Non-Standard licensing requirements -> Non-Statutory licensing requirements

I'm all for every gun owner being a gun club member (practice, practice, practice) UNLESS they have adequate land that they can practice on otherwise. HOWEVER, I am not for any gov't mandate that one "must" be a member of a gun club in order to get/keep any permit.

+1

Definitely a big deal. If Holyoke PD required crap like that I wouldn't have been able to get my LTC at all. I moved to MA, enlisted, and shipped out for active duty all within the span of a few months. Only people I knew in the whole state at the time were my parents and my recruiter.

Yup. How screwed up is it that you have to have friends with writing skills to even apply for a license? You're not the only one in that boat. I had a relative in Mass. who was well-to-do, had a clean record, took all the required courses, but didn't socialize with anyone other than his family, and the local PD said "no family reference letters." [frown]
 
+1



Yup. How screwed up is it that you have to have friends with writing skills to even apply for a license? You're not the only one in that boat. I had a relative in Mass. who was well-to-do, had a clean record, took all the required courses, but didn't socialize with anyone other than his family, and the local PD said "no family reference letters." [frown]

What town?
 
Borrowing Derek's shocked face....[hmmm]

Yup. He was also the highest ranking employee in his company in Mass., so his bosses lived out of state (can't get a letter from them), and everyone else he worked with who lived in state was ranked below him, and he didn't want to come off looking like he was trading favors with employees.

Just one more reason I'm offended by Mass. laws.
 
I could be wrong but I do not believe MA. has any preemption law which would prohibit local authorities from adding their own requirements to MA. state law. Check with GOAL or the NRA, I'm sure you will be able to get good info from either source.
 
I just saw a doozy of a requirement over in the gun rights guide thread.

So basically this can be seen as a cash bribe frankly. We are starting to plumb the depths here in licensing requirements, even if the chief has good intentions (have his officers get face time with the applicant), he has basically solicited a bribe if the officers giving the course are part of his command. Not to mention that supposedly the course was half the length.
 
Wow! That requirement is just screaming out for a legal challenge. At best I'd call it a conflict of interest, at worst, extortion. I won't if the officer giving the class kicks anything back to the Chief?

ETA: If the officer was teaching an actual NRA course he could lose his credentials for doing this.
 
I just saw a doozy of a requirement over in the gun rights guide thread.

So basically this can be seen as a cash bribe frankly. We are starting to plumb the depths here in licensing requirements, even if the chief has good intentions (have his officers get face time with the applicant), he has basically solicited a bribe if the officers giving the course are part of his command. Not to mention that supposedly the course was half the length.

Given the tenor of some of these towns in MA a cash bribe option would be an improvement. [laugh]

This also occurs in NYC, or so I've been told. There are individuals that you pay a few hundred bucks to that "move the process along" to even get a mere premises permit in NYC.

-Mike
 
I know Lynn requires proof of residency along with your safety course cert. They will accept any 2 current billing statements with your name and address as proof of residency.

I didn't see this policy as a bad thing though. 2 bills are easy enough to provide if you are a resident of the city.

As for references I'm not sure if they allow relatives but general rule of thumb when applying for anything where references are required (job, ltc) relatives are not allowed.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if anyone's posted this info yet, but Andover has some very blatant FID/LTC abuse listed on their website.

The applicant for the class “A” permit will be required to submit the following:
1) A completed LTC permit application.
2) Letter from the applicant’s physician stating the applicant has no medical or psychological issues that would preclude him/her from owning, carrying, or legally using a firearm. (See supplement 1) A letter is required on 2nd renewals.
3) A firearms safety certificate, issued by a certified firearms safety instructor who has satisfied the requirements of the Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police or a certificate issued by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. (First Permit Only)
4) Obtain a letter from their employer stating the reasons why they would need to carry a weapon for work-related purposes. If self-employed, a letter on their letterhead describing the reason that the carrying of a firearm is necessary. If the reason for the need to carry were not of a work-related nature, a letter explaining the need would have to be submitted.

Even for FID's:

The applicant for the class “C” FID will be required to submit the following:
1. A completed FID permit application.
2. A letter from the applicant’s physician stating the applicant has no medical or psychological issues that would preclude him/her from owning, carrying, or legally using a firearm. (See supplement 1) A letter is required for 2nd renewals.3. The person, if they are between and including the ages of 15 and 17 years old, must have a letter from their parent giving them permission to have an FID card. The parent must sign the letter in front of the licensing authority at the Police Station.
3. A firearms safety certificate, issued by a certified firearms safety instructor who has satisfied the requirements of the Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police or a certificate issued by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. (First Permit Only)

[puke]
 
Any Andover residents out there? Anyone? I'm not aware of any challenges to this policy. Sure would be nice to have a Judge rule against them.

Andover isn't the only one - Lawrence and No. Andover also require a letter from the doc.

According to the Andover Chief a few years back (hubby and I were invited to a doctors conference where this was discussed) it's to help save time because the DOH takes forever to get back to them. If an individual can't get a letter from the doc, it won't count against them - at least that's what the Chief said.

Hubby and I have quite a few students between the 3 - we tell them they can contest it, but I guess they don't want to take the chance of not getting a license. We try Jesse....

[thinking]
 
Re: Waltham...
For the three letters of recommendation, he recommended is get one from my boss at work, one from my fiance (or significant other) and one from someone else that has an LTC. He said the letter from the boss is important to make sure you aren't gonna go "postal." He even asked me if I know what that term means. The letter from a significant other was to confirm that s/he would be comfortable with a firearm in the household.

