ALP for Doctors and Lawyers in Boston

[bondarev]

Hi all,

Brand new to the forum (and shooting). Hope I don't duplicate material covered elsewhere.

I recently took the NRA Basic Pistol course and was surprised to learn that in Boston (where I live) the PD issues ALP only to "lawyers and doctors" and the politically connected. And I remembered that I had read on this forum that one or two of the lawyers posting here had received ALP out of "professional courtesy" from their respective PDs. (Not sure if they were in Boston or not.)

I know, of course, that Boston is a notoriously difficult place to get one's LTC, but I didn't think that they made exceptions for doctors and lawyers. Is this in fact true?

Does Boston routinely issue ALP to physicians/lawyers?

Presumably if there is such a policy in place it would be based on a tacit directive, so as not to show any signs of prejudice for or against any particular profession. But I would really be interested to know if there is such a policy. Any ideas?

 

[Mass-diver]

Hi all,

Brand new to the forum (and shooting). Hope I don't duplicate material covered elsewhere.

I recently took the NRA Basic Pistol course and was surprised to learn that in Boston (where I live) the PD issues ALP only to "lawyers and doctors" and the politically connected. And I remembered that I had read on this forum that one or two of the lawyers posting here had received ALP out of "professional courtesy" from their respective PDs. (Not sure if they were in Boston or not.)

I know, of course, that Boston is a notoriously difficult place to get one's LTC, but I didn't think that they made exceptions for doctors and lawyers. Is this in fact true?

Does Boston routinely issue ALP to physicians/lawyers?

Presumably if there is such a policy in place it would be based on a tacit directive, so as not to show any signs of prejudice for or against any particular profession. But I would really be interested to know if there is such a policy. Any ideas?

I know 2 MDs that have carry permits in Boston. I don't know anyone else that has one. Just as it's an "unoffical" policy not to give any regualar person a carry permit in the city, it's most likely "unoffical" policy to give a permit to anyone who has some clout. Both the MDs I know are hot-shot surgeons, I don't think just an intern or resident with an MD after their name would get one, the same I would assume goes for laywers, if you are big time, it won't be a problem.

 

[squarooticus]

I know, of course, that Boston is a notoriously difficult place to get one's LTC, but I didn't think that they made exceptions for doctors and lawyers. Is this in fact true?

Does Boston routinely issue ALP to physicians/lawyers?

Presumably if there is such a policy in place it would be based on a tacit directive, so as not to show any signs of prejudice for or against any particular profession. But I would really be interested to know if there is such a policy. Any ideas?

Welcome to the land of "may-issue".

Kyle

 

[Fooped]

Not for nothing, but how in ANY WAY is this rational? Not that I'm looking for rationality and logic in Boston's gun laws/issuing practices, but give me a break...

 

[Jose]

All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.

- George Orwell

 

[Scrivener]

Not for nothing, but how in ANY WAY is this rational? Not that I'm looking for rationality and logic in Boston's gun laws/issuing practices, but give me a break...

Easy. Doctors have access to drugs, making them targets for junkies. Then there are the anti-abortion fanatics.

Lawyers deal with divorce, custody and support issues, plus the exciting clientele that comes with a criminal practice.

In short, each has a clear and recognized need.

 

[JRyan]

Easy. Doctors have access to drugs, making them targets for junkies. Then there are the anti-abortion fanatics.

Lawyers deal with divorce, custody and support issues, plus the exciting clientele that comes with a criminal practice.

In short, each has a clear and recognized need.

I guess the question then is - what does the bpd for others who claim to have a need? I have a real hard time believing that a woman who claims to have an evil ex boyfriend would get the same courtesy from them.

Also - none of the doctors I know, granted it's only four, carry drugs around with them.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I guess the question then is - what does the bpd for others who claim to have a need? I have a real hard time believing that a woman who claims to have an evil ex boyfriend would get the same courtesy from them.

Also - none of the doctors I know, granted it's only four, carry drugs around with them.

Women who are threatened certainly would NOT be issued a LTC-A/ALP in Boston (also true in many other towns)! There is deeply rooted sexism in PDs, regrettably. They give out whistles and advice to yell "fire" while being raped . . . I wish I was joking, but I'm not.

A doctor with a gun to his head might just write a Rx for drugs for the druggie?

Everyone needs to understand that the way the "real world works" is that those in the upper classes, those with "privilege", those with "friends in high places", etc. DO get better treatment than those "without". It doesn't just happen in Boston or MA, but is true anywhere in the world.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Easy. Doctors have access to drugs, making them targets for junkies. Then there are the anti-abortion fanatics.

