-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Obtaining a Class A in Fitchburg
- Thread starter BCEagleAce
- Start date
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
As far as NES goes you can sign up here: (NES membership drive)
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46818
As far as joining the NRA goes... join the NRA...
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
but IMO join GOAL first, especially if you live in MA. See:
http://www.goal.org
GOAL is critical WRT working on RKBA issues inside of MA. They need whatever support we can give them.
-Mike
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Yeah, Join GOAL first.
Yup, ~40 of us made that trip a year ago. Approximately the same number are making that trip again shortly. We also hold numerous shoots/year where folks can try out each other's guns.
All you have to do to participate is "go green" (paid NES membership) and sign up before cut-off dates for each event.
Those in MA have NO Constitutional Rights! They only have "privileges" (scraps) allowed them by the elected dictators. Shortly this could be the case thru-out the US,depending on the results of next Tuesday's elections.
No, I doubt many petty politicians have actually read the US Constitution . . . or if they did, they certainly don't abide by it. The former Carver, MA police chief admitted in court that she had never read it. From comments made by my chief, I doubt that he's ever read it either.
Welcome to the nuthouse!
Thanks for everything all. I signed up for membership and I plan on doing the pumpkin shoot! Who knows how long it will take to get my Class A anyway, so I will take your advice and try a bunch of different guns first to see what I like.
The new Chief has not changed the policy as far as I can tell. (I renewed after he was sworn in). I don't know about removing restrictions, I would imagine they would change it to "None" on a new license, but you'd have to ask the licensing officer. I've never heard of anyone in town with a restricted license.
-Mike
The licensing officer told me that assuming mine is approved, it will be an ALP.
I'm coming up on 3 weeks since I applied, but I haven't heard back yet.
I'm coming up on 3 weeks since I applied, but I haven't heard back yet.
UPDATE - one of my references said that they got a call from the police today... I was surprised only because my references were both notorized. I thought I read earlier in the thread that having them notorized would speed things up because they could avoid having to call. Thoughts on this? Does this mean things could take longer, or could it mean they are close to done?
Well, I guess it just means they still call the references regardless, which I find sort of odd. ( When I applied some years ago, I was told that notarized letters would have been preferable, which I did not do at the time... but it wasn't really a big deal, they just called the 2 guys and that was it, it really didn't add much time. ) I doubt it really means anything tangible though, other than that your app is actually getting processed, which is a good thing. Look at it this way- if you're clean and filled out the app right, it's probably "doin what its doin its on its way".
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
-Mike
Thanks. I'm definitely clean, so it is reassuring to see things are moving along. My reference told me that they basically just called and asked if he did in fact right the letter - no other questions. Just thought I'd post to keep people up to date on the process.
NOTE - given that they don't specifically ask for phone numbers or addresses on the reference letter, people may want to know to have them if they are going to call and confirm notorized letters anyway!
NOTE - given that they don't specifically ask for phone numbers or addresses on the reference letter, people may want to know to have them if they are going to call and confirm notorized letters anyway!
1. The word you are attempting to use is "notArized."
2. As there is no requirement for any letters, any further demands as to the letters themselves are even more devoid of required compliance.
3. The notarization "requirement" is ostensibly to save the PD the onerous, crushing burden of having to call the reference. As I always provide the phone number on the "References" section of the application, that excuse is, shall we say, less than compelling. I have never heard of my PD calling any of my references, anyway.
My theory is that PD's adding this additional layer of BS wish to achieve at least one of the following:
1. Yet a further impediment, to block applicants, and/or
2. Generate another piece of paper, in the puerile and wholly fallacious belief that it will somehow save them in the event of a lawsuit.
Thank you for the spelling check... I thought people got my meaning though.
I'm pretty sure that the Fitchburg requirement was for two letters.
The issuing officer asked me specifically not to fill out the application in advance. He told me to bring certain documents, and that he would ask me the questions he wanted / needed answered.
And this would be for WHAT reason?
