• 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.

MassChiefs.org Newsletter Mentions H2259

After reading the article, it seems as though the organization is suggesting that LTC-B should be eliminated and issuing an LTC-A without restrictions has not caused any overt problems. Wonder if Gemme will read this?
 
This is interesting (emphasis mine)...

Individuals Moving to another Community

If a licensee moves to a new community, he or she is
required to notify both chiefs, plus the Firearms Records
Bureau in writing. In some cases the new community may
issue unrestricted licenses whereas the old community issued
a restricted license. The licensee’s license from the old
community will remain valid until it expires. If a person
chooses to renew his or her license early in the new
community so he or she can obtain an unrestricted license
such person may legally do so by paying the $100 license
fee. However the old community must “expire” the license
via MIRCS. Contact the Firearms Record Bureau for details.
There are several communities who have refused to do this
for their former residents. Nothing is to be gained by forcing
a former resident to maintain a LTC with your restrictions
once he or she moves to a new community. Expire the license
and let the new community license him or her as they wish.
Click to expand...
 
Basically, they advocate EXACTLY what H2259 would legislate.

The key piece being the removal of discretion and the other crap that even the authors advocate against. In all honesty, if they are THAT concerned about people who might not meet the level of "Prohibited Person" as defined in H2259, they should recommend their changes so all concerns would be covered.

Lets face it, a citizen should NOT have to wonder if they will or won't qualify. It should be 100% encoded in LAW, not left to the whim of a single person. The very fact a citizen has to ask for permission is bad enough.

The exact same process and standard for a person in community A should apply to a person in community B. If not, then the law ADVOCATES discrimination.
 
The author touched on a lot of valid points. Hopefully some of the chiefs in this state read this newsletter and take to heart some of the messages within the article. Like where it says,

"Chiefs have to issue the restricted or unrestricted license that works for their community (at least that’s how it is at the moment until the legislature makes a change). The
only problem is licensing officers are sometimes terrible judges at what works in their community. Don’t think because you do not hear complaints that everything is fine. Since 1994 we have observed several chiefs leave their jobs partially and in some cases specifically because of their licensing practices. In some cases those chiefs or licensing officers were replaced by people whose views were 180 degrees different and those communities started issuing unrestricted licenses. Some chiefs who made that change look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. No change in gun crimes, and no wild west. Nothing changed except those licensing officials have fewer headaches because they chose not to fight that particular battle. If your community situation requires you to issue a certain type of license, then you issue it as you determine appropriate. Many chiefs have just chosen to focus on other firearms issues long ago. If you are disqualified or not suitable you don’t get a license. If you are eligible, you get one. The
same one everyone else gets for the same $100 regardless of who you are or what reasons you have for wanting a license.."

Interesting read.
 
More than likely this is set in there as a CYA move to try and take steam out of 2259. WHen it comes up in discussion they can say "See, we even put something in our newsletter. We are making sure that everything is equal, dont take our power away."
 
Does not matter what the organization advocates. If the operators create inequality, the process is discriminatory and MUST be abolished. More than enough evidence exists to support revocation.

In other words...

You had the power, you abused it, now the people are taking it BACK.
 
Oh im 100% behind you on that, I have been restricted and screwed on the we wont expire early thing. I want the whole system to be redone.
 
Chris said:
Does not matter what the organization advocates. If the operators create inequality, the process is discriminatory and MUST be abolished. More than enough evidence exists to support revocation.

In other words...

You had the power, you abused it, now the people are taking it BACK.
Click to expand...
This
 
It is amusing to see this...

They are coaching the "team" to behave, so the legislation doesn't get passed. I hope it is too little too late.
 
Why don't they just make the process more like CT...dump the restrictions..let the Chief's issue permits and just don't give them the ability to deny beyond whats in State Statute...and make them come and answer to an independent board for anyone they deny..

http://www.ct.gov/BFPE/site/default.asp


FYI - Of course I think it should be like VT/AK....but in the meantime this would be a step forward..
 
It's seems some of the chiefs are ruining it for the rest of them. They're just circling the wagons and trying to get the outliers to fall in line so they don't all lose their prerogative to decide who gets one and who doesn't. The last sentence of the second paragraph says it all...
...recently met to discuss how the Association could best work for its members to maintain the chief’s existing discretion in firearms licensing.
Click to expand...
Again, the problem is not the chiefs, it's the law. Allowing chiefs ANY discretion in deciding who can own a handgun and who can't is unlikely to survive a post-McDonald challenge.
 
