Pembroke, MA LTC policy.

They lay out their policies pretty specifically. Looks like you're stuck with an LTC-B.

The restrictions they are placing are legal, they can deny you an LTC-A for just about any perceived reason.
 
My take on it is that you NEED a lawyer to assist you in APPLYING (don't bother waiting until after it is issued . . . to late then) for a LTC in a town like that.

Lots of "requirements" there that can be challenged up front. If you do this, you might become one of the "exceptions"!
 
My friend has his class A no restrictions from there and just renewed in March.

Sounds like for new apps. they are putting you through the hoops....
 
(8.) "Certificate of Completion of a Safety Course - Each applicant for a LTC or FID Card, except an applicant for an FID to carry mace or other chemical propellant, must successfully complete a safety course certified by the Department of State Police or in the case of an FID a course of instruction in the safe handling of firearms administered by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. The instructor must be certified by the Department of State Police to teach the approved course. Additionally, applicants for a LTC may be required to complete a proficiency course, depending on the applicant’s prior experience in the handling of firearms. Renewal applicants for a LTC must complete the safety course at each renewal. FID renewal applicants are not required to complete the safety course.

Patently illegal. See c. 140, s. 131P and 501 CMR 3.05.
 
Scriv,

Show me a list of chiefs who have been FORCED to stop doing this by judges?

[I don't disagree with your statement . . . but there is the law, and then there is the LAW (chief)! They do what they damn well please and the judges don't admonish or sanction them for what they do above the law, so the written text of the law has become irrelevant.]

You practice law, and I practice reality!
 
"Renewal applicants for a LTC must complete the safety course at each renewal."

Last time, different chief, my frined had to keep paying for and taking the course. This time, new chief - don't have his name, my friend only had to have a qualified instructor witness his shooting skill and sign off on his app. He didn't have to take the course all over again this time.
 
"Renewal applicants for a LTC must complete the safety course at each renewal."

Last time, different chief, my frined had to keep paying for and taking the course. This time, new chief - don't have his name, my friend only had to have a qualified instructor witness his shooting skill and sign off on his app. He didn't have to take the course all over again this time.

Doesn't matter; neither is legal.

S
Show me a list of chiefs who have been FORCED to stop doing this by judges?

The first thing to show you is the difference between the declarative and interrogative tense. [rolleyes]

As for the "list;" note that Brookline's petulant insistence on a "range test" was struck down by the Brookline District Court last month. This puts every other chief imposing such demands on notice (MCOPA is well aware of that decision!) and makes such demands untenable.
 
however it is.

My friend does not desire an LTC-A enough to go through the hassle of hiring a lawyer. I am trying to get them invovled in shooting and these hoops will be a definate hassle.
 
Doesn't matter; neither is legal.

S

The first thing to show you is the difference between the declarative and interrogative tense. [rolleyes]

As for the "list;" note that Brookline's petulant insistence on a "range test" was struck down by the Brookline District Court last month. This puts every other chief imposing such demands on notice (MCOPA is well aware of that decision!) and makes such demands untenable.

Untenable? One PD, one case. What is to prevent any other department from doing the same thing or something similar, or even prevent Brookline from doing attempting to impose a minor variation of the same requirement on some future applicant? That's right; as your frequently invoked line "What you tolerate, you validate; What you put up with, you deserve!" suggests, only our continual, unlimited and endless willingness and ability to pay money to lawyers does any good (and one might easily infer from the second part that's the way you think it should be). This is Massachusetts, and whatever sort of abuse CLEOs feel like inflicting on gun owners under the guise of "reasonable discretion" will in fact be tolerated and tacitly accepted by the courts. Or do you honestly believe that some future chief who does this or something similar will actually be fined, jailed or otherwise sanctioned (beyond a gentle scolding)? BTW, has anybody heard whether Kang Lu, Yat Lau or Jacqueline Scott ever got their license from the now justly and soundly chastised Brookline PD? ... Anyone? ... Bueller? ...

Ken
 
It is too bad there wasn't some mechanism to take the whole discretionary
issue thing up a notch; eg, some kind of federal civil rights violation, etc. I'm sure
at some level or another an argument could be made (like in parker vs DC) that
the actions of these corrupt chiefs are blatantly unconstitutional- especially in
cases where the person has been completely denied an LTC.

If I won the lottery I would gladly underwrite such an effort....

