What do we agree on? Current LTC/COP cases

[depicts]

Just so you know, there is NO legal requirement to belong to a club.

Moreover, there is case law from Quincy District Court striking down the Randolph PD's denial of an applicant for not belonging to a club.

I understand that the Randolph PD still "requires" club membership - at least for those too ignorant or invertebrate to refuse to be so bullied.

Scriv, I know there is no legal requirement to join a club. The fact is though, that unless you own a piece of land big enough, or know someone who does, there aren't that many public places available to shoot without joining a club.

 

[Jose]

Well Patrick worked on a platform of brining jobs back to MA. Yeah, that worked out real well. Now we all know that the economy has effected jobs, but he has actually lost companies. Big factor.

Ma**h***s sure elected a winnah, didn't they......

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Hey, I didn't vote for him! If you aren't a liberal in this state your vote doesn't even count.

 

[Scrivener]

Scriv, I know there is no legal requirement to join a club. The fact is though, that unless you own a piece of land big enough, or know someone who does, there aren't that many public places available to shoot without joining a club.

I am not suggesting belonging to a club is not useful or even desirable.

I am saying that there is no LEGAL obligation to join one and that a PD which imposes membership as a requirement for an LTC is, based on that case and the licensing statute, devoid of any basis in law.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scriv, I know there is no legal requirement to join a club. The fact is though, that unless you own a piece of land big enough, or know someone who does, there aren't that many public places available to shoot without joining a club.

. . . and the cost of some of the public ranges can far exceed the cost of a club membership in only a few short trips.

I am not suggesting belonging to a club is not useful or even desirable.

I am saying that there is no LEGAL obligation to join one and that a PD which imposes membership as a requirement for an LTC is, based on that case and the licensing statute, devoid of any basis in law.

The old "suitability" and "chief's discretion" thing can be used to mandate club membership. If a chief and their town counsel are sharp enough, I'm sure that they can make a compelling case to damn near any judge in MA.

 

[MrSparkle]

I'm not talking about a permitting process like we have now. Do you remember the old days when you went to go get a FID or a fishing license? That is how it should be. You go down to the PD, pay $25, they run an immediate background check, and hand you your license.

Tom, I'm torn on this one. On one hand I see what you are saying about it being an inherent right. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of a guy who just got out of prison for shooting someone being able to buy a gun. It's a tough call.

Okay....safeties I think are a good idea...
- Drop safety
- Hammer safety (if something struck the back of the hammer I don't want it going off)
- Essentially I like a gun that doesn't go boom unless I pull the trigger

I don't like the idea of a guy who shot someone and is likely to do so again getting out of prison.

Maybe I've been in MA too long and am okay with something that makes even a little more sense.

. . . and the cost of some of the public ranges can far exceed the cost of a club membership in only a few short trips.



The old "suitability" and "chief's discretion" thing can be used to mandate club membership. If a chief and their town counsel are sharp enough, I'm sure that they can make a compelling case to damn near any judge in MA.

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

 

[CubJ3]

Agree with everything you said. Particularly the part about the unfair, arbitrary, confusing, convoluted, contradictory, whimsical, sycophantic, Fubar MA laws!

 

[Scrivener]

The old "suitability" and "chief's discretion" thing can be used to mandate club membership. If a chief and their town counsel are sharp enough, I'm sure that they can make a compelling case to damn near any judge in MA.

And what part of "Quincy District Court" decision did you miss?

 

[Len-2A Training]

And what part of "Quincy District Court" decision did you miss?

Scriv,

IANAL but my understanding is that Dist. Ct does NOT set precedent for future cases, although a lawyer can raise that decision while arguing future cases.

IIRC, you represented 2 gun owners in 2 different courts where the issues were similar to each other (don't recall any details) BUT the outcome was totally different in one court than the other!

Also, from what I've seen, many chiefs don't seem to be intimidated by another chief having lost a case in one court. They seem all to eager to forge ahead with their "policies" and let the chips fall as they may. They have some serious advantages: They know that most people will fold and not spend the tens of thousands of dollars to fight them AND the chiefs are NOT spending their own money in persecuting their subjects. Until the Selectmen/Mayor/Town Manager comes down on them for wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits, the chiefs pretty much do what they want with relative impunity.

 

[terraformer]

In other words Len, they are bullies who abuse the system by making the same bad decision over and over again despite knowing it is wrong because the system is set up to allow that and the burden of correcting the system is on the applicant. Lots of dollars later the judge could still side with the CLEO.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I am not suggesting belonging to a club is not useful or even desirable.

I am saying that there is no LEGAL obligation to join one and that a PD which imposes membership as a requirement for an LTC is, based on that case and the licensing statute, devoid of any basis in law.

Keith, what is the deal with towns that state they require membership? You said there is no legal obligation....is this just another case where you do it to avoid bucking the horse?

 

[Supermoto]

Keith, what is the deal with towns that state they require membership? You said there is no legal obligation....is this just another case where you do it to avoid bucking the horse?

not everyone can afford to join a club, not everyone can afford to practice often. Are they not entitled to the same rights just because they are poor?

sometimes the horse needs to be put down

 

[terraformer]

Keith, what is the deal with towns that state they require membership? You said there is no legal obligation....is this just another case where you do it to avoid bucking the horse?

Yes. Because failure to spit shine the cleos shoes could be considered as The trait of someone not suitable. I jest but there are little to no bounds laid out on the Cleo as defined in the law. I have a running tally of the abuses elsewhere on NES and one of them was a guy who had to take his safety course with a town Leo to get unrestricted. Think about that one.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

not everyone can afford to join a club, not everyone can afford to practice often. Are they not entitled to the same rights just because they are poor?

sometimes the horse needs to be put down

No, the question wasn't about SHOULD someone have to belong to the range. Just the implication of bucking the town requirement.

