Woburn?!?

[Chevy 2 65]

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)

And there it is..

 

[RG617]

Seeing as how Boston and Brookline require the range test on top of the dog & pony show the state requires and have been doing so for god knows how long, color me wholly unsurprised. If anything, I'm surprised that we're not seeing this tactic far more often but with far more material, higher score requirements, and some extra fees to offset the cost of them making you dance like a ****ing monkey on a leash.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

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.

How about its not a state requirement? Next thing they will do is tell people they need to swim 20 laps in a pool.

 

[Waher]

It's a civil rights violation to the same extent a literacy test or poll tax is. But the courts, at the state level, do not agree.

I'm kind of hoping that the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision to ignore the gay marriage ruling forces the US Supreme Court to make it clear they will not accept bullshit from state courts on civil rights rulings. The MA SJC has been loud, proud, and really smug about ignoring the US constitution as they see fit and really deserves a drunken rotten papa beating behind the woodshed with a horsewhip for it.

 

[grey]

there's a town right here on the north shore that requires retaking a safety course at every renewal. Makes the simple written test look easy and cheaper.

 

[IvIax]

Watching I keep waiting
Still anticipating freedom
Never hesitating
To become the fated ones
Turning and returning
To some secret place inside
Watching in slow motion
As you turn around and say
yo liberals

take my guns away,
Take my guns away~

 

[DW357]

there's a town right here on the north shore that requires retaking a safety course at every renewal. Makes the simple written test look easy and cheaper.

Which town?

 

[grey]

Which town?

not glostah

 

[DW357]

not glostah

Well that's no help...

 

[Hoover]

How about its not a state requirement? Next thing they will do is tell people they need to swim 20 laps in a pool.

But you need a victim, preferably a hanful, to be plaintiffs where comm2a can sue on their behalf. Just like the ecexutive crap obama annouced last week, that cannot be taken to court until somene is arrested for selling a gun, gun rights are taken away, etc.

 

[bmach]

Bostonfj40 to answer your question they are testing based on 1998 laws. So my guess is they are just a few years behind in their knowledge of laws.

 

[MrJones79]

That's pretty BS that they are doing that at the town level. But, for what it's worth I just moved to TN and you have to pass both a written and live fire test to get your safety course completion which is needed to obtain your carry permit. No permit to purchase or or possess here, but do need one to carry. The tests are stupid easy and I don't really have an issue of needing to show at least some base knowledge level of proficiency, but it needs to be uniform. Just a town here or there demanding their own criteria is bullshit.

 

[42!]

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.

So would there be a problem if comm2a went out and found someone who could apply for an LTC and simply refused to take the test. Someone with a squeaky clean record so there would be no suitability issues no statutory issues basically the ideal applicant.

Run a full page ad in the globe for this person, outlining exactly what you intend to do and if the department pulls the requirements after the ad is run you've got great publicity and proof that they knew what they were doing is wrong. And if they don't pull the requirement you've got a slam dunk victory in the courts.

It's a win-win all around.

And make sure the person is a sustaining member of comm2a before they file their LTC application. Have to make sure that comm2a has a legitimate interest.

And just to drive home the point that this is a civil rights issue run the add on MLK Day.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[42!]

To add to my last post you may even find some allies in the Liberals. They may want to try to take all the guns away but they also don't like municipal department heads like the chief of police making up their own laws. I know some liberals who will join any cause that shows the police doing something wrong. They want to outlaw guns they don't want the police to make the laws. They are as much against fascist police as they are against gun owners.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[gamma19]

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)

Unfortunately, this is the prevailing attitude in anti-RKBA states like MA, where the 2A is treated and viewed as a privilege that the .gov allows the citizens to exercise instead of an inalienable right.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So would there be a problem if comm2a went out and found someone who could apply for an LTC and simply refused to take the test. Someone with a squeaky clean record so there would be no suitability issues no statutory issues basically the ideal applicant.

Run a full page ad in the globe for this person, outlining exactly what you intend to do and if the department pulls the requirements after the ad is run you've got great publicity and proof that they knew what they were doing is wrong. And if they don't pull the requirement you've got a slam dunk victory in the courts.

It's a win-win all around.

And make sure the person is a sustaining member of comm2a before they file their LTC application. Have to make sure that comm2a has a legitimate interest.

And just to drive home the point that this is a civil rights issue run the add on MLK Day.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

That pretty much how it would work, although a public ad might be a little too out there. Ideal plaintiffs would be libertarian minded friends or family members of current gun owners. Comm2A membership is important because it gives Comm2A organizational standing to bring action on behalf of it's members.

That said, I would rather make this point over non-statutory requirements in a different town and a different requirement, such as reference letters. Challenging a requirement designed to give an applicant the opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency with a firearm or their knowledge of the laws they must follow is much weaker than challenging requirements that are obviously designed to be obstructionist.

 

[Ink]

I do not believe in licensing.
I do not believe in MANDATORY firearms training.
I DO believe in lots of good firearms training and education. A thoughtful conversation with new gun owners (and some long time owners) will get them thinking but ultimately people will do what they are going to do regardless of tests, licensing, laws, etc.

