write a nice letter, enclose a copy of the canceled check and all pertinent info (including copy of MSP signed certificate) to the State Ethics Commission as a formal complaint. You can request anonymity if you wish (in fact they won't mention your name or talk to anyone about your specifics unless you give them written permission).

As I understand it, the State Ethics Commission has already ruled that officers in the same department as would issue the permit can't teach the class unless it is "run by the PD with all proceeds going to the town". Also they can not mandate that you take any class from a specific instructor, especially one associated with said department.

They will come down hard on that town and the word will get out that no town/PD can allow this sort of behavior to continue anywhere in the state.

If you want anonymity, best not tell anyone that you are doing this, keep it to yourself and the assigned attorney at the Ethics Commission (look them up on state website to get contact info).

Good luck and if you are smart, you will NOT announce on NES what you are doing.

The problem is the only hard evidence I have is the check. The "if you want any chance of getting an ALP" thing is my word versus his. You know in the great Commiewealth of MA, an LEO would never lie, right?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Really? And what makes you think only "people who are already very familiar with guns" are taking courses run by such irresponsible excuses for both instructors and law enforcement officers?

I'd bet those with the LEAST knowledge of firearms are those MOST likely to take such worthless courses, simply because they don't know any better and do what the PD told them to.

I think if you are going to force someone to take the course, it definitely needs to include some shooting. Both wheelguns and semi-autos should be shot.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

oh? which town would that be?



B-rammers close to Boston?! You dont say! haha

Yeah, the funny thing is if my house was 50ft. from where it is, I would be in Malden and apparently would have sailed through without a problem. Now Malden has more crime and borders rougher towns than Medford. Usually that is where the chiefs B-ram people. At least it's good for the folks of Malden.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The problem is the only hard evidence I have is the check. The "if you want any chance of getting an ALP" thing is my word versus his. You know in the great Commiewealth of MA, an LEO would never lie, right?

I think you miss my point, so I'll try again.

The Ethics Commission won't care if you are given a LTC-B, A w/ or w/o restrictions.l

Having a PD DEMAND that you use the services of ONE PARTICULAR TRAINER is ILLEGAL. Having a LEO from the same department that issues the LTC give you a course (if the LEO is profiting from this) is also ILLEGAL. On EITHER of these two points, the Ethics Commission will come down on the PD and any LEOs involved with the Hammer of Thor! It will be an experience that they will not soon forget . . . and it will result in a TOTAL CHANGE OF POLICY . . . which is the desired result anyway.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I think you miss my point, so I'll try again.

The Ethics Commission won't care if you are given a LTC-B, A w/ or w/o restrictions.l

Having a PD DEMAND that you use the services of ONE PARTICULAR TRAINER is ILLEGAL. Having a LEO from the same department that issues the LTC give you a course (if the LEO is profiting from this) is also ILLEGAL. On EITHER of these two points, the Ethics Commission will come down on the PD and any LEOs involved with the Hammer of Thor! It will be an experience that they will not soon forget . . . and it will result in a TOTAL CHANGE OF POLICY . . . which is the desired result anyway.

So yes, he would be in the wrong for receiving funds (and yes, I did notice that in your post). I just wish there was a way to show he demanded I use his services. I imagine the Ethics Commission would take that more seriously.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So yes, he would be in the wrong for receiving funds (and yes, I did notice that in your post). I just wish there was a way to show he demanded I use his services. I imagine the Ethics Commission would take that more seriously.

It won't matter, they will still come down on them! Try it and the PD will find out.

Complaining here or to GOAL will NOT result in a change of policy, of that I am certain.

 

[M1911]

Len, as a firearms instructor who has benefited financially, in a small way, from the MA training requirement, I am also against government mandating training. I'm firmly in favor of training, but against the government mandate. However, if there is a mandate for training, it should be real training.

 

[Scrivener]

It won't matter, they will still come down on them! Try it and the PD will find out.

Complaining here or to GOAL will NOT result in a change of policy, of that I am certain.

Complaining here will certainly accomplish nothing. Notifying GOAL may, if it is documenting abuses by department as part of its legislative effort.

A complaint to the Ethics Commission will have the greatest likelihood of cost-effective results.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Complaining here will certainly accomplish nothing. Notifying GOAL may, if it is documenting abuses by department as part of its legislative effort.

A complaint to the Ethics Commission will have the greatest likelihood of cost-effective results.

Scrivener, how worried should I be about this coming back on me? Obviously the check will identify me.

 

[Scrivener]

Scrivener, how worried should I be about this coming back on me? Obviously the check will identify me.

1. You already HAVE your license.

2. What you tolerate, you validate;
What you put up with, you deserve.

 

[Batbox]

And a careful reading will show that I never said you did.

:However, the crap courses you are happy to see available so the competent can meet the safety certificate cheaply means those same crap courses are equally available to - and granting certificates to - the UNknowledgable, the UNschooled and the INcompetent.

And they'll be carrying and shooting with that same utter unpreparedness.

and careful reading will show i never said you said i did!

i think what is going on here, as others have started to point out, is that we are discussing two different topics at once. i'm going to go out on a limb here and and suggest that we both agree that

1: people should get proper training in firearms, be it from family, friends, or state-approved courses.