-Mike
 
Untenable? One PD, one case. What is to prevent any other department from doing the same thing or something similar, or even prevent Brookline from doing attempting to impose a minor variation of the same requirement on some future applicant? That's right; as your frequently invoked line "What you tolerate, you validate; What you put up with, you deserve!" suggests, only our continual, unlimited and endless willingness and ability to pay money to lawyers does any good (and one might easily infer from the second part that's the way you think it should be). This is Massachusetts, and whatever sort of abuse CLEOs feel like inflicting on gun owners under the guise of "reasonable discretion" will in fact be tolerated and tacitly accepted by the courts. Or do you honestly believe that some future chief who does this or something similar will actually be fined, jailed or otherwise sanctioned (beyond a gentle scolding)? BTW, has anybody heard whether Kang Lu, Yat Lau or Jacqueline Scott ever got their license from the now justly and soundly chastised Brookline PD? ... Anyone? ... Bueller? ...

Ken


I am soundly chastised. Of course, we should all follow your noble example of supine obeisance and mindless whining, the One True Path to Victory and Enlightenment...... [rolleyes]
 
I am soundly chastised. Of course, we should all follow your noble example of supine obeisance and mindless whining, the One True Path to Victory and Enlightenment...... [rolleyes]

Nice try, Keith, but since you don't have an f'ing clue as to how much money or time I give to GOAL, GOA, NRA or other pro-RKBA groups or how much time I spend talk with legislators and their staffs, we'll just write off your response as one of those cute tricks they teach you to distract the audience from the fact that you haven't answered the question of denies the allegation. Or did I miss the part where you told us that courts were now sanctioning CLEOs who impose arbitrary requirements for LTC applicants or where you indicated your willingness to take cases involving such abuses on a pro bono basis? Sorry, but any whining you might have heard didn't originate here.

Ken
 
Speaking of "nice try," Ken, let's examine yours:

BTW, has anybody heard whether Kang Lu, Yat Lau or Jacqueline Scott ever got their license from the now justly and soundly chastised Brookline PD?

As each of the matters you refer to well pre-dates the Brookline decision in question, your attempt to invoke them as support for your position is specious.

Moreover, I doubt that ANY of those three cases involved the "range test" in question, making your use of them doubly disingenous. As Kang Lu moved out of state, making his case moot, his is wholly irrelevant.

Now tell us how blind obeisance to the fiats of unelected little bullies enobles the Human Spirit and leads us all into the Brave New World.

Or how resisting those efforts in any way detracts from the objective of overturning them.

Call and raise.
 
Once again, a nice example of a rhetorical device to deflect attnetion from the actual question. It's rather pathetic to attempt to characterize my position as "blind obeisance makes us free" or "resistance is counterproductive". What I did question, and still do, is your dismissive attitude toward abuses such as the Brookline range test and similar extra-legal requirements as "untenable", simply because they have been overruled in a few individual instances. Do these decisions prevent other police departments from adding such requirements? Of course they don't. They simply provide some legal ammunition to support an applicant with plenty of money and a willingness to spend it rather than comply in a prolonged legal fight against them. Its easy to say "unless you pay an attorney to fight these abuses you deserve them" when (1) it's not your license and guns at issue, and (2) you're the payee, rather than the payer.

As the "BTW" preface clued most people, the Kang Lu, Yat Lau and Jacqueline Scott cases were nothing more than examples of the continuing nature of abuse, simply dicta. There was abuse then; there was abuse in the David Bardfield case, and the abuse will continue ad nauseum, not because of my attitude or applicants' inability or unwillingness to pay thousands to fight it on a case-by-case basis, but because the courts have and will most likely continue to decline to do anything about them that involves imposing any costs or sanctions against against those who perpetrate them. Now I'd be happy to be shown that the abuses will simply stop, or that the courts will take real steps to stop them, but straw man arguments, ad hominum arguments and similar high school debating stunts only insult the intelligence of everyone here.

Ken
 
Those requirements almost border on rediculous. Ya gotta love the "volunteer" gun registration form too... I just do not think it is right to deny law abiding citizens a class A if they demonstrate that they are responsible, stable ect... ect...
 
Now I'd be happy to be shown that the abuses will simply stop, or that the courts will take real steps to stop them, but straw man arguments, ad hominum [sic] arguments and similar high school debating stunts only insult the intelligence of everyone here.

Ken

But telling them that NOT resisting the abuses doesn't insult their intelligence or integrity? What an empty argument.

Since you so vociferously denounce winning in court, do regale us with your litany of firearms licensing triumphs by whatever superior means you've achieved them. I'm breathless with anticipation.

Oh - David Bardfield DID get his LTC in an agreement the town entered into just - and I mean JUST - before I filed suit.

