Woburn?!?

[Hoover]

I agree with spt_1955. I have seen too many people at ranges, who seem to have forgotten basic gun safety.

Why do you think taking a test, etc would give those people common sense or good judgement?


MA has the basic safety requirement, ME, NH, VT and most other states do not require anything. Do you think the safety at ranges in those states is better?

 

[JCV]

Never heard of that one.

I might also be one of the few people on this forum that is OK with requiring that people understand the responsibility that goes with CCW before they are allowed to do it. And since the laws in this state allow the local CLEO to basically set his/her own standards I'd prefer that people be asked demonstrate this knowledge as opposed to supply letters of recommendation which I think are useless information.

Go ahead ... fire away.

P.S. to save myself the time of answering let me say going in that "Yes I know people who carry guns and it scares the S___ out of me that they do." (and I'm sure you know some of them)

yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah you should definitely change your avatar

 

[drgrant]

Never heard of that one.

I might also be one of the few people on this forum that is OK with requiring that people understand the responsibility that goes with CCW before they are allowed to do it. And since the laws in this state allow the local CLEO to basically set his/her own standards I'd prefer that people be asked demonstrate this knowledge as opposed to supply letters of recommendation which I think are useless information.

Go ahead ... fire away.

P.S. to save myself the time of answering let me say going in that "Yes I know people who carry guns and it scares the S___ out of me that they do." (and I'm sure you know some of them)

We have enough bullshit to put up with in the state without allowing CLEOs to mandate things like testing that aren't required by law. You should know better- such things are not "trying to help people" but to act as a deterrent to applicants in the form of obstructionism. Also, a stupid ****ing test is not going to "show that someone is responsible enough to carry a gun" or whatever, that's about as absurd as it comes. Last I knew there were a shitload of terrible drivers in MA, and nearly all of them had to pass a test at some point saying they know the laws or testing basic skills. That didn't stop them from becoming shitty drivers.

BTW the "letters" you speak of aren't required by law, either. (but people put up with that shit because it's easier to just bend over than it is to make a stink about it. )

-Mike

 

[mike1960]

The test was in place when I took the test 4 years ago. It was not that hard and they give you a hand out to study from when you make your appointment. Check the thread below for more Woburn info.

Three letters of reference as well as taking the test and you will not get an unrestricted licences unless you are LEO or business owner.

https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/208267-Woburn-LTC-Survey

 

[*chris*]

I'm gonna go hug my COP tonight...

Chris

 

[ioman2]

Woburn sucks.

As a former 5th generation resident i was getting ready to jump through the hoops and get all of the reference letters. Four was the magic number to get a unrestricted LTC-A. Three were personal and the forth was from my work. I remember starting to look over the info to take that stupid test and then i held off applying and moved to NH.

 

[Asaltweapon]

Back in 1982 I had to take a written test in the Town of Westford.

Should I be outraged now?

 

[bill o]

I agree with spt_1955. I have seen too many people at ranges, who seem to have forgotten basic gun safety.

Yeah, laws will fix that.

 

[mike1960]

I am duping my self here but just to get it out there again. This is the latest from the Woburn web site.

 

[jhblaze1]

The test was in place when I took the test 4 years ago. It was not that hard and they give you a hand out to study from when you make your appointment. Check the thread below for more Woburn info.

Three letters of reference as well as taking the test and you will not get an unrestricted licences unless you are LEO or business owner.

https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/208267-Woburn-LTC-Survey

Whether or not the test is easy is not the issue here.

 

[JCV]

I am duping my self here but just to get it out there again. This is the latest from the Woburn web site.

This quote truly makes me sick

Private Citizens who have demonstrated a specific and actual fear for his
or her property. Such fear must necessitate the use of a firearm for protection.
(Generalized fear of potential crimes against the person is not sufficient)

I need a specific reason to protect myself from potential harm?
wtfffff........

 

[jhblaze1]

Back in 1982 I had to take a written test in the Town of Westford.

Should I be outraged now?

yes. You should.

