Concealed carry with Target and Sports restriction OK'd by Hull PD; what gives?

[PATRON]

This crap again.... Its a citation. Name me ONE instance of someone being hit with a restriction violation and it sticking. I don't know of any....

Restrictions are vague, not defined in the MGL and frankly no one except all the worry warts here care about them. Carry on.

Well,your just the person we need.There is nothing about open carry,so why don't you go to work with your gun out on your side.Let us know what happens,and remember don't worry.

 

[Paul455]

I want the RMV to apply the same guidelines for giving out driver's licenses.

They can deny you for reasons that are only known to them.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I want the RMV to apply the same guidelines for giving out driver's licenses.

They can deny you for reasons that are only known to them.

Or suspending a license after a OUI trial resulting in "not guilty" if, despite the verdict, evidence of guilt still exists.

 

[knoxy]

On Wednesday, I wrote a column supporting what I believe to be Worcester Police Chief Gary Gemme's judicious approach to handing out gun licenses.

You are part of the problem.

 

[drgrant]

The fact that people don't tend to violate the restrictions is a tribute to the law abiding nature of persons who go through the licensing process.

I disagree Rob, I think many people violate the restrictions all the time, they just never get "caught" actually doing it. The odds of having a LEO looking at your LTC "on the side of the road" are not very high, unless the person carrying is an idiot or they get involved in some really weird, extenuating circumstances. In over 10 years of carrying, and driving 25,000+ miles a year, one major accident, several traffic stops and speeding tickets, I've never once been asked to present my LTC or has "the gun issue" ever come up in my interactions with LE, outside of LEOs I know personally. I'm Unrestricted so it wouldn't matter to me, but it's trivially easy to see why there aren't a lot of people busted for violating restrictions- because the "perfect storm" of factors coming together to make it an issue are difficult to come by on the ground. Not to mention, I would hazard a guess that any LEO who isn't a total dick probably doesn't care at all about restrictions, unless you were doing something stupid with a firearm at the time you were "pinged".


-Mike

 

[RG617]

On Wednesday, I wrote a column supporting what I believe to be Worcester Police Chief Gary Gemme's judicious approach to handing out gun licenses. A number of readers thought I missed the mark, suggesting that the chief's policy was overly restrictive.

Some noted, for example, that while the state says a felony conviction or misdemeanor conviction punishable by more than two years in prison disqualifies a person from getting a license to carry, the Worcester policy can potentially disqualify a person just on the basis of a felony or misdemeanor arrest.

Readers also noted that in Worcester a person can be denied an LTC if arrested for a domestic issue, or a DUI and affiliation with a person or group with a known criminal issue.

I still stand by my opinion of the chief's policy, but I thought it would be worthwhile to have him speak a little deeper about who qualifies as a “suitable person,” to carry and used a firearm.

Here are some excerpts from my conversations with the chief:

Q: It might be instructive if you were able to share your philosophical approach to issuing LTCs in Worcester, the reasons why you would restrict one person's use while providing unrestrictive use to another.

A: I believe we need to do everything we legally can do to limit the number of guns that are available in the community. This is a public safety imperative that drives our three-pronged strategy (gun buyback program, focusing resources on well known, violent offenders and their associates, and the city's LTC policy).

By identifying unsuitable individuals we keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them and by placing reasonable restrictions on an LTC we limit the times and places those gun can be legally carried.

Q: One reader ... suggested that in Worcester the unrestrictive (LTC) category is further marginalized with such designations as “self protection” only.

A: A LTC for personal protection does not have restrictions. A restriction on LTC would be sporting, target, employment, etc.

A person with an LTC for personal protection could use the firearm for sporting, target shooting, employment, and carry it on their person twenty-four seven. A person with a restriction would be limited to specific designations. For example, a LTC for sporting or target shooting would prohibit that individual from having their weapon on their person at 2 a.m. when they are drinking in a bar.

Q: Is it possible for an applicant to have committed one or more of these (local) disqualifying actions and still receive an LTC?

A: When I review an application for an LTC, I examine all the available reports, affidavits, statements, pictures and documents that are available. Every applicant has a unique history and each case is decided on the facts and circumstances that are available.

Without being too specific, a report of a fistfight 10 years ago between friends that was dismissed in court is different from a 10-year-old domestic assault where the investigating officer documented severe head injuries to the victim and medical treatment was provided, but the case was dismissed.

Q: It would seem that ... not all misdemeanor arrests ... are weighted the same in your judgment.

A: You are correct in that not all incidents can be viewed in the same light. Their are facts that are specific to each case that when you look at the totality of the information a decision is made as to suitability.

Q: Given that the possession of a small amount of marijuana in Massachusetts has been decriminalized, could a person who is fined for (possessing) an ounce or less of marijuana be disqualified for an LTC in Worcester.