But that's using the courts and, as you continue to tell us, those don't count. [rolleyes]
 
But telling them that NOT resisting the abuses doesn't insult their intelligence or integrity? What an empty argument.
[Certainly wasn't an argument that I made anywhere.]

Since you so vociferously denounce winning in court, do regale us with your litany of firearms licensing triumphs by whatever superior means you've achieved them. I'm breathless with anticipation.
[Again, I never denounced winning in court nor even even hinted at my "licensing triumphs". Did manage to see that my old anti-RKBA chief was replaced with a 100% pro one, but I guess that doesn't count, since it didn't involve litigation.]

Oh - David Bardfield DID get his LTC in an agreement the town entered into just - and I mean JUST - before I filed suit.

But that's using the courts and, as you continue to tell us, those don't count. [rolleyes]
[Once again, you can pretend I said anything to that effect if it satisfies your ego, but everyone can see that I never did.]


I'm done wasting my time with someone whose only concern is with winning the debate, rather than addressing the actual question. Let's all accept that you've "won", so that we can move on to other things. [bow] [bow] [bow]

Ken
 
Last edited:
That's right; as your frequently invoked line "What you tolerate, you validate; What you put up with, you deserve!" suggests, only our continual, unlimited and endless willingness and ability to pay money to lawyers does any good (and one might easily infer from the second part that's the way you think it should be). This is Massachusetts, and whatever sort of abuse CLEOs feel like inflicting on gun owners under the guise of "reasonable discretion" will in fact be tolerated and tacitly accepted by the courts.

Really?

Meanwhile, I continue to await seeing your achievements by alternative means. In the meantime, I'll stick with mine.

Which, incidentally, just got an FID card for a client in a town we shall charitably appellate "Fishstick City," the licensing officer for which insisted he had "discretion" to deny FID cards to "unsuitable persons." This legal luminary even cited the MacNutt decision as the premise for his asinine assertion. [rolleyes]

The court found otherwise; a copy of the judge's decision was sent to the appropriate agency, which then had the client's FID activated. Fishstick City's LO was thus required to issue it and did so.

Note the complete and utter absence of action by GOAL, state reps, local yokel politicians or servile compliance with police obstructionism in the issuance of this license.

Those looking for actual, specific results may draw their own conclusions as to efficacy of this process.
 
That's right; as your frequently invoked line "What you tolerate, you validate; What you put up with, you deserve!" suggests, only our continual, unlimited and endless willingness and ability to pay money to lawyers does any good (and one might easily infer from the second part that's the way you think it should be). This is Massachusetts, and whatever sort of abuse CLEOs feel like inflicting on gun owners under the guise of "reasonable discretion" will in fact be tolerated and tacitly accepted by the courts.

Really?
Yes, really. Unless, as I've I've repeatedly requested, you have tales of the courts imposing some sort of real sanctions on those who abuse applicants.

Meanwhile, I continue to await seeing your achievements by alternative means. In the meantime, I'll stick with mine.
Of course you will, since, unlike the applicants who get screwed over, you get paid by your clients. Unless your well-known modesty prevents you from telling us that you handle all these cases pro bono.

Which, incidentally, just got an FID card for a client in a town we shall charitably appellate "Fishstick City," the licensing officer for which insisted he had "discretion" to deny FID cards to "unsuitable persons." This legal luminary even cited the MacNutt decision as the premise for his asinine assertion. [rolleyes]

The court found otherwise; a copy of the judge's decision was sent to the appropriate agency, which then had the client's FID activated. Fishstick City's LO was thus required to issue it and did so.

Note the complete and utter absence of action by GOAL, state reps, local yokel politicians or servile compliance with police obstructionism in the issuance of this license.

Those looking for actual, specific results may draw their own conclusions as to efficacy of this process.

Specific results: Applicant got screwed out of thousands in legal fees; attorney got paid for his services; idiot LO laughed himself silly and looks forward to doing it all over to the next applicant who draws the black spot.

Ken
 
Scrivener, what is the MacNutt decision? Is there really such a thing. Karen MacNutt represented me in court to fight for my LTC A ALP, and she did great work. I'd not be surprised if some of her work set precedent. Can you fill me/us in.

Thanks

Bill
 
Scrivener, what is the MacNutt decision? Is there really such a thing. Karen MacNutt represented me in court to fight for my LTC A ALP, and she did great work. I'd not be surprised if some of her work set precedent. Can you fill me/us in.

