Message from Comm2A to people applying/renewing post 1/1/15

[Quiet]

Bring a printed, signed and completed app with you. Hand them that. Keep a copy of that.

But that's not how it goes, even in my green town. You don't get to enter your application into the computer. They re-enter your submitted app and print it out and have you sign it. They also have the original signed app, but I have no clue if they keep that on file.

 

[terraformer]

No, you bring in the states official application. Yeah, I know they won't take it but then they have to explain that to the judge instead of us explaining to the judge why the signed special application doesn't say what the person intended.

 

[Neuro]

Bring a printed, signed and completed app with you. Hand them that. Keep a copy of that.

Ok. so the prefilled form and copy (hopefully notarized), will be useful to comm2A. I assume all applicants in Boston fit the description of those not getting the license type they applied for, for purposes of this survey.

 

[Len-2A Training]

No, you bring in the states official application. Yeah, I know they won't take it but then they have to explain that to the judge instead of us explaining to the judge why the signed special application doesn't say what the person intended.

I know what you are doing, but you still must sign the one they print out after they make the changes. I'm certain that if you refuse to sign it, your process will stop and they will refuse to process you. A suit would be interesting but delay the person a year or two at best. Most aren't willing to do that.

 

[Neuro]

do we need to show proof of range membership with the Boston Application?

 

[Len-2A Training]

do we need to show proof of range membership with the Boston Application?

No, they dropped that a number of years ago.

 

[terraformer]

I know what you are doing, but you still must sign the one they print out after they make the changes. I'm certain that if you refuse to sign it, your process will stop and they will refuse to process you. A suit would be interesting but delay the person a year or two at best. Most aren't willing to do that.

I wasn't suggesting not signing the second application. I was suggesting that having the two helps illustrate the second one was altered by the LO and not willingly signed. Weymouth and Peabody smartly didn't fight us on this point that the LO forced changes on the application but another town won't be as smart.

 

[Neuro]

I understand the reason for having a pre-application filled. and will be doing it shortly. But god I hope I move by then....

 

[JohnZ]

So we can't just cross out the changes we don't like and sign it? Isn't that standard for any legal document/contract?

 

[M1911]

So we can't just cross out the changes we don't like and sign it? Isn't that standard for any legal document/contract?

You can do anything you want. What do you think the BPD licensing officer is going to do in response?

 

[Neuro]

What sucks is that unrestricted, isnt even an option on the Boston Application.
It goes Class A: Restrictions: Employment or Target/Hunting and class B.
According to http://bpdnews.com/resources/

How is it that Boston PD can have their own LTC Application? Has anyone brought this up to the Firearms Bureau?

 

[xero2099]

What sucks is that unrestricted, isnt even an option on the Boston Application.
It goes Class A: Restrictions: Employment or Target/Hunting and class B.
According to http://bpdnews.com/resources/

How is it that Boston PD can have their own LTC Application? Has anyone brought this up to the Firearms Bureau?

I would say that is a smoking gun for a lawsuit

 

[Coyote33]

It was a bit funny. When my daughter came out of the interview, the licensing officer was talking to her about how important it was for young women to be able to protect themselves. She even mentioned the Amy Lord situation. Based upon that, I thought she might get unrestricted, but no such thing.

I can guess which officer that was. I think it if was up to her she'd give out more unrestricted licenses than policy allows.

If it's the officer I think it is, she's a she. And straight as far as I know, but very friendly and a sweetheart.

If there is a web site or other way to give them kudos, this should be done. ENCOURAGE the good ones, and DISCOURAGE the bad ones!

I wonder what they'd do if you quietly crossed out the "Sport/Target, No conceal carry" and write "All lawful purposes" and then initial it. It's your application and your signature on the bottom of the form.

The last person I know of that insisted on changing the words on that form ended up arrested and prosecuted maliciously. ... Besides, the only thing that counts is the wording put on the computer, that signed form never leaves the PD.

Arrested for changing the form?

I know of whom you speak. So the actual charge was not related to the docs, but to trespassing? Very, very different issue.

That answers the question I posed above.

Some blogger or tv station went into a bunch of police stations with hidden cameras posing as regular people and asked for complaint forms. The reaction from the police in most of the cases was downright hostile.

