New License to Carry Application Advisory

Didn't "our side" lose the PTP case here?

More like penalized 10 yards (or whatever they do in football), as in "Go back to GO, find a plaintiff who can prove he applied for a PTP and has an FID and start again. And while you're at it, feel free to include a brief arguing an FID does not authorize possession of a handgun".
 
More like penalized 10 yards (or whatever they do in football), as in "Go back to GO, find a plaintiff who can prove he applied for a PTP and has an FID and start again. And while you're at it, feel free to include a brief arguing an FID does not authorize possession of a handgun".
Morin v Lyver IS the plaintiff who proved he applied for a PTP and has an FID. Appeal is pending.
 
As to the state - it just ignores the law. The states position is still that an LTC is an administrative license, not a process. Basically you have a 2A right but you have no right to the license required to exercise the right. The matter is simple - you have a dedicated processional who has dedicated his/her life to public safety and an untrained ignorant rube who probably beats his wife and masticates in front of his children who wants to parade around town with a gun just waiting to use it, at which the point will carefully consider all facts and find against the applicant. Attorneys who really know the game tell me the district court sees licensing appeals as a complete waste of time.
Atty Karen MacNutt told me that back ~1978 when she did a presentation at my first gun club. [For those not in the know, Karen was one of the first BOD members of GOAL and their attorney when GOAL first was formed. She's also a friend of mine as well as a former client when I was in the computer support business.]

Nothing has really changed "on the ground" in >40 yrs in spite of changes in the law itself.
 
Nothing has really changed "on the ground" in >40 yrs in spite of changes in the law itself.
The law change was supposed to make the standard danger to the self others, but courts still use the Moyer standard of "any reason the issuing authority feels appropriate". Prove the issuing authority did not deem the reason appropriate at the time (s)he rejected you and you win your appeal o_O

In a last bit of treachery, the perpetrator of which we have never been told, the words "de novo" were struck from modification of the LTC appeal law.
 
Last edited:
Listen to the Moderator - major mistake giving licensing to the SP. Ms Healy will direct major hurdles for licensing. Do you remember who said "No Glocks", and made your ARs museum pieces.
 
Listen to the Moderator - major mistake giving licensing to the SP. Ms Healy will direct major hurdles for licensing. Do you remember who said "No Glocks", and made your ARs museum pieces.
A counter point would be that with centralized licensing, any abuse or extension beyond the law would be global and thus affect a large number of people, this large impact would certainly result in affected people challenging the abuses in court. As it stands now, many PDs abuse the system, adding extra requirements and actively delaying the process and generally making it more difficult. But finding plaintiffs to go after them is difficult BECAUSE of the low number impacted by an individual PD. It would also counter the argument in favor of "suitability", that being that the local CoP has more insight into a local person.

Another option would be where the CoP could be held personally liable for his actions. Imagine the difference if you local CoP knew the money was coming out of his own pocket.
 
people challenging the abuses in court
1. Keep in mind this would be heard by a MMC (Mass Marsupial Court).

2. If it went to federal court, remember that the federal courts have generally upheld "special need" (translation: the connected and powerful) requirements for all but a target license. The exception was DC but, in other cases our side won, it was quickly overturned on appeal.

If the AG ordered the MSP to issue unrestricted LTCs sparingly fighting it in court would be a steep uphill battle.
 
1. Keep in mind this would be heard by a MMC (Mass Marsupial Court).

2. If it went to federal court, remember that the federal courts have generally upheld "special need" (translation: the connected and powerful) requirements for all but a target license. The exception was DC but, in other cases our side won, it was quickly overturned on appeal.

If the AG ordered the MSP to issue unrestricted LTCs sparingly fighting it in court would be a steep uphill battle.
Doesn't matter.
What we have now is a very small target and an even smaller number willing to challenge the abuse. We need a larger target and many more people who can participate.

Saying it's too deficult because xxxxxx, only guarantees it will never change. Besides, if the extra requirements to apply were challenged, I think even the MA courts would have a problem justifying requirements that are not in the actual law.

As for suitability, I think the argument that a person has a right to know if they are prohibited BEFORE applying might actually be effective in the MA courts. Once you have a defined list from every PD then you can challenge the reasons. It's the vagueness that makes it difficult to challenge.
 
The SCOTUS decisions are a huge part of the problem. SCOTUS gave in to the "states' rights" argument, leaving lots of room for gun control laws and licensing schemes at state and local levels.

Two questions.
Is there actually a SCOTUS decision on suitability? I would think it could be challenged on it's vagueness, how the same situation is enforced differently within the state (I'll let a lawyer figure out the legaleas).

Second, yes SCOTUS allows states to pass their own laws, but the extra requirements aren't in the law, they are themselves unlawful, so the state can't claim they are just following the law now can they?
 