Doctors have access to drugs on the job, so the "need" might me for a doctor to carry at work (other than, of course, the need that members of the general public are subjected to). Narcs are strictly accounted for in hospitals, constantly re-inventoried, and even the disposal of the unused narcotic in a patient controlled analgesia pump (which is not only locked, but the unit itself is locked to the pole) must be done in the presence of two witnesses (typically RNs).

In all but emergency situations, the MD will be issuing orders to a nurse to administer the drugs (at least in a hospital setting), and we don't see nurses being given the "special treatment" for licensing.

Add in the fact that even high profile doctors will be prohibited by hospital policy from carrying and the reason is even sillier (just try getting a "work related license" in Boston if your employer's position is "no guns on the premises")

To suggest that MD's "access to drugs" means that they are subject to being assaulted in public because they "might be carrying narcotics" is a diversion from the real reason - privileged member of society.

The real reason appears to be "keep the numbers down, but it's OK to give a few special people unrestricted licenses."

 

[Fooped]

The real reason appears to be "keep the numbers down, but it's OK to give a few special people unrestricted licenses."

This was more what I was alluding to.


Arrrrggghhhhhhhh.

 

[Garys]

Also - none of the doctors I know, granted it's only four, carry drugs around with them.

I know way more than four, but none of them carry drugs with them. Specifically they don't carry narcotics or other drugs that recreational users might be interested in. The storage requirements for narcotics in particular are pretty strict. Strict enough that doctors would not be likely to walk around with them. Not many doctors make house calls, so most of them don't carry much with them when they leave the office.

Actually, by this logic, paramedics, who do carry drugs should be issued permits and allowed to carry while on duty.

Gary

 

[Scrivener]

Doctors have access to drugs on the job, so the "need" might me for a doctor to carry at work (other than, of course, the need that members of the general public are subjected to). Narcs are strictly accounted for in hospitals, constantly re-inventoried, and even the disposal of the unused narcotic in a patient controlled analgesia pump (which is not only locked, but the unit itself is locked to the pole) must be done in the presence of two witnesses (typically RNs).

Irrelevant. Nurse's can't write prescriptions; doctors can.

Add in the fact that even high profile doctors will be prohibited by hospital policy from carrying and the reason is even sillier (just try getting a "work related license" in Boston if your employer's position is "no guns on the premises")

Assuming the policy is even enforced - which is doubtful - doctors actually have lives outside the hospital. Moreover, what this poster fails to take into account is the number of physicians who don't work for hospitals. They run their own practices in their own communities.

Some even have lives and leave said hospitals and practices once in a while.

The real reason appears to be "keep the numbers down, but it's OK to give a few special people unrestricted licenses."

Which is a practice hardly limited to attorneys and physicians, or even firearms licensing.

 

[Garys]

Add in the fact that even high profile doctors will be prohibited by hospital policy from carrying and the reason is even sillier (just try getting a "work related license" in Boston if your employer's position is "no guns on the premises")

I don't know of a hospital in this state that allows firearms on the premises, especially by employees. I know for a fact that several in Boston have an immediate dismissal policy for any employee found carrying.

The rest of your point is also correct. Doctors do not keep narcotics in their offices as a rule. The licensing and storage requirements are very strict. As you probably know any facility that stores narcotics must be licensed by both the federal government (FDA) and state government.

It's ironic that most of the MDs I know are anti gun, at least for you and me. I know one guy who is very much anti gun but in fact has a permit from Brookline.

Gary

 

[matt1956]

Easy. Doctors have access to drugs, making them targets for junkies. Then there are the anti-abortion fanatics.

Lawyers deal with divorce, custody and support issues, plus the exciting clientele that comes with a criminal practice.

In short, each has a clear and recognized need.

Yes, and the little old lady that walks her dog, the 22 year old college student, the pizza delivery guy, the average Joe and you and I are all expendable in the eyes of the asshats in Boston. It's your own fault if you get mugged, raped and murdered after all, you should have know better then stepping out your front door in the first place

(not picking on scirvy, I just know he is informing us of the morons logic on becon hill)

 

[squarooticus]

I will, of course, use this opportunity to point out that this is exactly what you get when you allow someone to decide who gets to exercise a right: it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege instead, doled out as a reward for being a member of the elite (politically well-connected, rich, famous, etc.).

 

[n1zfg]

As for the attorneys getting ALPs,

It costs us thousands of dollars to sue the city. For lawyers,
it only costs them hours of spare time, either swapped with
a buddy (think subcontracting) or prosecute it on their own
outright, paying only the nominal filing fee. Both parties also
know that the laws have some vulnerability in the courts. It
is just waiting for some squeaky clean person (read "white man")
to get denied. See what happened to DC's ban. They screwed
someone that they couldn't twist the facts, smear, or otherwise
look dirty.

John.

 

[SiameseRat]

Pregnancy hormones make it difficult to express myself on this subject without using massive amounts of profanities.

