Fairhaven, applied for LTC given FID

Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
892
Likes
458
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
Kid I work with applied when he turned 21. Took the class filled out all the paperwork applying for his LTC. Gets a text from the pd that it’s ready. He picked it up only to realize that they gave him an FID. When he questioned them their response was, oh sorry it must have been entered wrong. You’ll have to pay another $100. and reapply.
Anybody else have this experience there?
 
Thats an absolute dick move by the PD. I hope he kept a copy of his application with the correct box checked. Its not on him to reapply, its on the PD to correct THEIR MISTAKE.

I'd demand a meeting with the chief.
I basically agree with you, but I'd do the following things first:
- I'd make sure that I had a copy of the application form that I presented to the PD,
- I'd check to see what the MIRCS form he signed stated on it (they should be the same),
- I'd call FRB and discuss what he did and what happened to them and ask them HOW this can be corrected . . . what steps the PD has to take to do this.
- THEN I'd request a meeting with the chief, present all the docs (copies only) plus info that FRB told him to correct it and ask the chief to correct the mistake accordingly.

If he never gave a filled out app to the PD (some PDs say not needed, just come in and we'll fat-finger our way thru it online only - BAD thing to do) and the MIRCS form he signed states FID (very likely the case), he'll have a very tough time getting this corrected without coughing up another $100.00.

Now perhaps some here will see the merits in printing out an application form, keeping a copy of what you submitted and presenting a copy to the PD, CHECK that everything is correct (the same as you printed out) on the form the PD typed into the computer BEFORE signing it (easy to correct errors at that point) and keeping copies of everything!

NOTE: PDs are notoriously lazy so if you ask them to find out how to fix it, they most often WILL NOT do so and just tell you to re-apply (another $100.00), that's why you have to do the legwork for them. I once had an error on my LTC and called FRB prior to discussing it with the chief . . . he didn't want to bother fixing it and I had to force him to do so . . . he called me an a**h*** and I just smiled but he did get it fixed.

Good luck.
 
(some PDs say not needed, just come in and we'll fat-finger our way thru it online only - BAD thing to do)

What about departments that absolutely refused to accept an already filled out application? I am thinking specifically of Lowell. The LO there will not accept an already filled out application, saying it is policy to input the data himself.
 
What about departments that absolutely refused to accept an already filled out application? I am thinking specifically of Lowell. The LO there will not accept an already filled out application, saying it is policy to input the data himself.

Then why is there a standardized statewide application at all? Its just so much bullshit that the PDs pull......anything to throw a stumbling block or monkey wrench into the process.......kinda like the Kavanaugh issue. Fvck'em all.
 
Then why is there a standardized statewide application at all? Its just so much bullshit that the PDs pull......anything to throw a stumbling block or monkey wrench into the process.......kinda like the Kavanaugh issue. Fvck'em all.
SOME PDs will do that. No app., no questions, just take the pic and ask if I need anything else and issue only with no res. in the great town I've lived in for the last 50 yrs. Just lucky, I guess. Jack.
 
What about departments that absolutely refused to accept an already filled out application? I am thinking specifically of Lowell. The LO there will not accept an already filled out application, saying it is policy to input the data himself.

Fine. Then I sit there with the paper in my hand and as he asks questions, I refer to the paper before answering (things like non-MA licenses, where did I live prior x yrs, if one ever was in court-if appropriate, etc.) and then I compare my written info with his printed info BEFORE I sign it (pains and penalties of perjury . . . YOU are responsible for any of THEIR ERRORS!).
 
Yup.

Always read before you sign. No matter who enters the info, you own it once you sign it.

Of course, if it says LTC above the OP’s signature, all bets are off.
 
Fine. Then I sit there with the paper in my hand and as he asks questions, I refer to the paper before answering (things like non-MA licenses, where did I live prior x yrs, if one ever was in court-if appropriate, etc.) and then I compare my written info with his printed info BEFORE I sign it (pains and penalties of perjury . . . YOU are responsible for any of THEIR ERRORS!).

(As a serious question) Do they allow resident license applicants to see what is being imputed into the computer?

Being a non-resident, my initial and renewals were submitted on a hardcopy application. On occasions when I had to appear in person at FRB (my initial license and renewals before the new 6-year interval started), the individual processing the application reviewed the application and re-asked certain questions as they imputed information. It's been a while since I've had to appear in person, but I vaguely recall signing an electronic signature pad during the in person process. As a non-resident we do not get anything from the computer- though FRB does maintain a file with the submitted applications in it. (I keep PDF scans of the hardcopy applications that I submit).
 
