• 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.

One more MA LTC question

Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
2,145
Likes
160
Location
Brentwood, NH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
I was wondering, which entity actually produces the LTC itself. Does the state do that, and then forward the license to the local police?

I'm asking because I watched the officer processing my application at BPD HQ type "All Lawful Purposes" into the "reason for issuance" field. Once the state gets that electronic form, will BPD have a chance to change it again (i.e. add restrictions)?

Or am I experiencing severe wishful thinking?

Yeah...I know. :(
 
The old "horse-blanket" LTCs were always typed up at your local PD. Only modifications that the state ever did was to correct an obvious error, not to change "reason".

Since we didn't have MIRCS in place when I got my renewal last Winter, I can only "assume" that the new plastic licenses are done the same way, although I think they get printed at CHSB (data goes into local computer, networked to state). I suppose that Boston can later stamp it "Restricted" in big, bold Red letters" after they get it back from the state. The word means anything that they want it to mean, as it doesn't have a definable meaning in law.
 
Yes, the actual LTC is manufactured on the same MIRCS computer at your PD.

Why they cant "reprint" one for you like a drivers license, I dunno

I dont think there's a MGL or CMR for MV Licenses. If I loose that, its $15 to get a new one mailed to me, i can order it right online.

If I loose my LTC, I technicaly am unlicensed, and need to reapply. Literaly taking an act of congress (or is it the house) to change that
 
Chief Ron Glidden was talking about changing that so that with MIRCS they could issue a duplicate for lost/stolen/destroyed LTCs. Never heard anything further and no idea what it would take to implement it (law, CMR, policy change, etc.).

For others benefit: You are right, under current law, if you lose your LTC or it is stolen, you are NO LONGER Licensed and can no longer possess guns/ammo. You must go thru the entire process of applying again for a new license!
 
The difference is fairly easy to explain. There about 100 licensed drivers for every (licensed) gun owner, so drivers get treated with a certain minimal amount of decency, unlike gun owners, who can all eat <self censored> and die, for all the system cares. Now if there were a couple of million pissed off gun owners bitching about the way that they were treaed, then the powers that be would discover that there was nothing except for their own attitudes that prevented them from reissuing lost/stolen FID's/LTC's for a nominal fee. Without that, it will take a law, and then a couple of years for them to figure out how to implement it. The bill's been filed already, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to pass, because (A) tt would cost the state money, and (B) tt would be considered too controversial or dangerous.

Ken
 
Half the problem is that NO ONE bitches

We dont formaly complain about wait times
We dont formaly complain about getting duplicates

And we dont formaly complain about out AG!

How many people have written to their congresspersons regarding this?

And why hasnt' anyone drafted a class-action law suit?
 
Republic of Mass said:
Half the problem is that NO ONE bitches

We dont formaly complain about wait times
We dont formaly complain about getting duplicates

And we dont formaly complain about out AG!

How many people have written to their congresspersons regarding this?

And why hasnt' anyone drafted a class-action law suit?

I bitch so much to both my Rep and Sen that we're on a first name basis. My Sen is a decent sort (even for a "D"), but my Rep is another story. She answers my emails with condescending tones. I can't stand that woman.
 
Len, I could have swore that GOAL was changing or changed the laws that say that you wouldn't have to reapply if you lose your permit. I thought that it went in with the extending the grace period. Or it was up again. I can't remember. There's so much going on at GOAL right now.
 
We only wish that GOAL could chenge the laws!! Then life would be good!

I don't know if a bill has been filed for replacement LTCs or not, or even if one is required. How do they do it for DLs? It should be the same process for ANY state issued license. . . but it is NOT, not when it comes to guns.
 
I'm going to have to look to see if I can find it in my Outdoor Message. I could have sworn that GOAL is working on getting it so you don't have to reapply and pay the 100 bucks.

And is there a law that says that you can't make a copy of your LTC and carry that? That way, if someone were to pickpocket you, then you wouldn't lose you real LTC?
 
There is something in the works that would allow the new licenses to be replaced (for a fee, I'm sure), just like with DL's. CRS is hitting at the moment, so I can't remember if it's a bill or just a change of procedure. I'm not sure if it will cover the old licenses or not, but there is something in the works.
 
To be legal, you must be carrying the real LTC, photocopies are NOT acceptable. And in MA you are considered "unlicensed" if you have possession of a gun/ammo/mags/components and don't have your original LTC on your person.
 