Edit: Found the video, not sure if this is the original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ&feature=player_embedded

Someone should send this in to Hank Phillipi Ryan!!!!!

Jeez
at 0:45
If their buddies investigate them and the allegations are unfounded, the officer would sue you?
That can't be right.

It's not. But that never stopped anyone.

So I have an update. Tried to talk to the lo by calling when he was on his shift and was not allowed to this was Tuesday so today I called the frb to find out what was going on since the only response I have received from the Dudley police department was we don't have it the frb told me it was active telling him that the pd did have it cause they are the only ones who can activate it and they should be giving me the license. OK so that was around 3 o'clock called the pd at 5 o'clock to see if it was ready and was still told they don't have it what am I to think on this I'm starting to feel discrimination against myself cause I have not got a straight answer and I'm sure I'll have a restricted for pushing the issue so now what?

Make a call to your selectmen and explain what you did here.

Bet the PD finds it after a selectman inquires about it.

Good course of action if he didn't get a favorable outcome.

so what happens if you the Boston licensing officer options to change your unrestricted request? What if you call him on it and insist the application go ahead with Unrestricted?

I guess they would just outright deny it as requested, right?

Bring a printed, signed and completed app with you. Hand them that. Keep a copy of that.

This is the ONLY "OFFICIAL" application, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct?

Boston uses their own nonstandard application which isn't available online so one can not complete it in advance. The only opttions on the form are "condition of employment" and "target/hunting"

Note how the department describes these as "entitlements".
Edit:Under the "your safety" tab
http://bpdnews.com/resources/
Online the application process is detailed but no application is provided.

Information including the mace FID-D card no longer existing has not been updated with the changes to the law in 2015.

Isn't a non-standard application ILLEGAL? Who holds them, or how are they held responsible for getting rid of the FID-D?

No, you bring in the states official application. Yeah, I know they won't take it but then they have to explain that to the judge instead of us explaining to the judge why the signed special application doesn't say what the person intended.

Good stuff here. Judges like official paperwork trails.

I know what you are doing, but you still must sign the one they print out after they make the changes. I'm certain that if you refuse to sign it, your process will stop and they will refuse to process you. A suit would be interesting but delay the person a year or two at best. Most aren't willing to do that.

I'd say sign it, and then initial with wording you were forced to do this and have a copy of "real application" attached.

I wasn't suggesting not signing the second application. I was suggesting that having the two helps illustrate the second one was altered by the LO and not willingly signed. Weymouth and Peabody smartly didn't fight us on this point that the LO forced changes on the application but another town won't be as smart.

Again, initial it with description of why the initials.

So we can't just cross out the changes we don't like and sign it? Isn't that standard for any legal document/contract?

I would think so. Just initial each cross-out. Maybe date each one as well.

You can do anything you want. What do you think the BPD licensing officer is going to do in response?

You tell us!

 

[terraformer]

I would say that is a smoking gun for a lawsuit

There are so many smoking guns of lawsuits in this state that we could field an army and block out the sun. There is a strategic reason to ensuring you take certain cases before other cases and you fix problems in an orderly and strategic way. No federal court is going to care that Boston has their own license application. This is a state issue.

This strategy requires discipline. It means not acting when others think you should. It means holding back. Sometimes, it's right to hold back on certain things.

 

[Waher]

How is it that Boston PD can have their own LTC Application? Has anyone brought this up to the Firearms Bureau?

Because the real application is what is entered into the computer by the licensing officer and not the person applying. The FRB gets the standard application it wants digitally and doesn't care whatever funny business the local authorities do on the front end.

 

[M1911]

You tell us!

Simple. The BPD licensing officer won't accept it. You submit their form, filled out to their satisfaction or they won't accept it. Then you have a choice of caving or calling a lawyer.

 

[Coyote33]

In my reply in Post 103 to Neuro, is that considered a denial? Does that mean it can now go before a judge?

 

[Waher]

If there is a web site or other way to give them kudos, this should be done. ENCOURAGE the good ones, and DISCOURAGE the bad ones!