A: A person that was arrested for a small amount of marijuana would not be summarily disqualified from obtaining an LTC.

Q: As you know, kids can't choose their siblings and parents can't always prevent their children from acting stupidly or criminally. As such, could an LTC be denied to a person who grew up in a home with a sibling who is a felon, or to a parent who has a child with a criminal history?

A: Same as with marijuana, a person with a clean record would not be disqualified because of their relationship with a person with a criminal re

You are part of the problem.

Home run, knoxy.
Seriously, rchap?! That clown Gemme actually had the balls to slip in how a T&H would prevent an LTC holder from carrying while "at 2 a.m. when they are drinking in a bar" as if that's what those with an ALP do on a regular basis and you didn't call him out on that?! He gets to paint us in a subtle yet negative light when you should have been pointing out that carrying while drunk is illegal and asking if that's what he thinks about law abiding, licensed gun owners. You aren't just part of the problem, you're at the root of it. You're the compliant guy who is willing to give up his rights in the name of someone else's definition of safety and you don't ask the pertinent questions when you have the opportunity. That's so ****ing sad. If that's your idea of fair journalism and "helping" to keep our rights safe, do us a favor and write about sports.

 

[robmcd]

The FRB still defines the various restrictions on page 2 of the Non-Resident Application download.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The FRB still defines the various restrictions on page 2 of the Non-Resident Application download.

True but their definitions are only valid for NR LTCs. They do not hold for the 351 cities/towns that issue LTCs and many have their own unique definition.

 

[Nick Fury]

On Wednesday, I wrote a column supporting what I believe to be Worcester Police Chief Gary Gemme's judicious approach to handing out gun licenses. A number of readers thought I missed the mark, suggesting that the chief's policy was overly restrictive.

Here are some excerpts from my conversations with the chief:

Q: It might be instructive if you were able to share your philosophical approach to issuing LTCs in Worcester, the reasons why you would restrict one person's use while providing unrestrictive use to another.

A: I believe we need to do everything we legally can do to limit the number of guns that are available in the community. This is a public safety imperative that drives our three-pronged strategy (gun buyback program, focusing resources on well known, violent offenders and their associates, and the city's LTC policy).

About as honest as an anti will get in a public setting.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I disagree Rob, I think many people violate the restrictions all the time

You may be right, however, those people I know who are among the 8% of MA LTC holders who got the booby prize do indeed follow the restrictions. I see them coming to the range unarmed, and removing their gun from a case a the firing line.

I still stand by my opinion of the chief's policy

For me, the logic is simple:

1. Handgun ownership is a right (Heller, McDonald, et. al.)

2. Rights may be removed by judicial process, but not by extra-judicial process like declaring someone "unsuitable" for the right, despite the absence of a guilty verdict or active charges

3. It is not logically consistent to call it a "right" and say you may exercise that "right" only at the pleasure of the police - any more than would be to call free speech a "right" but require police permission to write a letter to the editor.

Either it is a constitutional right or it is not. You are arguing that it is not.

 

[Mike-Mike]

Let me play along.

For me, the logic is simple:

1. Handgun ownership is a right (Heller, McDonald, et. al.) Ownership is the key word as none of these "Restrictions" prevent ownership. It's the process of licensing itself that is more offensive than the arbitrary restrictions as they are required for ownership (forget the LTP).

2. Rights may be removed by judicial process, but not by extra-judicial process like declaring someone "unsuitable" for the right, despite the absence of a guilty verdict or active charges This is a good argument

3. It is not logically consistent to call it a "right" and say you may exercise that "right" only at the pleasure of the police - any more than would be to call free speech a "right" but require police permission to write a letter to the editor. Again, the only way to deal with this problem is to eliminate licensing.

Either it is a constitutional right or it is not. You are arguing that it is not.

ETA: Voting is a right. Do you believe that requiring you "register" to vote is a violation of your rights? Or because it is "Shall issue" and just paperwork without a fee it would be reasonable restriction?

 

[browncoat]

Let me play along.




ETA: Voting is a right. Do you believe that requiring you "register" to vote is a violation of your rights? Or because it is "Shall issue" and just paperwork without a fee it would be reasonable restriction?

I'm probably on the lunatic libertarian fringe on this one, but I say yes, voter registration is a violation of my rights. So is making me get a CCW license or a permission slip to get a sbr or machine gun.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

 

[Mike-Mike]

I'm probably on the lunatic libertarian fringe on this one, but I say yes, voter registration is a violation of my rights. So is making me get a CCW license or a permission slip to get a sbr or machine gun.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

I am with you. However, I also ok with Voter ID laws if the ID is free. I also would also be ok with "multiple voting" and "non citizen voting" being equal with treason and punishable by death.