I talked with the kid today and he says he did request LTC on the paper application and they did not enter it into the system while he was there.
He thinks this happened because had applied the week or two before turning 21. He spoke with the LO about it before hand who said it wouldn’t get done until after until after he turned 21 anyway. He suspects when the entered the info into the computer that’s when it happened as it must have been done before his birthday.
 
I talked with the kid today and he says he did request LTC on the paper application and they did not enter it into the system while he was there.
He thinks this happened because had applied the week or two before turning 21. He spoke with the LO about it before hand who said it wouldn’t get done until after until after he turned 21 anyway. He suspects when the entered the info into the computer that’s when it happened as it must have been done before his birthday.

Why, would someone do that? With all the usual bs already built in, why would someone deliberately shoot themself in the foot (figuratively) like that?
 
I live in Fairhaven, MA and I can say - Officer Phill - who does the firearm licensing - is a stand up guy. Ask to talk to him and I bet he helps you out. Don't just go assuming the worst. We're all human. Additionally we don't even know if the mistake was on the P.D.and after reading about how he applied prior to 21 - it doesn't seem it was.

I say pay the 100 and reapply. Consider it a lesson learned to do it the right way next time.

Additionally - Fairhaven is not like Lowell or whatever. They require you to bring in the completed application. They don't do it for you. So he should have a copy, provided he took one. But like I said, they;re reasonable people here.... I've never had any problems and they turn the application around very quickly... Typically less than 30 days start to LTC in hand. They're one of the few Depts that try to do it right.

For all the BS the state makes us go through - I don't have any complaints about how it's handled here... I think they (meaning Phill) does a good job.
 
I say pay the 100 and reapply. Consider it a lesson learned to do it the right way next time.

Lol so he should pay money again needlessly because the PD (or EOPS? not sure whose fault it is in this case) sucked? f*** that noise. He did not request an FID, one should not have been applied for him "automatically cuz he wasn't 21". The guy picked the correct box on the form. The correct response from the PD or EOPS should have been "We can't process this as an LTC app until you turn 21" or " come back in a couple of weeks" (or whatever it was) if that was actually going to be a real problem WRT processing the app.

-Mike
 
I talked with the kid today and he says he did request LTC on the paper application and they did not enter it into the system while he was there.
He thinks this happened because had applied the week or two before turning 21. He spoke with the LO about it before hand who said it wouldn’t get done until after until after he turned 21 anyway. He suspects when the entered the info into the computer that’s when it happened as it must have been done before his birthday.


Ugh...

It's bizarre that you can apply for an FID when you're 14 (with parental permission) but they can't give it to you until you're 15; but you are allowed to apply.

So, you get your FID at 15. Then six years later it expires, on your 21st birthday. But you can't actually apply for an LTC until you turn 21. That forces you to either re-apply for an FID, or have an unlicensed gap between the FID and LTC.

Why you're not allowed to apply for an LTC before your 21st birthday, just like you can apply for an FID before your 15th, is beyond me.
 
Lol so he should pay money again needlessly because the PD (or EOPS? not sure whose fault it is in this case) sucked? f*** that noise. He did not request an FID, one should not have been applied for him "automatically cuz he wasn't 21". The guy picked the correct box on the form. The correct response from the PD or EOPS should have been "We can't process this as an LTC app until you turn 21" or " come back in a couple of weeks" (or whatever it was) if that was actually going to be a real problem WRT processing the app.

-Mike

No inside info but I'm willing to bet that his app was input prior to his 21st birthday and that MIRCS either changed it to FID or refused to accept it with LTC checked off, so LO changed it to FID. He should never have applied prior to his 21st birthday, as that was almost positively the cause of this problem.
 
No inside info but I'm willing to bet that his app was input prior to his 21st birthday and that MIRCS either changed it to FID or refused to accept it with LTC checked off, so LO changed it to FID. He should never have applied prior to his 21st birthday, as that was almost positively the cause of this problem.

The LO should have said "this isn't going to get you what you want, come back in X weeks"...
 
Ugh...

It's bizarre that you can apply for an FID when you're 14 (with parental permission) but they can't give it to you until you're 15; but you are allowed to apply.

So, you get your FID at 15. Then six years later it expires, on your 21st birthday. But you can't actually apply for an LTC until you turn 21. That forces you to either re-apply for an FID, or have an unlicensed gap between the FID and LTC.

Why you're not allowed to apply for an LTC before your 21st birthday, just like you can apply for an FID before your 15th, is beyond me.

In the old days they used to just be able to set the issue date to anything they wanted, which resolved this issue, but my guess is MIRCS is retarded and "fixes" that automatically....
 