Two questions.
Is there actually a SCOTUS decision on suitability? I would think it could be challenged on it's vagueness, how the same situation is enforced differently within the state (I'll let a lawyer figure out the legaleas).

Second, yes SCOTUS allows states to pass their own laws, but the extra requirements aren't in the law, they are themselves unlawful, so the state can't claim they are just following the law now can they?

As far as I know the only thing close would be the DC "Good need" case where DC did not appeal the decision seemingly because of worries that it would force nationwide shall issue.
 
Now what about towns/cities refusing to even do renewals? My LTC expires in 6 weeks..

**Edit**

Worcester is doing renewals

if that was the case, complete the renewal form, send it registered mail, return receipt and you now have proof of a submitted renewal completed before the old one arrives.

They can sit on it all they want at that point.
 
if that was the case, complete the renewal form, send it registered mail, return receipt and you now have proof of a submitted renewal completed before the old one arrives.
you have proof of what? an envelope was sent but how do you prove a renewal was in it if you get jammed.
 
if that was the case, complete the renewal form, send it registered mail, return receipt and you now have proof of a submitted renewal completed before the old one arrives.

They can sit on it all they want at that point.
I would take a step further.

1. Do the return receipt.
2. Send an Email with a picture of the renewal paperwork and tell them it was mailed to them with a return receipt on day XYZ.

Besides that, I dont know what kind of proof you can have of what you mailed.

Maybe become a plaintiff for GOAL.
 
you have proof of what? an envelope was sent but how do you prove a renewal was in it if you get jammed.

Take a video of you putting it in the envelope and handing it to the nice lady at the PO.

There is always a way.

Even still your comment is silly. Every government agency accepts proof of shipment and even more effectively, proof of receipt of the required form by the addressee.

A few years ago we sold a rental property and had a HUUUGGEE capital gain. We owed big on our federal return.

I sent it return receipt. About the time I noticed that the check hadn't cleared in several months we got a letter telling us that we had failed to file.

I corresponded with the IRS during which time I sent them the return receipt showing their receipt of "an envelope".

They apologized and asked me to resend the return. No penalties, no fees.
 
I would take a step further.

1. Do the return receipt.
2. Send an Email with a picture of the renewal paperwork and tell them it was mailed to them with a return receipt on day XYZ.

Besides that, I dont know what kind of proof you can have of what you mailed.

Maybe become a plaintiff for GOAL.

Anyone who is afraid to carry with that kind of proof is a candy ass and is frankly part of the problem and should grow a pair.

I'm not saying you are that person. You presented this as a hypothetical. Its not about you.
 
Take a video of you putting it in the envelope and handing it to the nice lady at the PO.

There is always a way.

Even still your comment is silly. Every government agency accepts proof of shipment and even more effectively, proof of receipt of the required form by the addressee.

A few years ago we sold a rental property and had a HUUUGGEE capital gain. We owed big on our federal return.

I sent it return receipt. About the time I noticed that the check hadn't cleared in several months we got a letter telling us that we had failed to file.

I corresponded with the IRS during which time I sent them the return receipt showing their receipt of "an envelope".

They apologized and asked me to resend the return. No penalties, no fees.
yes, your story is really good...may i be silly again, please, and tell one similar story. 6 years after turning in my 007 ffl, batf contacted me and said "hey, wait a minute, you didn't send in your bound book." me: "i most certainly did, 6 years ago and here's a copy of my registered return receipt to prove it." batf:"ok then, thanks."

if i may continue to be silly, both instances, yours and mine, were federal examples. now we're talking about a state case. a state that regulates anything dealing with firearms, it would be safe to say, with an iron fist. so of course this is why i felt this solution was a little dodgy and highly risky. silly me, huh?
 
As far as I know the only thing close would be the DC "Good need" case where DC did not appeal the decision seemingly because of worries that it would force nationwide shall issue.
That was what happened in DC.

There was a similar situation in Illinois with Moore v. Madigan. In that case, the (federal) District Court initially dismissed the suit. The dismissal was overturned by panel on appeal and an en banc rehearing was denied. The defendants were considering a possible appeal to the Supreme Court when the Illinois legislature passed a law creating a shall issue CCW permit system.
 
Mass could actually find itself in the same situation.

All it takes is the right litigant.

A LTC can be denied for suitability. Yet Heller and McDonald only explicitly protect the right to keep a **handgun** in the **home**.
And as you all know, a LTC is required to merely possess a handgun in your home.

So if you have someone denied who is not a prohibited person, this is in violation of Heller and McDonald.
 
Traditionally this has been a non-starter as it reduces police power. But times are a changin'.
...
Wow, good point.


...Besides that, I don't know what kind of proof you can have of what you mailed....
How about courier? You know the kind they have in the city that deliver blueprints and other things by car or bicycle?
 
Back
Top Bottom