 

[GeorgetownLTC]

BTW the "letters" you speak of aren't required by law, either. (but people put up with that shit because it's easier to just bend over than it is to make a stink about it. )

They already have "deemed it proper" to automatically default to restricted. And add on letters of reference.

People just deal with that because it seems reasonable so now they expand it to taking some sort of test they made up with no clue to its validity. I am sure the "test is easy" but that's not the point; if it's that easy then why test at all? Wonder what's next?

 

[tk421991]

Why do you think taking a test, etc would give those people common sense or good judgement?

MA has the basic safety requirement, ME, NH, VT and most other states do not require anything. Do you think the safety at ranges in those states is better?

If taking a test and getting over a 70% makes someone an expert or gives someone good judgment in a situation, then I am a master of economics, accounting, financing, all kinds of stuff. Therefore I demand to be made Treasurer of NH.

Seriously, if any gun owner ever says that taking a test for a carry permit helps, can we just all point and laugh?

 

[jasonj84]

appears to be. don't know if they make renewals do it too.

I didn't have to do it on renewal after I moved in.

 

[Len-2A Training]

i'm gonna go ahead and guess there are a good amount of people on this site that would say if you can't read/speak English. then GTFO of their country lolololol

Not passing judgement but I recall when you actually had to read a paragraph in ENGLISH only in order to register to vote. ~40 yrs ago when I moved to my present town and when I registered in previous towns, this was required (I'm pretty sure it was the law). I also understand that you used to have to be able to read ENGLISH in order to become a US Citizen . . . I suspect that must have changed however.

I agree with spt_1955. I have seen too many people at ranges, who seem to have forgotten basic gun safety.

You can't "forget" that which you never knew!

Probably. But what about people who come here legally and are in the process of learning English? No gun for them until they learn? Maybe it's ok as long as they're not from a brown people country. Never mind that we have no official language in this country.

See my comment above. No LTC in MA for non-citizens unless they have a "green card" which (I think) means that they have been here in the US for a few years . . . ample opportunity to learn English if they really care to.

I wonder how many LEO's could pass that test on the laws they are enforcing.

From the almost 5 years of teaching MA Gun Law and the many years of answering questions for LEOs/chiefs on MA gun law, my guess is that it would be very close to ZERO!

 

[FalArAk]

Never heard of that one.

I might also be one of the few people on this forum that is OK with requiring that people understand the responsibility that goes with CCW before they are allowed to do it. And since the laws in this state allow the local CLEO to basically set his/her own standards I'd prefer that people be asked demonstrate this knowledge as opposed to supply letters of recommendation which I think are useless information.

Go ahead ... fire away.

P.S. to save myself the time of answering let me say going in that "Yes I know people who carry guns and it scares the S___ out of me that they do." (and I'm sure you know some of them)

According to your signature where you congratulate yourself in front of an audience on your various licenses,I notice you are an RSO.

Thanks again for proving the worst enemy of gun owners is,gun owners.

 

[Kevski]

If you passed an HIV test with a 70% would that make you concerned

 

[Mr. Gold]

Never heard of that one.

I might also be one of the few people on this forum that is OK with requiring that people understand the responsibility that goes with CCW before they are allowed to do it. And since the laws in this state allow the local CLEO to basically set his/her own standards I'd prefer that people be asked demonstrate this knowledge as opposed to supply letters of recommendation which I think are useless information.

Go ahead ... fire away.

P.S. to save myself the time of answering let me say going in that "Yes I know people who carry guns and it scares the S___ out of me that they do." (and I'm sure you know some of them)

Oh my Gaud a Gun.. GUUUUUN GUUUUUUN .

Dude, if "idiots" with guns freak you out, how can you leave home knowing 17YO dumb twats are zooming at 50Mph on 2000lbs hunks of metal while texting, talking to their BFF or just being general 17YO dumb twats ?

 

[knoxy]

Go ahead ... fire away.

P.S. to save myself the time of answering let me say going in that "Yes I know people who carry guns and it scares the S___ out of me that they do." (and I'm sure you know some of them)

You should tell Obama about these scary gun owners.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I thought Comm2A was going after shit like this?