Lol so he should pay money again needlessly because the PD (or EOPS? not sure whose fault it is in this case) sucked? f*** that noise. He did not request an FID, one should not have been applied for him "automatically cuz he wasn't 21". The guy picked the correct box on the form. The correct response from the PD or EOPS should have been "We can't process this as an LTC app until you turn 21" or " come back in a couple of weeks" (or whatever it was) if that was actually going to be a real problem WRT processing the app.

-Mike


Well since he applied before age eligibility (not 21 years old) they could have just denied him.... if you think that a better outcome... Then he would have spent the rest of his life having to explain that denial on every subsequent application for renewal... I'm sure that would have helped his chances in some marginal towns like New Bedford... Hope he never moves.

The PD isn't at fault. The applicant is. He's lucky he got an FID as opposed to the denial... It says on the damn application you have to be 21. He wasn't. That's no one's fault but his own.
 
The LO should have said "this isn't going to get you what you want, come back in X weeks"...

It's not the LEO's job to do the applicant's record keeping, make sure they're in compliance with the law, or to make sure the applicant is eligible. That's on the applicant.

Sounds like they could have straight up denied him, which means he would be shelling out another 100 post 21 b-day anyway..... and having to explain for the rest of his life why he was denied a prior application for an LTC on the form...

They did him a favor.
 
It's not the LEO's job to do the applicant's record keeping, make sure they're in compliance with the law, or to make sure the applicant is eligible. That's on the applicant.

Lol but it's ok for the LO to flick the wrong box because they were too lazy/dumb to stop the process? The dude didn't apply for an FID, not sure how complicated that is to understand....

Also returning the app doesn't have to consist of a "formal" denial, btw.

-Mike
 
I still think he did him a favor. LOL all you want about it, but once received an application must be processed... That is the law, right? We certainly bitch about it enough here when PD's don't live up to that.

So your solution is to now give the PD's discretion on when and what applications they process... I'm sure that will end well.
 
He wouldn't win even if he did fight it. Because under the law - he was ineligible at the time of application. Of this there is no doubt or lack of clarity. Consequently his only recourse it to reapply.

Next time he should read the paperwork he's putting his John Hancock on... especially the part that says "yes I am at least 21" which he technically lied about.... grounds for disqualification and probably a lifetime suitability ban if they wanted to be hard asses about it..

Like I said, consider it a favor and just reapply and effing read the damn paperwork next time.
 
I still think he did him a favor. LOL all you want about it, but once received an application must be processed... That is the law, right? We certainly bitch about it enough here when PD's don't live up to that.

So you would be cool for paying the town for a building permit for a doghouse but not for the garage plan you actually asked for? Because that's exactly what happened here.

It's called "not being a dick". Better LOs wouldn't have done this. If it was EOPS fault that's a whole other story.
 
So you would be cool for paying the town for a building permit for a doghouse but not for the garage plan you actually asked for? Because that's exactly what happened here.

It's called "not being a dick". Better LOs wouldn't have done this. If it was EOPS fault that's a whole other story.

No it's not. There are no age restrictions on building a garage. And it's not being a dick, it's doing the job in the manner prescribed by law... You know - the same law that people bitch about like holly hell when their renewal hits the 46th day.... Well that flows both ways brother... You can't eff up your application process and expect the PD to carry water for you.
 
No it's not. There are no age restrictions on building a garage. And it's not being a dick, it's doing the job in the manner prescribed by law... You know - the same law that people bitch about like holly hell when their renewal hits the 46th day.... Well that flows both ways brother... You can't eff up your application process and expect the PD to carry water for you.

Lol so you're still going to validate the LO sucking at his job? You have fun with that.
 
He doesn't suck at his job, he actually does a pretty darn good job. He just sucks at pleasing you via breaking the law on an applicant's bahalf, which frankly I'm sure he doesn't give 2 shits about.

He gave the applicant a license he didn't apply for and committed fraud while submitting it. That's not "obeying the law" either, lol

-Mike
 
Fraud.... That's what you're going with now.... That's rich...

Please cite the law that says providing a license that is what - and only what - the applicant is eligible for constitutes fraud.

Bottom line is that PD's are allowed to issue lesser licenses than what is applied for. That's how people who apply for all lawful get hunting/target restrictions. Happens all the time and it's lawful. Not agreeable - but that's besides the point. In this case the law only allowed one of two outcomes. An FID, or a denial. The applicant received the better option. Be grateful, realize that not everything that's bad in your life is someone else's fault, learn from it and move the f*** on snowflake...

What ever happened to people manning up to their mistakes and owning them?
 
Back
Top Bottom