2: people should not have to take a state-approved course before being allowed to exercise their rights.

i am in agreement that these non-classes are insufficient training, and it borders on false advertising to imply they teach safe gun handling. so, in a perfect world, i would call the people providing them lying bastards. however, in a state where it is REQUIRED that you jump through some hoops before being able to own a firearm, i see these non-classes as a better-than-nothing free-state approximation.
as others have pointed out, if we 'had our way' (assuming a collective way among us), there would be no licensing requirements at all. it is the shooter's responsibility to get adequate training or the activities he intends to get involved in.

 

[M1911]

Scrivener, how worried should I be about this coming back on me? Obviously the check will identify me.

As Len said, do it on an anonymous basis.

 

[Batbox]

Len, as a firearms instructor who has benefited financially, in a small way, from the MA training requirement, I am also against government mandating training. I'm firmly in favor of training, but against the government mandate. However, if there is a mandate for training, it should be real training.

if there is a mandate for training in order to exercise a right, the government should pay for the training. this would keep it from just being a step towards making it prohibitively expensive to get licensed. the fact is that these cheaper classes, which teach the participants virtually nothing, satisfy MASS law; this suggests to me that the law is designed primarily to discourage, not educate.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

if there is a mandate for training in order to exercise a right, the government should pay for the training. this would keep it from just being a step towards making it prohibitively expensive to get licensed. the fact is that these cheaper classes, which teach the participants virtually nothing, satisfy MASS law; this suggests to me that the law is designed primarily to discourage, not educate.

Well, making it prohibitively expensive is the name of the game. Why do you think that many housing authorities won't allow law abiding citizens to have guns in the home? They don't want the poor owning guns.

Look at the cost just to process the paperwork, nevermind the cost of the class. They say the costs were increased due to the large increase in applicants. Well folks, that's why we have multiplication. The fee, times X number of applicants gives you our revenue. The more applicants, the more revenue.

Now add in some of the extra crap they want, like membership in a gun club, and you're pricing out most people with lesser means.

Here was my cost. Safety course = $75, Fingerprints & photo = $25, License = $100, Gun club initiation = $125, Gun club first year = $100, Gun = $650......Total = $1075 to own a gun (you can take $225 off for the Crimson Trace grip)

This doesn't even include the fees I've spent for a permit in just TWO adjoining states!!

 

[TheRoland]

Now add in some of the extra crap they want, like membership in a gun club, and you're pricing out most people with lesser means.

Here was my cost. Safety course = $75, Fingerprints & photo = $25, License = $100, Gun club initiation = $125, Gun club first year = $100, Gun = $650......Total = $1075 to own a gun (you can take $225 off for the Crimson Trace grip)

This doesn't even include the fees I've spent for a permit in just TWO adjoining states!!

Truth. The really sad part of this is that at $1075, you actually did pretty well.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Truth. The really sad part of this is that at $1075, you actually did pretty well.

Well think about it. How many of your average Joe's can part with $1075 in one sitting? Add in another $240 for my CT and NH non-resident permits.

 

[yanici]

Here was my cost. Safety course = $75, Fingerprints & photo = $25, License = $100, Gun club initiation = $125, Gun club first year = $100, Gun = $650......Total = $1075 to own a gun (you can take $225 off for the Crimson Trace grip)

This doesn't even include the fees I've spent for a permit in just TWO adjoining states!!

Wow! You had to pay for fingerprints and photo? My photo was taken by the computer cam while filling in the app. form on the computer and fingerprints were included in the $100 app. fee.

 

[Len-2A Training]

A complaint to the Ethics Commission will have the greatest likelihood of cost-effective results.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me. I'm hoping that some that may not believe what I say, will believe you on how effective this can be. I have had some dealings with the Ethics Commission (nothing to do with firearms/licensing) and I was very impressed with them . . . I had initiated inquiry on something and received a 5-page letter outlining existing problems and how the town could "cure" them. In a follow-up phone call, I verbally authorized them to speak with the Selectmen, Town Manager and Town Counsel and they told me that they were prohibited from doing so until I provided written authorization (with any limits spelled out).

Scrivener, how worried should I be about this coming back on me? Obviously the check will identify me.

They will NOT show the town what evidence they have, plus you don't really think that you are the only person in the town that had to pay for this class, do you? Sounds like they can "suspect" everyone in the town with a LTC as being the person who blew the whistle on their illegal activities. Also, there is some legal protection for whistle-blowers . . . I have no idea if it is effective or not, perhaps Scriv may know something about that?

As Len said, do it on an anonymous basis.

Yup, see my comments above.

the fact is that these cheaper classes, which teach the participants virtually nothing, satisfy MASS law; this suggests to me that the law is designed primarily to discourage, not educate.

I believe that you are right, the state's intent on requiring training is to discourage people from bothering to get a license. A large percentage I'm sure looks at the whole process and says "too much hassle, screw it, I won't bother"! I have met some gun owners that felt that way after the 1998 change in law and never bothered to get a "replacement" for their lifetime FID or pre-1998 LTC.

As for what courses teach what . . .

- Retention from a 1x class, no matter how good, is going to be very small unless one practices a lot . . . and that isn't going to happen for most applicants.

- The state approves or disapproves of class curriculum. Every course on that list of "acceptable courses" was vetted by EOPS. I am told (didn't bother to verify) that the MCOPA approved course (that the chiefs assn developed to meet the requirements) has no live fire component. My problem with the Basic Pistol class that everyone touts as the "gold standard" for LTC is that it contains NOTHING at all about long guns . . . and it is a rare LTC-holder that doesn't buy a .22 rifle, AR15 and/or shotgun. At least the Home Firearms Safety course teaches them to safely load/unload long arms as well as handguns.