I suggested this at the hearing, and to GOAL:

There should be no open ended "chief's suitability", but there should be a checkbox with a box for putting in a reason they think the person is unsuitable. This would then open a hearing process to review the person's suitability. Instead of having the chief just impose the restriction with no opposition, he has to make a good case as to why this person would be unsuitable, before a board.

This ultimately means the chiefs still get a say, but they need to provide some more substantive proof each and every time.

I suppose there should be a time limitation in there as to how soon they need to hold the hearings.
 
Last edited:
Coyote33 said:
I suggested this at the hearing, and to GOAL:

There should be no open ended "chief's suitability", but there should be a checkbox with a box for putting in a reason they think the person is unsuitable.
Click to expand...

No.

First best: no license at all. If you are not in prison, you can buy, sell, and carry concealed or open. Done. Anything else is inferior. And allowing a chief to decide whether someone is suitable is a horrible idea. Much better is the common practice in free states of making carry licenses shall-issue. And that's for carry, not for mere possession as required in Mass.
 
It's really simple.

If they can't tell you RIGHT NOW what would make a suitable person, they ultimately wish the power to discriminate. Either you can define what is unsuitable or you are looking for some manner to judge different people by different standards.

Put your standards where you mouth is.
 
Chris said:
It's really simple.

If they can't tell you RIGHT NOW what would make a suitable person, they ultimately wish the power to discriminate. Either you can define what is unsuitable or you are looking for some manner to judge different people by different standards.

Put your standards where you mouth is.
Click to expand...

Correct. And the standard should be "not in prison".
 
More than likely this is set in there as a CYA move to try and take steam out of 2259. WHen it comes up in discussion they can say "See, we even put something in our newsletter. We are making sure that everything is equal, dont take our power away."
Click to expand...

Of course it is. However, the fact that MCOPA took the problem seriously enough to gather information on the abuses and then devote a 3-page article to them speaks volumes about how seriously it takes them, even if only because they pose a threat to the chiefs' "wide latitude and broad discretion."

Does not matter what the organization advocates. If the operators create inequality, the process is discriminatory and MUST be abolished. More than enough evidence exists to support revocation.

In other words...

You had the power, you abused it, now the people are taking it BACK.
Click to expand...

We live in hope. That the exercise of a fundamental right is subjected to the whim and caprice of 351 different and changing standards, created by 351 different and changing chiefs, is inherently "arbitrary and capricious" - and, therefore, inherently unjust.

All that said, this was a very well-researched article. It identifies the major abuses complained of here on this forum, in calls to GOAL and elsewhere. "Doctor's letters?" Listed - and advised against. Multiple, even notarized "letters of recommendation?" - same criticism. Mandatory membership in a club - same.

The critique of requiring courses given only by the PD or, even more flagrantly illegal, a particular officer - both named (although the illegality was NOT stated).

Even "B-ramming" and refusal to expire licenses for those who move away are criticized - in an official police journal, in an article written by MCOPA counsel and the chair of its firearms committee. If you think this won't be cited by those challenging such abuses, you fail to grasp its importance.

Does this mean we, like Joshua, have sounded the trumpet and the walls of abuse will come tumbling down? Hardly. Is it even a guarantee that abusive practices in places like Brookline, Boston, Newton, Worcester, Lowell, Andover and Sharon will cease? No.

But it is a significant admission that there ARE such abuses and that they should NOT be accepted practice. And that is A Good Thing.
 
economist said:
No.

First best: no license at all. If you are not in prison, you can buy, sell, and carry concealed or open. Done. Anything else is inferior. And allowing a chief to decide whether someone is suitable is a horrible idea. Much better is the common practice in free states of making carry licenses shall-issue. And that's for carry, not for mere possession as required in Mass.
Click to expand...

No. The CHIEF does not decide suitability, the board does. The chief only puts it on the table, and had better have good reason.

Scrivener said:
Of course it is. However, the fact that MCOPA took the problem seriously enough to gather information on the abuses and then devote a 3-page article to them speaks volumes about how seriously it takes them, even if only because they pose a threat to the chiefs' "wide latitude and broad discretion."
...
But it is a significant admission that there ARE such abuses and that they should NOT be accepted practice. And that is A Good Thing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!
 