Worth remembering that BPD's application process is not handled by the licensing officer himself. There's a professional and supportive desk squad which is only following the policy of a boss they really don't want to piss off and screw up anything for. The people filling out the paperwork and conducting the interviews, along with the Moon Island exam staff, might think an applicant should be able to have an unrestricted license but there's no way in Hell they are going to risk the consequences of violating "the policy".

 

[terraformer]

I just wanted to remind people (or make it clear to them by connecting the dots of information we have provided previously) that anyone who applies or renews for an LTC/FID on or after 1/1/15 who is either denied on the basis of suitability or given a restricted license, please submit your information at http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/contact-us/problem. We want to speak with you.

We also need all of you current license holders who know of people who will be applying to point them our way if they don't get the license they want.

I just want to bump the OP and remind people, if you have been restricted or denied since 1/1/15, contact us immediately.

 

[Coyote33]

In my reply in Post 103 to Neuro, is that considered a denial? Does that mean it can now go before a judge?

Anyone? Bueller?

 

[swatgig]

Anyone? Bueller?

I'm not sure what the question is.

 

[Coyote33]

I'm not sure what the question is.

Here you go:

so what happens if you the Boston licensing officer options to change your unrestricted request? What if you call him on it and insist the application go ahead with Unrestricted?

I guess they would just outright deny it as requested, right?

In my reply in Post 103 to Neuro, is that considered a denial? Does that mean it can now go before a judge?

 

[swatgig]

Here you go:

"What if you call him on it and insist the application go ahead with Unrestricted"

What happened after the applicant "insisted"?
Did the LA refuse to process the application?
Did the LA process the application and send a denial letter?
Did the LA process the application and send a restricted license?
Did the LA process the application and send nothing?

 

[terraformer]

"What if you call him on it and insist the application go ahead with Unrestricted"

What happened after the applicant "insisted"?
Did the LA refuse to process the application?
Did the LA process the application and send a denial letter?
Did the LA process the application and send a restricted license?
Did the LA process the application and send nothing?

Yeah, I am not seeing how this is answerable. The range of possible responses is near infinite. The range of probable responses is still pretty large too and go many directions.

 

[Coyote33]

So then, what actually DOES constitute as a denial for the intents and purposes of being able to take advantage of the new law, since this does not seem to cut the mustard?

 

[wfal796]

I guess I'll post this up as I feel it's related:

Friend of a coworker (whom I know) sent an email to the Salem licensing officer with a link to the new laws in Chapter 284. He highlighted Section 51 and asked for a clarification on why he was issued a restricted license over a year ago. The response I found interesting: (I paraphrase) "we have no way of interpreting these changes and therefore will be lifting the restrictions". He got a new license mailed to him in 10 days.

My question is: Is this a unique circumstance or is this something we can get momentum behind? I'd like to try the same thing in my town but not sure how to word the email itself.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I guess I'll post this up as I feel it's related:

Friend of a coworker (whom I know) sent an email to the Salem licensing officer with a link to the new laws in Chapter 284. He highlighted Section 51 and asked for a clarification on why he was issued a restricted license over a year ago. The response I found interesting: (I paraphrase) "we have no way of interpreting these changes and therefore will be lifting the restrictions". He got a new license mailed to him in 10 days.

My question is: Is this a unique circumstance or is this something we can get momentum behind? I'd like to try the same thing in my town but not sure how to word the email itself.

Interesting. More and more departments seem to be changing their policy. Now is the time for anyone with a restricted license to be requesting that the restrictions be lifted.

 

[M1911]

I guess I'll post this up as I feel it's related:

Friend of a coworker (whom I know) sent an email to the Salem licensing officer with a link to the new laws in Chapter 284. He highlighted Section 51 and asked for a clarification on why he was issued a restricted license over a year ago. The response I found interesting: (I paraphrase) "we have no way of interpreting these changes and therefore will be lifting the restrictions". He got a new license mailed to him in 10 days.

So they decided not to spend the time to fight it. Awesome. I'm sure they've got actual crime to fight instead.

 

[rivet_42]

Is it still kosher for towns to ask for letters justifying why you need/want an unrestricted LTC? My town does.

 

[xero2099]

Interesting. More and more departments seem to be changing their policy. Now is the time for anyone with a restricted license to be requesting that the restrictions be lifted.

it is looking like the whacky gun laws on MA may actually be helping us now