 

[LoginName]

not everyone can afford to join a club, not everyone can afford to practice often. Are they not entitled to the same rights just because they are poor?

sometimes the horse needs to be put down

Case in point... money is tight for me right now and my renewal is due in May.

My tin-pot dictator requires safety certification and club membership.

So... on top of the $100.00 application fee, I'm looking at spending an additional $200.00 - $250.00 for the "privilege" of owning a firearm.

That and ammo has become a luxury.

FWIW... I used to be a member at MRA, but due to the longer travel time, BS rule changes and maintenance problems, I discontinued my membership.

I definitely would like to/hope to join another club sometime in the near future once my life gets back to normality, but it shouldn't be a condition on my rights.

 

[newenglandshooter]

I doubt we agree on much. One of our strengths is that we come from all walks of life. I think it's a mistake for us to modify ourselves into any streamlined idea of what a gun owner is, to display any kind of apologetic behavior for the fact that we own guns, or to make our gun ownership "easier" for others to swallow. It is what it is.

I own guns. I'm perfectly willing to talk about why, to answer any questions, or to discuss any gun issue. I will not dumb down my perspective so that others can follow it. I start with the assumption that the other person is competent.

 

[Supermoto]

No, the question wasn't about SHOULD someone have to belong to the range. Just the implication of bucking the town requirement.

What you tolerate, you validate; what you put up with - you DESERVE! (one of Scriv. signatures from the past, I believe)

Bucking the horse is what america used to stand for. The .Gov must be required to follow their own laws

 

[EddieCoyle]

not everyone can afford to join a club, not everyone can afford to practice often. Are they not entitled to the same rights just because they are poor?

sometimes the horse needs to be put down

Also, not everyone can afford the training, license fee, and either the cost of a new handgun, or the inflated Mass cost of a used one.

If someone wants to learn to shoot a handgun in Mass, they're looking at $1200 minimum.

 

[cekim]

4.) A Chief of Police should not be the only person to grant a LTC. An impartial method needs to be established.

Agree with the others, but on this point there is an "impartial method" established in the Constitution to decide who get's to own a firearm...

That "impartial method" is "innocent until proven guilty" with the right to "due process" and "trial by a jury of your peers"...

It isn't perfect to be sure - there will be cases when in retrospect we'd like to have seen various people prohibited (hindsight = 20/20).

This is the "least flawed" approach of them all and we deserve nothing less...

All that should be done is a list of people with statutory disqualifiers should be kept. A blind check can be done to confirm you are not on that list. No record should be kept, not for a day, week, month hour or minute. Call and check if you are on the list - if not - move along, nothing to see here...

ANY other approach is just duct tape on discretion and prone to abuse.

 

[Scrivener]

Case in point... money is tight for me right now and my renewal is due in May.

My tin-pot dictator requires safety certification and club membership.

So... on top of the $100.00 application fee, I'm looking at spending an additional $200.00 - $250.00 for the "privilege" of owning a firearm.

Just so you know, both the statute and its implementing regulation expressly state that, once certified for a given license, no further certification is required.

 

[LoginName]

Also, not everyone can afford the training, license fee, and either the cost of a new handgun, or the inflated Mass cost of a used one.

If someone wants to learn to shoot a handgun in Mass, they're looking at $1200 minimum.

And some would like to add even more costs by requiring gun owners insurance

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

You know, I didn't really think about all the money I was spending through the whole licensing process. Now that you guys put the total numbers up, you guys are right! It is damn expensive. When I spent $50 here....$100 there...$150 there....etc.....I just didn't notice it as much. No wonder my wife wanted to skin me. Can I retract my previous statements about training?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

And some would like to add even more costs by requiring gun owners insurance

Gun owners insurance? Can you please explain? I am not aware of that.

 

[LoginName]

Just so you know, both the statute and its implementing regulation expressly state that, once certified for a given license, no further certification is required.

Trust me... I'm well aware of that.

But, just so you know, you've taken on my guy before and lost.

If I can't afford ammo and club membership, I sure as hell can't afford a lawyer.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Also, not everyone can afford the training, license fee, and either the cost of a new handgun, or the inflated Mass cost of a used one.

If someone wants to learn to shoot a handgun in Mass, they're looking at $1200 minimum.

Eddie, just for comparison....what would you say would be the startup costs in a state like NH?

 

[Scrivener]

Trust me... I'm well aware of that.

But, just so you know, you've taken on my guy before and lost.

If I can't afford ammo and club membership, I sure as hell can't afford a lawyer.

Brookline or Watertown?

Another reason why we need a fund for such cases - each plaintiff ran out of funds to pursue the appeal and GOAL provided zero economic aid.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Trust me... I'm well aware of that.

But, just so you know, you've taken on my guy before and lost.

If I can't afford ammo and club membership, I sure as hell can't afford a lawyer.

Well, if you're in the Medford area....I'd be more than happy to let you come shoot at my club (pistol only). I can always use another shooting buddy.

 

[LoginName]

Gun owners insurance? Can you please explain? I am not aware of that.

Legislation has been proposed many times, but has never gotten much attention and is unlikely to go anywhere.

I really don't see it as a threat, but... just the idea that something like that would even be submitted, says a lot about the mentality of the people we're dealing with.

 

[terraformer]

Eddie, just for comparison....what would you say would be the startup costs in a state like NH?

A drivers license or other proof of residency. There are brand new 9 mm guns out there for $150 in free states. They suck, but they go boom.

 

[LoginName]

Brookline or Watertown?

Given the circumstances of the past few days, it would probably be unwise of me to say where.

Let's just say that I'm hardly unfamiliar with the people or both departments involved.