The difference is fairly easy to explain. There about 100 licensed drivers for every (licensed) gun owner, so drivers get treated with a certain minimal amount of decency, unlike gun owners, who can all eat <self censored> and die, for all the system cares. Now if there were a couple of million pissed off gun owners bitching about the way that they were treaed, then the powers that be would discover that there was nothing except for their own attitudes that prevented them from reissuing lost/stolen FID's/LTC's for a nominal fee. Without that, it will take a law, and then a couple of years for them to figure out how to implement it. The bill's been filed already, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to pass, because (A) tt would cost the state money, and (B) tt would be considered too controversial or dangerous.

Just think how licensed drivers would react if told that their DL was only valid in Mass. and if they wanted to drive to NH or elsewhere they would have to apply for a non-resident DL. [wink]

A possible riot at the State House! [lol]
 
Lynne said:
Republic of Mass said:
Half the problem is that NO ONE bitches

We dont formaly complain about wait times
We dont formaly complain about getting duplicates

And we dont formaly complain about out AG!

How many people have written to their congresspersons regarding this?

And why hasnt' anyone drafted a class-action law suit?

I bitch so much to both my Rep and Sen that we're on a first name basis. My Sen is a decent sort (even for a "D"), but my Rep is another story. She answers my emails with condescending tones. I can't stand that woman.

Lynne, is your rep Harriet Stanley? I live in Groveland, so we're practically neighbors...
 
Jay G said:
Lynne said:
Republic of Mass said:
Half the problem is that NO ONE bitches

We dont formaly complain about wait times
We dont formaly complain about getting duplicates

And we dont formaly complain about out AG!

How many people have written to their congresspersons regarding this?

And why hasnt' anyone drafted a class-action law suit?

I bitch so much to both my Rep and Sen that we're on a first name basis. My Sen is a decent sort (even for a "D"), but my Rep is another story. She answers my emails with condescending tones. I can't stand that woman.

Lynne, is your rep Harriet Stanley? I live in Groveland, so we're practically neighbors...

I'm just across the bridge. :D Yeah - ol' Harriett...how did we EVER get so lucky? [roll]
 
Just over the bridge? Geez, we ARE practically neighbors.

Hey, at least Harriet helped keep the hospital in Haverhill, right??? [roll]

My wife works at the hospital, so I have to begrudgingly give Harriet SOME credit. Of course, I think she knew that had the hospital closed its doors, there would have been a LOT of people out of work and pissed off that nothing was done for them...

After all, they WERE union...
 
Jay G said:
Just over the bridge? Geez, we ARE practically neighbors.

Hey, at least Harriet helped keep the hospital in Haverhill, right??? [roll]

My wife works at the hospital, so I have to begrudgingly give Harriet SOME credit. Of course, I think she knew that had the hospital closed its doors, there would have been a LOT of people out of work and pissed off that nothing was done for them...

After all, they WERE union...

Yeah - I'll give her credit for some things. Her rating with GOAL is, IIRC, a "C", so she isn't totally anti, but she can be soooooo condescending in her replys. And I would say the people at the hospital make up at least 99% of her constituents, so yeah, she had to do something.
 
Cool we got a couple of members right in my home town area.... anyone thinking of attending the Glock Shootout on Sunday 24th 1pm at HHRG?
 
Dirtypacman said:
Cool we got a couple of members right in my home town area.... anyone thinking of attending the Glock Shootout on Sunday 24th 1pm at HHRG?

I'd like to, but my wife works every other weekend and she's working on the 23rd/24th (I have two small kids)...

Stupid question, I'm sure, but is the shootout limited to Glocks, or do other "Tupperware" guns qualify??? I've got a Smith & Wesson SW99 in .40 S&W I could use...
 
There is a new regulation 501 CMR 9.00 Replacement Firearm Licenses

The basics of it is that you can get a replacement LTC or FID at no charge, however, you must still report the loss or theft to CHSB and the local licensing authority.

This was to start on the 29th of July, though I have heard that some PDs have not "gotten the memo" about this yet.

There also isn't a time frame for the replacements.
 
Chief Ron Glidden just notified the licensing authorities (at least the ones he communicates with regularly). Somehow, I won't be surprised if the state doesn't bother notifying all of them officially!

The replacement LTC/FID will be an exact duplicate and carry the original expiration date.
 
Back
Top Bottom