How exactly to you propose that Comm2A go about this? Find me someone who is willing to risk not getting license anytime soon and it's game on. As has been discussed many times before, the fundamental obstacle to these types of non-statutory requirements is [good] individual plaintiffs willing to challenge them.

The bottom line is that every gun owner and would-be gun owner, including everyone on NES, will suck it up and do whatever their CLEO requires rather than take a stand if it means that they'll get a denial in the short term. Every plaintiff we've had to date was there because they did not have an option to just comply. They had no other option than to sue. The US Constitution limits federal judicial proceeding to those that deal with "actual cases or controversy". Without a real person that is harmed by Woburn's policy, the harm is only hypothetical.

 

[economist]

What a thread. Statist clowns are everywhere I guess.

 

[Hoover]

If you passed an HIV test with a 70% would that make you concerned

Depends, how hot was she?

 

[drgrant]

How exactly to you propose that Comm2A go about this? Find me someone who is willing to risk not getting license anytime soon and it's game on. As has been discussed many times before, the fundamental obstacle to these types of non-statutory requirements is [good] individual plaintiffs willing to challenge them.

The bottom line is that every gun owner and would-be gun owner, including everyone on NES, will suck it up and do whatever their CLEO requires rather than take a stand if it means that they'll get a denial in the short term. Every plaintiff we've had to date was there because they did not have an option to just comply. They had no other option than to sue. The US Constitution limits federal judicial proceeding to those that deal with "actual cases or controversy". Without a real person that is harmed by Woburn's policy, the harm is only hypothetical.

Yup, this is the rub. Essentially you'd have to find a guy who doesn't care about being unlicensed in MA for some period of time.

An interesting plaintiff would be someone who is illiterate or some other kind of learning disability- EG, someone who can't really take the test... but otherwise can verbally understand gun safety rules enough to be safe and legal, then the court would have to deal with the uncomfortable question of whether or not it is OK to limit an applicant based on a disability that is not really dangerous to the public. Course the problem with this is some of these issuing authorities do sneak jobs on this, too. (for example I know at least one guy who got unrestricted in one of the L dump towns (Lowell or Lawrence) because he simply rolled into the PD in his wheelchair.

-Mike

 

[tk421991]

Yup, this is the rub. Essentially you'd have to find a guy who doesn't care about being unlicensed in MA for some period of time.

An interesting plaintiff would be someone who is illiterate or some other kind of learning disability- EG, someone who can't really take the test... but otherwise can verbally understand gun safety rules enough to be safe and legal, then the court would have to deal with the uncomfortable question of whether or not it is OK to limit an applicant based on a disability that is not really dangerous to the public. Course the problem with this is some of these issuing authorities do sneak jobs on this, too. (for example I know at least one guy who got unrestricted in one of the L dump towns (Lowell or Lawrence) because he simply rolled into the PD in his wheelchair.

-Mike

Problem with a disabled plaintiff would be if the court issues an exception, rather than tossing the whole test concept. Like say the PD would have to make the test available in Hmong or in brail or accommodate disabled applicants taking the test. However, baby steps and I don't know Mass case law when it comes to varying permit app requirements.

 

[Waher]

An interesting plaintiff would be someone who is illiterate or some other kind of learning disability- EG, someone who can't really take the test... but otherwise can verbally understand gun safety rules enough to be safe and legal, then the court would have to deal with the uncomfortable question of whether or not it is OK to limit an applicant based on a disability that is not really dangerous to the public.

Need a plaintiff with severe dyslexia.

 

[slap shot]

i think we need a test to see if the constitution applies to us...all in?

 

[Precision Point Firearms]

I wonder how many LEO's could pass that test on the laws they are enforcing.

I passed it with flying colors thank you very much.

 

[BostonFJ40]

How is Woburn restricting licenses without giving written justification? I thought that was required since the law changes in Jan 2015?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Hey, look, honey. It's the daily NES out yourself thread...lol.