Thanks

Bill

Karen MacNutt challenged the Boston PD requirement of a "range test" in 1993. Because the legislature had said nothing about what was - or was NOT - reasonable in determining an applicant's competence to handle a firearm, the court allowed Boston to impose the test. The court struck DOWN the fee for said test, Boston having absolutely no authority to impose it.

As part of Chapter 180, the legislature set specific criteria for safety standards, and "range tests" were NOT part of them. The aching void MacNutt was based upon having been filled, reliance upon that decision - and that IS what these asinine "range tests" and "re-certifications" are all based upon - fails accordingly. This is precisely what the Brookline District Court found and which decision the resident nay-sayers are denigrating.

Specific results: Applicant got screwed out of thousands in legal fees; attorney got paid for his services; idiot LO laughed himself silly and looks forward to doing it all over to the next applicant who draws the black spot.

Expensive? Yes; far too much so.

"Idiot LO" was publicly humiliated, verbally and in writing, and had his "authority" stripped, in this case at least, when CHSB completely by-passed him and issued the FID he blocked.

Client? Vindicated, licensed, able to hunt this fall and thrilled generally. As he is the party in question - and the one paying the freight - I humbly submit that it is his opinion which is controlling and your usual carping which is wholly irrelevant.

We still await your personal path to enlightenment and Political Victory. You have yet to share your plan for the Great Leap Forward.

For those of you interested in a rational discourse, please note the difference between strategy and tactics. GOAL, calling reps, etc. to change the law is strategic, as it seeks to achieve the changes by changing the STATUTES - eventually. That has had certain successes; the FLRB, restoration of the 90-day appeal period and extending the term of the licenses and the appeal period.

It does little or nothing on the individual level regarding denials, however. The ONLY venue for such individuals is court. Moreover, the means of enforcing what few statutory advantages we do have is by hammering those chiefs who abuse the statutory limits of their authority. That is the tactical aspect of protecting what remains of our rights.

I work in the means and venues best suited to my abilities. Moreover, I don't denigrate those who work by other means, any more than I limit my activities to courts.

I urge those who ARE working to improve the situation to continue doing so. Dismissing approaches which have clearly worked while offering NOTHING constructive in return is both petty and pointless.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the answer Scrivener.

After 15 years of having my LTC, the 1998 gun laws made my CLEO question my right to be licensed, due to a misdemeanor conviction that would have made me a non eligible person according to his interpretation of the new laws.

It cost me plenty overall for Karen to win my case, but I'd say it was worth every penny of it. It took almost 8 months, and ran my business into the ground (Gun photography for several major manufacturers magazine ads and catalogs. I'd rather not name the companies involved, but my work was full page covers on Guns and Ammo, Handguns, The American Rifleman, Shooting times, Dillon Blue Press and many more for many years). I couldn't handle handguns due to his delayed issuing of my license, which he was eventually ordered to do in court. Before that decision, my business had gone away as I couldn't solicit work or bring handguns into my studio. I was told that I could not even touch a pistol to get the correct angle on my photos, even if I had another licensed assistant to help me. I couldn't even store handguns in the safe at my studio, as I was not holding a current license.

I'm with you, I couldn't tolerate the CLEOs decision, so I fought back, and paid the price. Now if I even got a hint that there would be a problem with a renewal, I'd be on the phone to you so fast you'd think I had a direct line.

The CLEOs know they can get away with this stuff, and the town pays their court costs, so they don't care how many people threaten to take them to court. More people have to actually TAKE THEM TO COURT, to correct their actions.

Next to my Wife, Family, Country and my God, there is nothing more important to me than my right to own and carry firearms. I will not sit back and let someone push me around without a fight.

The sad part is that this "question" he asked about my right to be licensed came about very shortly after I spoke at town meeting against increasing the CLEO's educational expenses for the following budget year by $5500.
 
The CLEOs know they can get away with this stuff, and the town pays their court costs, so they don't care how many people threaten to take them to court. More people have to actually TAKE THEM TO COURT, to correct their actions.

Next to my Wife, Family, Country and my God, there is nothing more important to me than my right to own and carry firearms. I will not sit back and let someone push me around without a fight.

The sad part is that this "question" he asked about my right to be licensed came about very shortly after I spoke at town meeting against increasing the CLEO's educational expenses for the following budget year by $5500.

You clearly "get it." There are those on this board who still do not.
 
The sad part is that this "question" he asked about my right to be licensed came about very shortly after I spoke at town meeting against increasing the CLEO's educational expenses for the following budget year by $5500.

You should have the right to fire him.[frown] He is your employee after all.
 
Back
Top Bottom