Two page article on licensing issues (Pg.9), a LEOSA update (Pg.19), and also looks
like MCOPA has a supporter at Ware Gun Shop (Pg.7). The Village Vault highlights
the pitfalls for PD's turning over firearms to family or assignees of original
owners (Pg.22).
http://www.masschiefs.org/documents/April 2008 Newsletter.pdf
FIREARMS LICENSING FEES
Over the past several months, questions have arisen
and several complaints have been filed regarding what police
departments charge for firearms license application fees. In
the February issue of GOAL’s “The Outdoor Message,” a
front page article’s headline read “Four More Towns Found
to be Overcharging Applicants.” Some of the information regarding
alleged overcharging apparently had come from police
department websites. GOAL has forwarded complaints
about several departments to the Governor’s Office, the Office
of the Inspector General, the Executive Office of Public
Safety, and various state Representatives and Senators. In
their written complaints GOAL is citing MGL Chapter 140,
Section 131 paragraph (k) which states, “Whoever knowingly
issues a license in violation of this section shall be punished by
a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment
for not less than six months or more than two years in
a jail or house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
They have gone so far as to ask state officials to
seek charges against licensing authorities for overcharging.
The language regarding knowingly issuing a license in
violation of the statute pertains to a licensing authority issuing
a license to someone he knows to be disqualified. In fact, that
language appears to have been part of the statute prior to
1936 when the statutory language included disqualifications,
but did not mention specific licensing fees. So it is
obvious that the original intent was to prevent licensing
authorities from issuing licenses to persons not legally entitled
to them, and not to regulate fee compliance. With
that said however, it is clear that the application fees for
many years have been set by statute and licensing authorities
should follow those statutory requirements.
In 1957 the application fee was set at $2, and in
1972 it was raised to $10. Between 1972 and 1998 departments
were charging a variety of fees even though
the statute required a $10 application fee. As part of chapter
180 of the Acts of 1998, the application fee was raised
to $25. One of the reasons for that increase according to
some legislators was to “standardize” the application fee
so every department was charging the same thing. The
application fee was once again raised in 2003 to $100.
The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association has always
advised its members to comply with the fee structure
set by statute.
Fees for Photographs
There was a time when departments offered to take
photographs to save the applicant the time or expense of
getting a passport-type photograph. In such cases, an additional
fee could be charged for the optional service. However,
as a result of the implementation of the Massachusetts
Instant Record Check System (MIRCS), that additional
charge is no longer appropriate for most departments. Part
of the MIRCS process includes a photograph taken with a
state supplied web cam, and is a required and integral part
of the process. No additional photograph is necessary or
can be required, and no additional photo costs should be added.
Currently there are only 30 communities who do not yet
have MIRCS installed or implemented. These agencies are
still issuing what are called legacy licenses, and must still
require a passport type photograph. They can continue to
offer to provide those photographs as an optional service to
their applicants, and they can continue to charge for that
optional service above and beyond the application fee until
MIRCS is installed in their departments. For those with
MIRCS, no fees should be charged for photographs.
Administrative and Fingerprint Fees
Whether you are issuing MIRCS or legacy firearms
licenses, fingerprinting (for new applicants) is a required part
of the application process. As such, additional fees should
not be charged for fingerprinting. Keep in mind that the
current $100 fee is in fact an application fee, and not a license
fee. A person pays that $100 fee to apply for his or
her license and the fee is not returned if the license is denied,
or prorated if it is suspended or revoked. As such, that
statutory application fee covers all portions of the application
process. Departments should not charge fingerprint or
other administrative fees as part of the firearms license application
process.
Statutory Fees
In addition to complaints by GOAL and by a few
individual applicants, the House Committee on Post Audit
and Oversight recently looked into the issue of departments
overcharging for firearms license applications. The Committee
emailed a survey to numerous police departments.
That survey asked nine questions dealing mostly with what
the licensing authority charged for a license to carry firearms
and a firearms identification card. The survey also
asked what departments charge for persons over 70, who
collects the fees, and how departments send the state their
share of the fees. Since the majority of the questions had
answers that were determined by statute, the easiest response
would have been for chiefs to simply reply, “I comply
with the statute.” Upon inquiry into the reason for the
survey, we were advised that it was the result of complaints
to various legislators. A representative to the committee said
they were not trying to incriminate chiefs or get them to
admit wrongdoing, but that they were just gathering information.
Whatever the real intent of the survey, it is clear
that there is no discretion in firearms license application fees.
The fees are currently $100 for either an LTC or FID. It is
free for renewals over 70, and law enforcement officers who
reside and work in the city or town of the licensing authority.