Do you go to the IRS and expect someone there to fill out your tax form - and represent YOUR interests in the process?
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
And if you are stupid enough to follow those directions, what will you have to show what your intended answers were?
HINT: All the questions must be answered - correctly. Sitting at the station, wholly unprepared and clearly clueless does not create the conditions for optimal results.
I bet you wouldn't even think to get a copy of the MIRCS app before you left.
And this would be for WHAT reason?
Do you go to the IRS and expect someone there to fill out your tax form - and represent YOUR interests in the process?
And if you are stupid enough to follow those directions, what will you have to show what your intended answers were?
HINT: All the questions must be answered - correctly. Sitting at the station, wholly unprepared and clearly clueless does not create the conditions for optimal results.
I bet you wouldn't even think to get a copy of the MIRCS app before you left.
First of all, I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am stupid. I didn't become a paying member of this forum to be insulted. If I wanted to go to a place that I help financially support where I could get insulted, I'd go home to my wife.
Second of all, I joined NES because I am a novice and new to the process of applying for, and getting a gun. The reason I followed the advice of the licensing authority TO THE LETTER was because that was the advice I received directly on this forum, as well as the advice of NUMEROUS other posters on this site. So, if you want to be critical of someone, don't blame the "new guy" who is an admitted novice seeking advice. Blame the countless other posters on this forum who would seem to know more than I who all advocate playing very nice with the licensing LEOs.
Finally, on the advice of my own attorney, who also happens to practice in my town (Fitchburg), he told me that given that I have absolutely no questionable things on my background I will have zero difficulty obtaining my permit.
So, I'm not sure where your obvious misguided anger comes from. That said, I am willing to accept your apology when you are ready.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
First of all, I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am stupid. I didn't become a paying member of this forum to be insulted. If I wanted to go to a place that I help financially support where I could get insulted, I'd go home to my wife.
Second of all, I joined NES because I am a novice and new to the process of applying for, and getting a gun. The reason I followed the advice of the licensing authority TO THE LETTER was because that was the advice I received directly on this forum, as well as the advice of NUMEROUS other posters on this site. So, if you want to be critical of someone, don't blame the "new guy" who is an admitted novice seeking advice. Blame the countless other posters on this forum who would seem to know more than I who all advocate playing very nice with the licensing LEOs.
Finally, on the advice of my own attorney, who also happens to practice in my town (Fitchburg), he told me that given that I have absolutely no questionable things on my background I will have zero difficulty obtaining my permit.
So, I'm not sure where your obvious misguided anger comes from. That said, I am willing to accept your apology when you are ready.
A) Don't let scrivener get to you.
B) You did the right thing by following the licensing LEOs instructions.
C) B is caveated by a nasty reality of submitting information to the government. That is, you did not go in with a record of what it was you wanted those answers to be, so the record only reflects what the LEO says those answers should be based on his/her interpretation of what you say in a stressful and generally demeaning "interview" which frankly for all intents and purposes an interrogation. The whole reason for this is an f'd up system (intranet based form submittal) that makes it more expedient for the LEOs to do everything verbally, lest they are made to feel like data entry clerks, and terribly dangerous for the citizens. I don't think they are actively trying to screw anyone over, but I also know they will use whatever they can in denying people.
By going in with a record of what you want to say, you can submit that as an addendum (to be placed in your "file") to their electronic form. They still copy the form, but if they make any changes, a lawyer could argue the source of those changes was not you, John Q. Public, but the LEO. You are then protected from perjury, et al; charges based on something you never meant to say, or said without full knowledge of the ramifications of. In short, never talk to the cops without your lawyer present. That pre-filled paper application is the next best thing.