Bring on Liberty because I would rather live with the risks of too much of it than go down the road we seem to be headed.

 

[mike1960]

That pretty much how it would work, although a public ad might be a little too out there. Ideal plaintiffs would be libertarian minded friends or family members of current gun owners. Comm2A membership is important because it gives Comm2A organizational standing to bring action on behalf of it's members.

That said, I would rather make this point over non-statutory requirements in a different town and a different requirement, such as reference letters. Challenging a requirement designed to give an applicant the opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency with a firearm or their knowledge of the laws they must follow is much weaker than challenging requirements that are obviously designed to be obstructionist.

I think I understand the need for standing or the harmed individual to exist in order to go to court, but doesn,t the fact that restrictions are placed on anybody not a LEO or business owner create a group of harmed individuals. Those, Woburn LTC holders that have LTC - A Res. Target and Hunting. Would one, or a number of these people who ask for restrictions to be removed after they get their LTC A, and are denied in writing by the COP, be sufficient for a legal challenge?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I think I understand the need for standing or the harmed individual to exist in order to go to court, but doesn,t the fact that restrictions are placed on anybody not a LEO or business owner create a group of harmed individuals. Those, Woburn LTC holders that have LTC - A Res. Target and Hunting. Would one, or a number of these people who ask for restrictions to be removed after they get their LTC A, and are denied in writing by the COP, be sufficient for a legal challenge?

Yes, because then you'd have an 'actual case or controversy' because at least one individual person can allege harm. That's what we've done with Winchester, New Bedford, and Lowell. We have individuals in each of those towns with restricted licenses.

 

[MachineHead]

If "restricted license" isn't an oxymoron, then I don't know what is. Hopefully those Woburn LTCers will take up their role as plaintiffs.

 

[daveshrews]

I got my original LTC in Woburn in 2004, and I did indeed have to take a test. It was so easy that it was ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike1960]

Yes, because then you'd have an 'actual case or controversy' because at least one individual person can allege harm. That's what we've done with Winchester, New Bedford, and Lowell. We have individuals in each of those towns with restricted licenses.

PM inbound

 

[Whutmeworry]

I do not believe in licensing.
I do not believe in MANDATORY firearms training.
I DO believe in lots of good firearms training and education. A thoughtful conversation with new gun owners (and some long time owners) will get them thinking but ultimately people will do what they are going to do regardless of tests, licensing, laws, etc.

Bring on Liberty because I would rather live with the risks of too much of it than go down the road we seem to be headed.

THIS x 10,000!

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I do not believe in licensing.
I do not believe in MANDATORY firearms training.
I DO believe in lots of good firearms training and education. A thoughtful conversation with new gun owners (and some long time owners) will get them thinking but ultimately people will do what they are going to do regardless of tests, licensing, laws, etc.

Bring on Liberty because I would rather live with the risks of too much of it than go down the road we seem to be headed.

Bravo SIR !!

 

[JClark]

I think I understand the need for standing or the harmed individual to exist in order to go to court, but doesn,t the fact that restrictions are placed on anybody not a LEO or business owner create a group of harmed individuals. Those, Woburn LTC holders that have LTC - A Res. Target and Hunting. Would one, or a number of these people who ask for restrictions to be removed after they get their LTC A, and are denied in writing by the COP, be sufficient for a legal challenge?

This is me too.
How do we get something like this off the ground? I'm sure there are a number of people on the forum here who are in the same boat in Woburn. I want to get my restrictions removed an would be willing to put in some effort to get it done.

 

[42!]

Regardless of what town or the specific extra rules being targeted, I still think running an add to find the right applicant is a good idea. They're going to know anyway and it gives them the chance to make a change that can only prove their guilt.

The public emphasis is municipal employees making their own laws. Libs don't like this, selectmen don't like this, mayors don't like this, and residents don't like this. Pick a primarily blue collar town and even more residents will be on you side.

You'll need strategy and tactics to win. Waiting for a case to come to you means you're already on the defense and they've chosen the field. My way you choose the ground, set up the environment and they are forced to play in your sandbox.

It's not idle talk for me. I'm not going the route discussed above but I am laying the groundwork to show clearly and with no ability to question how towns apply their own "law" to licensing. This will be a year long research project that I'm paying for myself, so don't expect to hear anything until I'm ready.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Hoover]

I don't think newspaper ads would be a good use of money or very effective but flyers at local ranges and gun shops whould be an idea.

 

[TinRobotBoy]

Same here.

This is me too...

 

[42!]

I don't think newspaper ads would be a good use of money or very effective but flyers at local ranges and gun shops whould be an idea.

The idea is to reach outside the community. A half or full page add in the globe, plus the free publicity when the TV news picks it up will reach a lot I people.

If all you wanted was the existing community, posting here would be enough.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[economist]

Mass gun owners are very fortunate to have Comm2A not only addressing these issues, but also doing it intelligently. Anyone can file a lawsuit and act indignant. It's a completely different thing to play this game well. I hope everyone here is supporting Comm2A as best they can.