There is a $25 renewal fee for other law enforcement officers.
The restricted FID card is $25 for the initial issue and
free for renewals. No additional charges should be added to
these application fees.
Safety Courses
As part of Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998, a safety
course requirement was established for first time applicants.
MGL Chapter 140, Section 131P now requires that a certificate
from a state approved safety course or a certificate
from a hunter safety course from the Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement be submitted
with new applications for an LTC or FID. The initial
application by statute may not even be processed without
having a copy of the certificate attached thereto.
The statute exempts anyone from the safety course requirement
if they had an LTC or FID on June 1, 1998. Remember
that prior to enactment of Chapter 180 of the Acts of
1998 there was no statutory safety course requirement. The
statutory language specifically exempts renewals by saying,
“Persons lawfully possessing a Firearms 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.” It is clear that first time applicants after
June 1, 1998 are required to comply with the safety course
requirement. Some however believe that the requirement
for a safety course applies, or at least should apply, to every
renewal. While an argument might be made that the exemption
only applies to licenses possessed on June 1, 1998 it
is also clear that such a misunderstanding was a concern
even in 1998. As a result, 515 CMR 3.00 was promulgated.
515 CMR 3.00 Firearms Safety Course, Instructor Certifications,
and Firearms Surrender Programs was adopted
by the Colonel of the State Police to provide rules and regulations
governing basic firearms safety instructor and course
certifications required by MGL Chapter 140, Section 131P.
Under clause 3.05 the regulation states:
(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 or renewals.
(b) Any person lawfully licensed with a LTC 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 or 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. Course completion
certificates issued between June 1, 1998 and
October 21, 1998 shall be valid where that
course was subsequently certified as an approved
BFS course.
Combined, MGL Chapter 140, Section 131P, and 515
CMR 3.00 clarify the issue of Basic Firearms Safety Courses.
A certificate from a state approved course as shown on a list
provided by the state police, or a Massachusetts hunter education
course from the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and
Environmental Law Enforcement must be submitted with the
initial LTC or FID Card application. Departments should
understand that requiring a basic firearms safety course for
renewal applicants exeeds the intent of both the applicable
statute and regulation. Note that based on recent court decisions
regarding proficiency testing, the safety course requirement
is separate and distinct from the issue of whether or not
a department can require proficiency testing for renewal applicants.
http://www.masschiefs.org/documents/April 2008 Newsletter.pdf
like MCOPA has a supporter at Ware Gun Shop (Pg.7). The Village Vault highlights
the pitfalls for PD's turning over firearms to family or assignees of original
owners (Pg.22).
http://www.masschiefs.org/documents/April 2008 Newsletter.pdf
FIREARMS LICENSING FEES
Over the past several months, questions have arisen
and several complaints have been filed regarding what police
departments charge for firearms license application fees. In
the February issue of GOAL’s “The Outdoor Message,” a
front page article’s headline read “Four More Towns Found
to be Overcharging Applicants.” Some of the information regarding
alleged overcharging apparently had come from police
department websites. GOAL has forwarded complaints
about several departments to the Governor’s Office, the Office
of the Inspector General, the Executive Office of Public
Safety, and various state Representatives and Senators. In
their written complaints GOAL is citing MGL Chapter 140,
Section 131 paragraph (k) which states, “Whoever knowingly
issues a license in violation of this section shall be punished by
a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment
for not less than six months or more than two years in
a jail or house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
They have gone so far as to ask state officials to
seek charges against licensing authorities for overcharging.
The language regarding knowingly issuing a license in
violation of the statute pertains to a licensing authority issuing
a license to someone he knows to be disqualified. In fact, that
language appears to have been part of the statute prior to
1936 when the statutory language included disqualifications,
but did not mention specific licensing fees. So it is
obvious that the original intent was to prevent licensing
authorities from issuing licenses to persons not legally entitled
to them, and not to regulate fee compliance. With
that said however, it is clear that the application fees for
many years have been set by statute and licensing authorities
should follow those statutory requirements.
In 1957 the application fee was set at $2, and in
1972 it was raised to $10. Between 1972 and 1998 departments
were charging a variety of fees even though
the statute required a $10 application fee. As part of chapter
180 of the Acts of 1998, the application fee was raised
to $25. One of the reasons for that increase according to
some legislators was to “standardize” the application fee
so every department was charging the same thing. The
application fee was once again raised in 2003 to $100.
The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association has always
advised its members to comply with the fee structure
set by statute.
