Question About Suitability? Read This (Comm2A)

[Knuckle Dragger]

Comm2A has published information on suitability post-January 1, 2015. If you or someone you know has been denied an LTC for a non-statutory reason i.e. suitability or is concerned about being denied, they need to read these instructions. This also applies to anyone who applied for an LTC but received only and FID card.

Please share this information with people you know who are not on NES and with instructors.

License Application Instructions - Suitability Issues

 

[RImike]

It appears this only applies to in-state, police chief issued LTC's. What about non-resident LTC's?

 

[FSTC]

Does this cover restricted LTCs

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

It appears this only applies to in-state, police chief issued LTC's. What about non-resident LTC's?

^^Not really.

Does this cover restricted LTCs

^^No. Different issue.

 

[JZ1018]

Thanks for posting this. My daughter just made her appointment for Boston on Jan 6. She turns 21 this Dec.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Thanks for posting this. My daughter just made her appointment for Boston on Jan 6. She turns 21 this Dec.

This isn't relevant for her unless she's concerned about getting denied - an unlikely outcome in Boston.

 

[Bill Katt]

I'm thinking that this should be "stickied"

btw....Thank you KD and Comm2A.

 

[Cero]

any plans to challenge the reference letter requirement?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

any plans to challenge the reference letter requirement?

different issue

 

[MaverickNH]

Great stuff! In for $10/mo subscription. While I'm Non-Res, the good rubs off on everyone, somehow, somewhere.

 

[jtnf]

Why the direction to steer clear of "all lawful purposes" language?

 

[Portagee]

My friend got denied a year ago, for something stupid that he did as a teenager years ago.
Does this mean he should apply again?

 

[terraformer]

Yes

 

[rivet_42]

Why the direction to steer clear of "all lawful purposes" language?

It looks like they're targeting *denials* for "suitability", as opposed to being issued a license with restrictions. If you're denied, you're denied the right to possess a gun in your home, which is a right affirmed in the Second Amendment and which was also affirmed in Heller v. D.C. Restricting you to, e.g., "Sporting and Target" does not create an issue in regards to Heller because Heller does not address the issue of carrying in public. Denying you outright does create an issue that can be related to Heller.

If you list "ALP" or otherwise evince any sort of desire to go about armed in public, that turns it into a "carry" case, to which Heller does not apply. Notice that they suggest listing "Home protection and target practice" as the reasons for wanting an LTC, to make your stated reason for applying something congruent with Heller.

 

[jtnf]

It looks like they're targeting *denials* for "suitability", as opposed to being issued a license with restrictions. If you're denied, you're denied the right to possess a gun in your home, which is a right affirmed in the Second Amendment and which was also affirmed in Heller v. D.C. Restricting you to, e.g., "Sporting and Target" does not create an issue in regards to Heller because Heller does not address the issue of carrying in public. Denying you outright does create an issue that can be related to Heller.

If you list "ALP" or otherwise evince any sort of desire to go about armed in public, that turns it into a "carry" case, to which Heller does not apply. Notice that they suggest listing "Home protection and target practice" as the reasons for wanting an LTC, to make your stated reason for applying something congruent with Heller.

Ahh... That makes sense.

 

[JayMcB]

It looks like they're targeting *denials* for "suitability", as opposed to being issued a license with restrictions. If you're denied, you're denied the right to possess a gun in your home, which is a right affirmed in the Second Amendment and which was also affirmed in Heller v. D.C. Restricting you to, e.g., "Sporting and Target" does not create an issue in regards to Heller because Heller does not address the issue of carrying in public. Denying you outright does create an issue that can be related to Heller.

If you list "ALP" or otherwise evince any sort of desire to go about armed in public, that turns it into a "carry" case, to which Heller does not apply. Notice that they suggest listing "Home protection and target practice" as the reasons for wanting an LTC, to make your stated reason for applying something congruent with Heller.

To an admitted legal moron, requesting 'Protection inside the home and target practice' sounds like you're ASKING for sporting and target instead of an LTC. Why?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

To an admitted legal moron, requesting 'Protection inside the home and target practice' sounds like you're ASKING for sporting and target instead of an LTC. Why?

^^ See below.

It looks like they're targeting *denials* for "suitability", as opposed to being issued a license with restrictions. If you're denied, you're denied the right to possess a gun in your home, which is a right affirmed in the Second Amendment and which was also affirmed in Heller v. D.C. Restricting you to, e.g., "Sporting and Target" does not create an issue in regards to Heller because Heller does not address the issue of carrying in public. Denying you outright does create an issue that can be related to Heller.

If you list "ALP" or otherwise evince any sort of desire to go about armed in public, that turns it into a "carry" case, to which Heller does not apply. Notice that they suggest listing "Home protection and target practice" as the reasons for wanting an LTC, to make your stated reason for applying something congruent with Heller.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Great stuff! In for $10/mo subscription. While I'm Non-Res, the good rubs off on everyone, somehow, somewhere.

Thank you. And don't think that this crap isn't drifting north. This summer's debacle over DeLeo's 'gun' bill pretty much suppressed the MA Legislature's appetite for more gun control, but I think that NH law makers have yet to feel the same sting.

 

[EC1]

It looks like they're targeting *denials* for "suitability", as opposed to being issued a license with restrictions. If you're denied, you're denied the right to possess a gun in your home, which is a right affirmed in the Second Amendment and which was also affirmed in Heller v. D.C. Restricting you to, e.g., "Sporting and Target" does not create an issue in regards to Heller because Heller does not address the issue of carrying in public. Denying you outright does create an issue that can be related to Heller.

