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

I'm not aware of anything that prevents them from doing so.

I was thinking...isn't the default under the new law supposed to be to issue unrestricted? And doesn't a requirement for a letter presume the opposite--"Our default is to issue restricted, and you need to justify why you want us to deviate from the default"?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding this. If I am, clarification would be appreciated.
 
I was thinking...isn't the default under the new law supposed to be to issue unrestricted?"

I'm not an attorney. I'm not all that familiar with the changes in the statute, but that is not my understanding.

The new law increases the ability to appeal a denial or restriction and requires the licensing officer to justify their decision. But I'm not aware of anything that says that "the default" LTC must be unrestricted.
 
Last edited:
When my daughter applied in Boston, after her range test, she wrote a letter to the Lt in charge of licensing stating that a restriction of target and hunting was not good for her because she did not hunt and did not belong to a club to go target shooting. She stated that she felt it was very important for a young woman to be able to protect herself both inside and outside the home. She asked for a response in writing and referred to the new law passed last summer. The letter was sent by certified mail. That was on about 1/14. She has yet to hear anything back.
 
it is looking like the whacky gun laws on MA may actually be helping us now
Yes, that may be true, but only up to a point. The jury is still out on how seriously the courts will treat the new suitability definition what constitutes 'reasonable ground' for restricting a license.

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

I'm not aware of anything that prevents them from doing so.
Extra requirements like letter or recommendation, letters to the chief, etc. only existed due to the implied threat of a suitability denial. That's gone now, or should be and some towns have dropped those requirements. Others have not. The game they'll continue to play is the "we can't accept your application until it's complete", BS. That puts the applicant in the position of initiating legal action against the police department even before they've submitted an application.

The short answer is that towns can keep doing this because people will let them.

I was thinking...isn't the default under the new law supposed to be to issue unrestricted? And doesn't a requirement for a letter presume the opposite--"Our default is to issue restricted, and you need to justify why you want us to deviate from the default"?

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding this. If I am, clarification would be appreciated.
No, not necessarily. The new law only gives someone the statutory right to appeal a restriction (the right was always there) and gives a court the ability to order the restriction removed if there was no 'reasonable grounds' for imposing the restriction.
 
Extra requirements like letter or recommendation, letters to the chief, etc. only existed due to the implied threat of a suitability denial.

I'm lost.

I was looking at the MGL and it still has the suitability language. So I don't see how the threat of a suitability denial goes away. Could you point me to the appropriate language in the MGL?
 
I'm lost.

I was looking at the MGL and it still has the suitability language. So I don't see how the threat of a suitability denial goes away. Could you point me to the appropriate language in the MGL?

I was referring to the historical context of the law pre-1/1/15. Suitability has (supposedly) been reigned in and limited by this:

A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.

Failure to provide the chief a letter justifying your 'need' to exercise the Second Amendment doesn't rise to this standard.

My point, however, is that when push comes to shove, people will do almost anything their PD demands of them because the alternative is not getting the coveted license.
 
I'm lost.

I was looking at the MGL and it still has the suitability language. So I don't see how the threat of a suitability denial goes away. Could you point me to the appropriate language in the MGL?

Are you dangerous because you failed to adhere to the Chief's bull shit extra requirements? No. It's gone. If anyone wants to challenge one of these chiefs, contact us.
 
For what it's worth - I challenged the person punching my "Boston Application" into the state form, when he put in restrictions (I was watching him). It was never a two-way conversation. I told him I was interested in getting a license without restrictions. He said it would never happen.

While I didn't push it after that brief conversation, my feeling was that if I were to push it more - the application would've ended right then and there. Probably forfeiting my $100 cash application fee too, right?...

So I spoke up - but still got shot down with no, 'well if you're a business owner, or well if you do X, Y, Z..'
So you're not really getting denied, you're getting strong armed into something you don't want. They (Boston or FRB) never knew you wanted an unrestricted, because the Boston application retype put you in as restricted and you signed off on it.

I originally walked in with the MA application, pre-typed ready to go. When they told me that isn't what they wanted - they pointed me to the desk of forms, and to fill out their LTC application. So they refuse to accept the MA form.
I didn't press the issue. This was in Q1/Q2 of 2011. I doubt much has changed.
 
Would an electronic application put a stop to the keying-in shenanigans?

ETA: It should save a ton of time at the PD's. They should like that part.
 
I was referring to the historical context of the law pre-1/1/15. Suitability has (supposedly) been reigned in and limited by this:



Failure to provide the chief a letter justifying your 'need' to exercise the Second Amendment doesn't rise to this standard.

My point, however, is that when push comes to shove, people will do almost anything their PD demands of them because the alternative is not getting the coveted license.

I don't see that in the online version of the MGL here: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131

Is the MA web site just out of date on this?
 
That website hasn't been updated yet.

Here's the text of the bill: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2014/Chapter284. Scroll down to Section 48 and look past (x).

That's the law. The state's website is not the official version.

Yea, I know. It's just very difficult to read the law when you have to read the original document and then figure out the "paragraph amended by adding..." crap of the bill.

Is there a clean copy of the law as it is today somewhere online?
 
Yea, I know. It's just very difficult to read the law when you have to read the original document and then figure out the "paragraph amended by adding..." crap of the bill.

Is there a clean copy of the law as it is today somewhere online?