That all said, I did not have mine pre-filled out but I did get a printed copy, and luckily my last town has a LEO who likes brevity. So me sticking to the facts was never challenged. However, in my follow up interview, the licenser (different from "application data entry clerk"
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
) went four balls to the wall interrogation on me. After a handful of questions I realized just how bad this was, and I started taking long pauses before answering to ensure I had complete and as unimpeachable answers as possible. He got ticked and asked me what I was trying to hide and I simply said that I was trying to be thorough, honest and complete and that in a stressful situation such as that, where I was making an official statement to a government entity, it was something that I felt was appropriate given an inability to prepare in advance, having had time to collect the needed information. I didn't go quoting the 4th amendment and going all ridleyreport on his ass but he got the idea and dealt with it. In fact, he loosened up a bit and started talking more to me than I was to him after a while.Nothing about this process is straightforward or fair and everything you say can come back to haunt you. Next time, go in with a written statement and application, and be as brief and as deliberate as possible in your interview, which is impossible to adequately prepare for, and you will lesson the likelihood of having something come back to bite you in the ass in the future.
Last edited:
Thanks for the above.
I can't speak for everybody else's experience, but the interview / meeting with the LEO in my town was actually quite pleasant. We had a decent rapport, a nice conversation, and at no point did it feel adversarial. I quite literally have nothing at all on my background (never even a parking ticket let alone a disqualifying criminal offense or charge) that I had to think about or worry about. All the answers I had for his questions were very straight forward "yes" or "no" responses. I didn't need the addendum to further explain any "issues".
So, perhaps I'm boring, or perhaps it was my magnetic personality, but I can't complain about the interview process.
I will of course change my tune if I get denied for some reason.
I can't speak for everybody else's experience, but the interview / meeting with the LEO in my town was actually quite pleasant. We had a decent rapport, a nice conversation, and at no point did it feel adversarial. I quite literally have nothing at all on my background (never even a parking ticket let alone a disqualifying criminal offense or charge) that I had to think about or worry about. All the answers I had for his questions were very straight forward "yes" or "no" responses. I didn't need the addendum to further explain any "issues".
So, perhaps I'm boring, or perhaps it was my magnetic personality
, but I can't complain about the interview process.I will of course change my tune if I get denied for some reason.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,284
- Likes
- 353
Anyone else notice that under Scrivener's name it says Banned? ![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
- Joined
- May 4, 2008
- Messages
- 136
- Likes
- 20
Anyone else notice that under Scrivener's name it says Banned?
Good riddance. I hope it's permanent.
This board is a wealth of wonderful information and it's been great to be able to have discussions with like-minded people. I found Scrivener's manner to be completely counter-productive and definitely bad for business around here. I know a number of people who refused to join because they hated being beaten up by that guy.
He's the most uncivil, argumentative, rude, condescending, and overbearing bully I have ever seen on any message board. I'm shocked that he'd behave that way, given that his real name and occupation is all over the board. The Board of Bar Overseers hates it when lawyers are abusive to clients or prospective clients, so I always thought that was really a bad move on his part to be so miserable to everyone here.
This is a DISCUSSION board. He went way over the line with his scolding and his abuse.
I might expect his behavior from a snooty Harvard lawyer, but I certainly would never expect it from a graduate of the New England School of Law.
I hope it's permanent, and I hope this will finally put an end to the unbearable abuse that other posters and I have endured.
To celebrate, I'll be putting my membership check in the mail tomorrow morning.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,284
- Likes
- 353
We've all gone through it with Scriv. I too have been warned because I am a grammar-nazi but I'm just tired of seeing the English language absolutely butchered! And, IANAL.
Getting back to the original idea behind the thread, I thought I would add that my SECOND N-O-T-A-R-I-Z-E-D reference was also called to confirm that they are who they claim and that they wrote the reference.
So, now I'm obviously waiting by the phone like a teenager for the licensing LEO to call and tell me to pick up my newly minted Class A LTC!!! hopefully...
So, now I'm obviously waiting by the phone like a teenager for the licensing LEO to call and tell me to pick up my newly minted Class A LTC!!! hopefully...
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Kind of makes you wonder why the PD insisted that the references go through the hassle of finding a notary when they're not going to believe the seal, anyway.