If you list "ALP" or otherwise evince any sort of desire to go about armed in public, that turns it into a "carry" case, to which Heller does not apply. Notice that they suggest listing "Home protection and target practice" as the reasons for wanting an LTC, to make your stated reason for applying something congruent with Heller.

Quoting from Comm 2a:

"Reason(s) for requesting the issuance of a card or license

If you have specific reasons for wanting a license, they should be listed here. The preferred answer is “home protection and target practice”. Do NOT request a license for all lawful purposes or request that the license be issued “Restrictions: None”. "


From the above, it looks as though they are opening the door for the cop to restrict your license to home defense and target practice. Do they want you to list every reason? Hunting, protection outside of the home?

 

[Roy Rogers]

Does a person who is homeless have the right to keep and bear arms? In a state like Massachusetts that imposes a licensing requirement, where does the homeless person apply for his or her license, and can he or she be compelled to complete an application that requires listing a home address? It would seem that the homeless person's right of self-protection is at least as legitimate as that of someone who has a home.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

From the above, it looks as though they are opening the door for the cop to restrict your license to home defense and target practice. Do they want you to list every reason? Hunting, protection outside of the home?

No, that's not correct at all. Read our article again. We want to deal with people who cannot even posses a firearm in their home due to a subjective determination of 'unsuitability'. The state and police chief's WANT people to make their cases about restrictions because that's a carry case, something that is NOT explicitly part of the decisions in Heller and McDonald.

Does a person who is homeless have the right to keep and bear arms? In a state like Massachusetts that imposes a licensing requirement, where does the homeless person apply for his or her license, and can he or she be compelled to complete an application that requires listing a home address? It would seem that the homeless person's right of self-protection is at least as legitimate as that of someone who has a home.

That's a great question and totally unrelated to the original post. However, it is relevant to the case of Comm v. Caetano.

 

[Roy Rogers]

That's a great question and totally unrelated to the original post. However, it is relevant to the case of Comm v. Caetano.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the pointer to the case--excellent.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

One of the problems we face at Comm2A is structuring cases that address a single issue. An applicant with suitability issues will understandably be annoyed at filling out the application without even asking for "unrestricted", however, the key to winning cases is to not give the court a bunch of different hooks on which it can hang a denial.

 

[jar]

Comm2A is *already* fighting restrictions in Davis: http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/102-davis

The point here is to take people who would otherwise have all of their rights denied to at least be able to possess handguns in the home. The key to success in the courts is to bring cases with an extremely tight focus on a single issue. Judges not sympathetic to 2A rights will view a case as a scavenger hunt for anything at all to hang a denial on. The trick is to give them as little as possible. This worked perfectly in Comm2A's victories in Fletcher and Wesson. (http://comm2a.org/index.php/27-home/links/151-past-projects)

 

[FrugalFannie]

Thank you. And don't think that this crap isn't drifting north. This summer's debacle over DeLeo's 'gun' bill pretty much suppressed the MA Legislature's appetite for more gun control, but I think that NH law makers have yet to feel the same sting.

They will.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

BUMP-a-roni

There are some pretty significant changes that will take effect in just 2 1/2 weeks and we're serious about exploiting them. Comm2A wants to work with people who can take advantage of the suitability changes that we all worked so hard for this summer. Last week we held a half day conference with our growing legal team and hashed out a plan. All we need now is haven't been able to get a license to apply under the new rules.

• Anyone that's been denied an LTC because they were deemed "unsuitable": It's time to re-apply;
• Anyone who has not applied for an LTC because they were afraid of being denied: It's time to apply;
• Anyone who applied for an LTC but only received an FID: It's time to apply for an LTC;
• Anyone who applied for an LTC/A but was issued an LTC/B: It's time to apply again.

And in case you missed it in the OP: Applicants with Suitability Concerns

This is a "suitable person" initiative. We're not looking for people at this time with restricted LTCs or people who are legally ineligible to be licensed.

 

[ASHDUMP]

I'm up for renewal in March and my girlfriend is up for renewal in January. We both have our LTC ALP but we have since moved and now live in a "red" town. I'm in the process of filling out the applications and under "reasons for wanting a license" the last time I put "all lawful purposes". But according to your website I shouldn't use this as the reason? Can you shed a little light on this one for me? http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/8-home/216-suitability

Also, do we fit the profile for applying for LTC-A no restrictions but we might get restrictions? I'm kind of bullshit that we've had our LTC-A for 5 years and now we might not get it back.... and we carry everyday.

 

[terraformer]

I'm up for renewal in March and my girlfriend is up for renewal in January. We both have our LTC ALP but we have since moved and now live in a "red" town. I'm in the process of filling out the applications and under "reasons for wanting a license" the last time I put "all lawful purposes". But according to your website I shouldn't use this as the reason? Can you shed a little light on this one for me? http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/8-home/216-suitability

Also, do we fit the profile for applying for LTC-A no restrictions but we might get restrictions? I'm kind of bullshit that we've had our LTC-A for 5 years and now we might not get it back.... and we carry everyday.

Thise instructions are for "Applicants with Suitability Concerns". If you have never been denied before, this is not you. Put ALP and see what happens. If you get restricted, contact us immediately.