[banghead]
 
Re: Waltham...

Quote:
For the three letters of recommendation, he recommended is get one from my boss at work, one from my fiance (or significant other) and one from someone else that has an LTC. He said the letter from the boss is important to make sure you aren't gonna go "postal." He even asked me if I know what that term means. The letter from a significant other was to confirm that s/he would be comfortable with a firearm in the household.



[banghead]

I talked to a Captain and he said 3 letters. Didn't matter if they were relatives.
When my dad applied, he was asked if my mom knew he was applying. No one suggested anyone specific for writing letters. Not saying it's untrue, just that I've never heard of that.
 
What's lost in translation at these data entry sessions has led to several denials where the Chief alleges untruthfulness. I have seen several instances in the black/red towns where they are looking for the slightest inaccuracy to not only deny the license but to even bring criminal charges.

In my town, they "required" my SSN (I had left it blank). I turned in a hand-written application... I never saw it entered into the computer, nor had a chance to proof-read it... but I also never signed anything besides my hand-written application.

Also, I listed "All lawful purposes," and I was immediately told that "we don't issue all lawful purposes." I asked what was the next-least restrictive option, and I was told "well, you can try for "protection."

After receiving my LTC-A with the restriction: protection, I stopped back in to ask for a printout of what each restriction meant. They provided a photo-copied sheet with this text:

NONE – the LTC is issued for all lawful purposes with no restrictions.
EMPLOYMENT – restricts possession to business owner engaged in business activities or to an employee while engaged in work related activities, and maintaining proficiency, where the employer requires carry of a firearm (i.e. armored car, security guard, etc.). Includes travel to and from activity location.
TARGET & HUNTING – restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; and for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns). Includes travel to and from activity location
SPORTING – restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns); and for outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing, or similar activities. Includes travel to and from activity location.

... but where the printout said "None," they crossed that word out and hand-wrote "Protection" above it... so a restriction for protection is the same as no restriction?!?
 
Last edited:
Just some food for thought. Is there any other licensing or permitting procedure in the state or in the United States which allows one appointed municipal employee to decide anything on his own without some sort of legal, written, or published criteria?

The only things that are going to get this nonsense to change are money and political pressure and legal maneuvers. The best legislative proposals mean nothing without leverage, and we have very little, if any. The letters and calls get little concern to legislators who have unpaid college volunteers tally the input and file it away in an excel spreadsheet. How often does anyone get a personalized, well thought out reply? We are no match for the Globe and the MCOPA

Sorry, no disrespect to GOAL who works tirelessly for us but is up against a brick wall. I am grateful for their efforts and proud to be a member. I am willing to dig deep in my pockets and put in some marching time to mount a serious legal and political challenge to these tyrants. And I have an ALP. Some of you guys with ALPS think you'll have it forever, but that can change in an instant with a change of selectmen, or mayor, or police chief. Perhaps it will require a concession to get this fixed, and I agree we have little to concede, but it is time to start thinking out of the box. To hell that it's unfair. It's illegal and un-american.
 
Question for you guys......What is the process like if you a renewing your LTC-A ALP in a new town or with a new politician/chief? Miraculously, I was able to get my ALP in Medford, but does anyone have any experience with a change in circumstances on renewal?
 
After receiving my LTC-A with the restriction: protection, I stopped back in to ask for a printout of what each restriction meant. They provided a photo-copied sheet with this text:

NONE – the LTC is issued for all lawful purposes with no restrictions.
EMPLOYMENT – restricts possession to business owner engaged in business activities or to an employee while engaged in work related activities, and maintaining proficiency, where the employer requires carry of a firearm (i.e. armored car, security guard, etc.). Includes travel to and from activity location.
TARGET & HUNTING – restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; and for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns). Includes travel to and from activity location
SPORTING – restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns); and for outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing, or similar activities. Includes travel to and from activity location.

... but where the printout said "None," they crossed that word out and hand-wrote "Protection" above it... so a restriction for protection is the same as no restriction?!?

I just got mine and they did the exact same thing here with the printout. My license says "protection & concealment." Ironically, somebody else who has their LTC in Springfield told me that renewals have been issued "retrictions: none." What's the difference?!
 
My license says "protection & concealment." Ironically, somebody else who has their LTC in Springfield told me that renewals have been issued "retrictions: none." What's the difference?!

The latter was done competently and in conformance with generally accepted standards. Yours appears to have been issued by someone who:

1. Feels the need to impose restrictions where none are needed; or

2. Thinks someone who carries concealed for protection has no business actually practicing on a range.
 
The latter was done competently and in conformance with generally accepted standards. Yours appears to have been issued by someone who:

1. Feels the need to impose restrictions where none are needed; or

2. Thinks someone who carries concealed for protection has no business actually practicing on a range.

"But officer, I wasn't practicing. The target attacked me. It tried to give me a paper cut. I had to defend myself." [wink]
 
The latter was done competently and in conformance with generally accepted standards. Yours appears to have been issued by someone who:

1. Feels the need to impose restrictions where none are needed; or

2. Thinks someone who carries concealed for protection has no business actually practicing on a range.

You forgot #3, which is a PD that isn't really aware of the legal difference between a "reason for issuance" was and a "restriction" is.

I've seen MIRCS licenses that say "Restrictions: All Lawful Purposes" on it, for example. A lot of PDs were doing that kind of thing, and probably are still doing it now, either because they're willfully ignorant or they generally don't care.

-Mike
 
Reading requires two letters of recommendation which must specifically state that they are written for the purpose of application for LTC.
 
Back
Top Bottom