If there's ever a person who NEEDS a firearm for self defense it's the god damned pregnant women. We can't move as fast because we've got bowling balls in our bellies. Our centers of gravity are way off so we're easy targets. F*ck the doctors and lawyers. As soon as you can bring in a positive home pregnancy test they should give you a gold plated, limited edition, "thanks for allowing humanity to continue" LTC, AND a sweet carry gun. A**holes.

 

[Scrivener]

Pregnancy hormones make it difficult to express myself on this subject without using massive amounts of profanities.

Precisely proving the PD's point: you women are too emotionally unstable to carry anything more dangerous than a whistle!

While pregnant women do make marvelous victims for the reasons noted, they are probably a tad lower on the list of likely targets for anything above a purse-snatching, unless they are visibly wealthy.

Note that this does NOT include domestic violence, in which case pregnancy is probably a multiplier.

 

[News Shooter]

I've told this story before

So forgive me for being repetitive, but back around 2000 I was living in the North End and there was a rapist running around. BPD graciously allowed women to sign up for pepper spray with some kind of expedited license. The only problem was that they turned down anyone with outstanding parking and other tickets.
(Who lives in downtown Boston and doesn't have outstanding tickets?)

 

[JRyan]

I understand Len, I just like to point out the bullshit.

Squarooticus is exactly right here.

Pisses me off.

 

[Mass-diver]

Irrelevant. Nurse's can't write prescriptions; doctors can..

Actually, if you think about it, the ability to write for 'scripts really does not make one a serious target for people looking for drugs. You can not force a doc to write for several hundred oxycontins (for example) as an attempt by anyone (even the MD him or herself) to pick up any large ammount of narcs (even with multiple scripts at different pharmacy) simply will not work these days. Everything has a DEA # and is closely watched. Even small amounts of narcs will be double checked with a phone call to the MD. This is why you don't hear about MDs being robbed, it's simply not a practical way to get access to anything by a very small ammount of drugs.

Unlike MDs, nurses, pharmacists, and pharm tech do have real access to HUGE ammount of narcs (and needles).

And, again, I can promise you that most of the MDs in the city (interns, residents, and fellows) cannot get a carry permit, just as the average laywer can't either, it's for the bigshots with clout.

 

[Dirtypacman]

Easy. Doctors have access to drugs, making them targets for junkies. Then there are the anti-abortion fanatics.

Lawyers deal with divorce, custody and support issues, plus the exciting clientele that comes with a criminal practice.

In short, each has a clear and recognized need.

I think this plays right into the issuing authority problem. They have no more "Need" then everyone else that is fit to carry and should not be denied.

 

[Garys]

I will, of course, use this opportunity to point out that this is exactly what you get when you allow someone to decide who gets to exercise a right: it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege instead, doled out as a reward for being a member of the elite (politically well-connected, rich, famous, etc.).

For the record, and someone note the date and time, I agree with squarooticus on this one. I've become much more "radical" in my thinking on this subject. Especially when I see what residents of other states don't have to go through and can buy and carry.

Mass-diver has it completely right about writing scripts for narcotics. Most scripts can be called in to the pharmacy, but any narcotic pain killer scripts have to be brought in by the patient. A family member might be OK, but I don't know if that's a hard and fast rule.

Gary

 

[SiameseRat]

Precisely proving the PD's point: you women are too emotionally unstable to carry anything more dangerous than a whistle!

While pregnant women do make marvelous victims for the reasons noted, they are probably a tad lower on the list of likely targets for anything above a purse-snatching, unless they are visibly wealthy.

Note that this does NOT include domestic violence, in which case pregnancy is probably a multiplier.

dingdingdingding. But whatever. I could kick Chuck Norris' ass if I had to. It would just take a lot less energy to pull a trigger.

And if I told you how I really feel, I'm sure I'd get banned, so I won't bother.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I know for a fact that several in Boston have an immediate dismissal policy for any employee found carrying.

Many doctors aren't hospital employees, but have admitting privileges and/or operating privileges. An MD who get caught violating a hospital policy risks having "hospital discipline" such as suspension of either/both of these privileges. All such "hospital discipline" gets reported to the medical board and is available on www.docboard.org for 10 years (probably longer if you have "medical institution" level access to their database).