Fees for Photographs
There was a time when departments offered to take
photographs to save the applicant the time or expense of
getting a passport-type photograph. In such cases, an additional
fee could be charged for the optional service. However,
as a result of the implementation of the Massachusetts
Instant Record Check System (MIRCS), that additional
charge is no longer appropriate for most departments. Part
of the MIRCS process includes a photograph taken with a
state supplied web cam, and is a required and integral part
of the process. No additional photograph is necessary or
can be required, and no additional photo costs should be added.
Currently there are only 30 communities who do not yet
have MIRCS installed or implemented. These agencies are
still issuing what are called legacy licenses, and must still
require a passport type photograph. They can continue to
offer to provide those photographs as an optional service to
their applicants, and they can continue to charge for that
optional service above and beyond the application fee until
MIRCS is installed in their departments. For those with
MIRCS, no fees should be charged for photographs.
Administrative and Fingerprint Fees
Whether you are issuing MIRCS or legacy firearms
licenses, fingerprinting (for new applicants) is a required part
of the application process. As such, additional fees should
not be charged for fingerprinting. Keep in mind that the
current $100 fee is in fact an application fee, and not a license
fee. A person pays that $100 fee to apply for his or
her license and the fee is not returned if the license is denied,
or prorated if it is suspended or revoked. As such, that
statutory application fee covers all portions of the application
process. Departments should not charge fingerprint or
other administrative fees as part of the firearms license application
process.
Statutory Fees
In addition to complaints by GOAL and by a few
individual applicants, the House Committee on Post Audit
and Oversight recently looked into the issue of departments
overcharging for firearms license applications. The Committee
emailed a survey to numerous police departments.
That survey asked nine questions dealing mostly with what
the licensing authority charged for a license to carry firearms
and a firearms identification card. The survey also
asked what departments charge for persons over 70, who
collects the fees, and how departments send the state their
share of the fees. Since the majority of the questions had
answers that were determined by statute, the easiest response
would have been for chiefs to simply reply, “I comply
with the statute.” Upon inquiry into the reason for the
survey, we were advised that it was the result of complaints
to various legislators. A representative to the committee said
they were not trying to incriminate chiefs or get them to
admit wrongdoing, but that they were just gathering information.
Whatever the real intent of the survey, it is clear
that there is no discretion in firearms license application fees.
The fees are currently $100 for either an LTC or FID. It is
free for renewals over 70, and law enforcement officers who
reside and work in the city or town of the licensing authority.
There is a $25 renewal fee for other law enforcement officers.
The restricted FID card is $25 for the initial issue and
free for renewals. No additional charges should be added to
these application fees.
Safety Courses
As part of Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998, a safety
course requirement was established for first time applicants.
MGL Chapter 140, Section 131P now requires that a certificate
from a state approved safety course or a certificate
from a hunter safety course from the Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement be submitted
with new applications for an LTC or FID. The initial
application by statute may not even be processed without
having a copy of the certificate attached thereto.
The statute exempts anyone from the safety course requirement
if they had an LTC or FID on June 1, 1998. Remember
that prior to enactment of Chapter 180 of the Acts of
1998 there was no statutory safety course requirement. The
statutory language specifically exempts renewals by saying,
“Persons lawfully possessing a Firearms 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.” It is clear that first time applicants after
June 1, 1998 are required to comply with the safety course
requirement. Some however believe that the requirement
for a safety course applies, or at least should apply, to every
renewal. While an argument might be made that the exemption
only applies to licenses possessed on June 1, 1998 it
is also clear that such a misunderstanding was a concern
even in 1998. As a result, 515 CMR 3.00 was promulgated.
515 CMR 3.00 Firearms Safety Course, Instructor Certifications,
and Firearms Surrender Programs was adopted
by the Colonel of the State Police to provide rules and regulations
governing basic firearms safety instructor and course
certifications required by MGL Chapter 140, Section 131P.
Under clause 3.05 the regulation states:
(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 or renewals.
(b) Any person lawfully licensed with a LTC 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 or 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. Course completion
certificates issued between June 1, 1998 and
October 21, 1998 shall be valid where that
course was subsequently certified as an approved
BFS course.
Combined, MGL Chapter 140, Section 131P, and 515
CMR 3.00 clarify the issue of Basic Firearms Safety Courses.
A certificate from a state approved course as shown on a list
provided by the state police, or a Massachusetts hunter education
course from the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and
Environmental Law Enforcement must be submitted with the
initial LTC or FID Card application. Departments should
understand that requiring a basic firearms safety course for
renewal applicants exeeds the intent of both the applicable
statute and regulation. Note that based on recent court decisions
regarding proficiency testing, the safety course requirement
is separate and distinct from the issue of whether or not
a department can require proficiency testing for renewal applicants.
http://www.masschiefs.org/documents/April 2008 Newsletter.pdf