Last edited:
economist said:
Correct. And the standard should be "not in prison".
Click to expand...

Realistically, that won't happen. Ideally the definition should be tied to the federal one. That way, when the rights of the people are defined by the Supreme Court, the same applies here. However, the political winds in this state won't allow that. They will insist that a definition be made.

All I want to see is that Prohibited Person is CLEARLY defined and all citizens regardless of location, age, political affiliation, and social status are treated EQUALLY by the word of the law. That in itself would be a huge milestone. So, when a person asks "will I get my license?" I can actually provide an answer. Right now, as Keith said, there are 351 different opinions of that question and 351 levels of suitability. This is WRONG.
 
firestorm said:
More than likely this is set in there as a CYA move to try and take steam out of 2259. WHen it comes up in discussion they can say "See, we even put something in our newsletter. We are making sure that everything is equal, dont take our power away."
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is. They're only interested in equitable treatment because they're afraid they might lose their unilateral power.
 
Chris said:
Basically, they advocate EXACTLY what H2259 would legislate.

The key piece being the removal of discretion and the other crap that even the authors advocate against. In all honesty, if they are THAT concerned about people who might not meet the level of "Prohibited Person" as defined in H2259, they should recommend their changes so all concerns would be covered.

Lets face it, a citizen should NOT have to wonder if they will or won't qualify. It should be 100% encoded in LAW, not left to the whim of a single person. The very fact a citizen has to ask for permission is bad enough.

The exact same process and standard for a person in community A should apply to a person in community B. If not, then the law ADVOCATES discrimination.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're wrong.

Unsuitability should be determined by past behavior;
preferably that has been documented. This may include a
criminal record where no conviction exists, the affidavit from
a vacated restraining order, internal police records like
protective custody where there is no BOP or III record,
failure to cooperate in a police investigation,
and mental health
issues (suicide attempts, etc.) where there is no DMH record
or other statutory disqualification.
Click to expand...
While denial for suitability
is not required in any of these cases, it is an option for the
chief who believes the applicant is unsuitable. Suitability
should be determined on a case-by-case basis and not by a
blanket policy. Each case and circumstance affecting
suitability may be different. Keep in mind that a person denied
for suitability may still be eligible to receive an FID Card.
Suitability SHOULD NOT be determined by an applicant
meeting or failing to meet a condition not required by statute
but imposed but the local licensing authority.
Click to expand...

They are talking out both sides of their mouth as usual.

This is all about power. And thinking that power bases like CoPs will voluntarily surrender power is simply naive. You'll notice that many of the things I bolded are NOT statutory disqualifiers. and "refusing to cooperate" in cop language means "he stood on his constitutional rights."

They are not caving on this. -Unless and until the legiscritters make them.
 
Scrivener said:
Even "B-ramming" and refusal to expire licenses for those who move away are criticized - in an official police journal, in an article written by MCOPA counsel and the chair of its firearms committee. If you think this won't be cited by those challenging such abuses, you fail to grasp its importance.
Click to expand...

Yup. I saved a copy and filed it under "future evidence"... [grin] No doubt this is going to come back and haunt them.
 
Scrivener said:
Of course it is. However, the fact that MCOPA took the problem seriously enough to gather information on the abuses and then devote a 3-page article to them speaks volumes about how seriously it takes them, even if only because they pose a threat to the chiefs' "wide latitude and broad discretion."
Click to expand...

The fact that they're taking this so seriously says good things about the effect 2259 is having. I've heard several people deride 2259 as being a waste of time and having no chance. Even getting some of these admissions out of MCOPA is a win. I'm hopeful that the continued pressure on the legislature will actually get the bill passed, but even the ending of the more abusive licensing practices would be a huge win.
 

Similar threads

Newsletter section of NES?
Replies
8
Views
527
AHM
AHM
Comm2A Newsletter
Replies
2
Views
1K
jho
jho
The New GOAL Newsletter
Replies
29
Views
5K
CosmicIrony
CosmicIrony
Free subscription to NRA's Armed Citizen e-newsletter
Replies
0
Views
515
Acujeff
Acujeff
newsletter from CMP; almost out of M2 Ball on en-bloc clips
Replies
17
Views
3K
CrackPot
CrackPot
Back
Top Bottom