 

[Riverside]

As of March 2006, Boston has been issuing Class A licenses with the following restrictions: Sport & Target-NO CONCEALED CARRY. In other words, the license is good for nothing. One has to experience the application process to get a full understanding as to how many hurdles there are to jump. The "interview" starts in the main foyer with dozens of people within ear shot as the officer bellows, "You want to apply for a license to carry a firearm?" The applicant must state right there in the lobby why she or he is applying. On the application form, a spot one and a half inches wide is allowed for the applicant to specify the reason for the request. Of course it doesn't matter what you declare. Unless you have someone advocating for you, you will not receive an ALP. Most MD's no longer use RX scripts. Most RX's are generated via the computer from the MD's office and go via the internet or a fax to the Pharmacy. And contrary to what some have stated, it is common practice for Nurse Practitioner's and Physician Assistants to write out the Rx's. Both men and women can be MD's, Nurses and Physician's Assistants. Do Parole Officer's generally carry? What about DSS case representatives? There's a profession that should be allowed to carry! As a resident of Boston, I am being discriminated against. I cannot enjoy the same civil rights granted to those living in the surrounding towns.
I can carry my firearm inside my home; I cannot legally step out my door with a concealed weapon. When going to the range, my firearm IS CONCEALED in a container. That is a violation of the restriction on my license. The BPD cannot/will not disclose how many Class A licenses they have issued as ALP.
Nobody really cares about how unfair the firearms licensing process is in Boston or anywhere else. The prevailing attitude is "I got mine." Or "I'm glad I don't live there." "Why don't you move?" The firearms licensing situation in MA will not get better it will only get worse especially given the anti-gun position of the Governor and high ranking officials. And in Boston, as long as the licensing authority goes unchallenged, there's no hope for change. Do not be surprised if more cities and towns start to adopt the Boston model of licensing, urged to do so by the Mayor's Coalition and the Governor.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Warm regards.

 

[Mass-diver]

Many doctors aren't hospital employees, but have admitting privileges and/or operating privileges. An MD who get caught violating a hospital policy risks having "hospital discipline" such as suspension of either/both of these privileges. All such "hospital discipline" gets reported to the medical board and is available on www.docboard.org for 10 years (probably longer if you have "medical institution" level access to their database).

There used to be a Doc @BMC (where I work) that carried on the job (in the ED). People found out and flipped out. He is now cited as a example of "insanity" in the new hosptial orientiation where they stress that no one can carry a firearm on hosptial property period.

While I live outside Boston and have an ALP license, I sympathize with the those that live in the city, it's total BS.

 

[medic12]

Actually, by this logic, paramedics, who do carry drugs should be issued permits and allowed to carry while on duty.

Gary

I definitely agree with the logic behind your argument and I do not disagree, however, I would never carry while on duty. Even as secure as my drugs are I would not risk my life over that stuff. Besides, there is a reason the clipboard and O2 cylinder's are made out of metal.

 

[bpm990d]

He is now cited as a example of "insanity" in the new hosptial orientiation where they stress that no one can carry a firearm on hosptial property period.

If you called someone insane in the hospital, you would be disciplined; unless they are an upstanding professional that happened to be gun owner. In those circumstances it's ok.

Their logic escapes me.

B

 

[JRyan]

As of March 2006, Boston has been issuing Class A licenses with the following restrictions: Sport & Target-NO CONCEALED CARRY. In other words, the license is good for nothing. One has to experience the application process to get a full understanding as to how many hurdles there are to jump. The "interview" starts in the main foyer with dozens of people within ear shot as the officer bellows, "You want to apply for a license to carry a firearm?" The applicant must state right there in the lobby why she or he is applying. On the application form, a spot one and a half inches wide is allowed for the applicant to specify the reason for the request. Of course it doesn't matter what you declare. Unless you have someone advocating for you, you will not receive an ALP. Most MD's no longer use RX scripts. Most RX's are generated via the computer from the MD's office and go via the internet or a fax to the Pharmacy. And contrary to what some have stated, it is common practice for Nurse Practitioner's and Physician Assistants to write out the Rx's. Both men and women can be MD's, Nurses and Physician's Assistants. Do Parole Officer's generally carry? What about DSS case representatives? There's a profession that should be allowed to carry! As a resident of Boston, I am being discriminated against. I cannot enjoy the same civil rights granted to those living in the surrounding towns.
I can carry my firearm inside my home; I cannot legally step out my door with a concealed weapon. When going to the range, my firearm IS CONCEALED in a container. That is a violation of the restriction on my license. The BPD cannot/will not disclose how many Class A licenses they have issued as ALP.
Nobody really cares about how unfair the firearms licensing process is in Boston or anywhere else. The prevailing attitude is "I got mine." Or "I'm glad I don't live there." "Why don't you move?" The firearms licensing situation in MA will not get better it will only get worse especially given the anti-gun position of the Governor and high ranking officials. And in Boston, as long as the licensing authority goes unchallenged, there's no hope for change. Do not be surprised if more cities and towns start to adopt the Boston model of licensing, urged to do so by the Mayor's Coalition and the Governor.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Warm regards.

You are right. It's like a cancer, eating away at our rights.