That's why we spent so much time parsing through the bill trying to figure out what it actually means. The official Comm2A digest can be found here.

You're best hope for a 'clean' copy is to wait for the state to publish one.
 
Yea, I know. It's just very difficult to read the law when you have to read the original document and then figure out the "paragraph amended by adding..." crap of the bill.

Is there a clean copy of the law as it is today somewhere online?

See comm2as website for a doc illustrating the changes.
 
That's why we spent so much time parsing through the bill trying to figure out what it actually means. The official Comm2A digest can be found here.

You're best hope for a 'clean' copy is to wait for the state to publish one.

Yes, in a year or two! [rolleyes]

I was just digging thru the new law to find something only to find that it refers to adding words after "Line 254". Good luck with that.

The state doesn't give a damn that the only readily accessible copy of the complete gun law isn't updated for months or maybe a year or more!
 
That's why we spent so much time parsing through the bill trying to figure out what it actually means. The official Comm2A digest can be found here.

You're best hope for a 'clean' copy is to wait for the state to publish one.

See comm2as website for a doc illustrating the changes.

Yes, in a year or two! [rolleyes]

I was just digging thru the new law to find something only to find that it refers to adding words after "Line 254". Good luck with that.

The state doesn't give a damn that the only readily accessible copy of the complete gun law isn't updated for months or maybe a year or more!

Funny, but BY LAW, they are supposed to print an updated MA GUN LAWS POSTER annually, though they have broken their own laws and not done so. They even have an "addendum" slip of paper attached to the pile of posters at the Statehouse Bookstore, though there is no allowance in the law for that.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...-MA-gun-laws?p=3270412&viewfull=1#post3270412

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 269. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE


Chapter 269: Section 11. Printing statutes for posters; display

Section 11. The state secretary shall, annually, cause to be printed, in English and in such other languages as he may deem necessary, and in large letters so as to be easily read, for use as a poster, section one hundred and thirty-one of chapter one hundred and forty and sections ten, twelve B, and fourteen of this chapter. Sufficient copies of the said posters shall be sent to the clerks and to the superintendents of schools in all cities and towns for their use as herein provided. The city or town clerks shall cause posters received by them to be displayed in such places as they may select, and in such numbers, according to the population of the city or town, as its clerk may deem expedient. The superintendents of schools shall cause the posters received by them to be distributed among the schools within their jurisdiction, and in such numbers as they may deem necessary. The cost of preparing and printing the posters and of distributing them to the various cities and towns shall be paid by the commonwealth, and the cost of placing or affixing them in each city or town shall be paid by that city or town.

MA gun laws (poster)

Another good source, though it is now slightly dated:
Book: Massachusetts Gun Laws

and:
Karma: Book - Massachusetts Gun Laws 2013
 
I recently sent a letter to the Wey PD asking for the restrictions to be lifted. I received my LTC just over a year ago with the usual Target and Hunting restrictions. A month later I received a letter from the PD informing me my new license, without restrictions was ready to be picked up. Got it the other day. I've heard they are doing this a lot now because of the suit against the town. Worthwhile to give it a try. Worked for me.
 
How long do I wait before following up with Boston PD? Sent my letter on the first of the year and haven't heard a peep.
 
I recently sent a letter to the Wey PD asking for the restrictions to be lifted. I received my LTC just over a year ago with the usual Target and Hunting restrictions. A month later I received a letter from the PD informing me my new license, without restrictions was ready to be picked up. Got it the other day. I've heard they are doing this a lot now because of the suit against the town. Worthwhile to give it a try. Worked for me.
Hummmm. I wonder what's changed???????

How long do I wait before following up with Boston PD? Sent my letter on the first of the year and haven't heard a peep.
We haven't see any indication that Boston has changed it policy with respect to unrestricted licenses. They normally reply very quickly, however they could now be either swamped with new request or they're still evaluating how they want to respond to these requests including how to defend against possible district court appeals.
 
One of the guys that works for me is licensed out of Framingham with restrictions. I told him about this thread so he sent an email to the pd there citing the new laws and asking to have restrictions removed. After a brief call (mostly to help the licensing officer understand why he was the one lifting restrictions when he no longer resided in framingham) the officer told him he'd lift the restrictions. I don't know if this would have happened a year ago and if it's related to the new laws but it's a positive sign.
 
I recently sent a letter to the Wey PD asking for the restrictions to be lifted. I received my LTC just over a year ago with the usual Target and Hunting restrictions. A month later I received a letter from the PD informing me my new license, without restrictions was ready to be picked up. Got it the other day. I've heard they are doing this a lot now because of the suit against the town. Worthwhile to give it a try. Worked for me.


Which "Wey" ?? Weymouth? If so I'm interested to know, I've got friends considering becoming licensed in that town.
 
One of the guys that works for me is licensed out of Framingham with restrictions. I told him about this thread so he sent an email to the pd there citing the new laws and asking to have restrictions removed. After a brief call (mostly to help the licensing officer understand why he was the one lifting restrictions when he no longer resided in framingham) the officer told him he'd lift the restrictions. I don't know if this would have happened a year ago and if it's related to the new laws but it's a positive sign.

My first LTC was from Framingham without any restrictions. I am not a connected person, just a normal tax payer.
 
Back
Top Bottom