Fairhaven, applied for LTC given FID

[drgrant]

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.

It is fraud because he (or EOPS) misrepresented what the applicant put on the paper application. It's that simple. That's what the f***ing computer
submission is. It's a computerized copy of what an applicant submitted.

Now, the other BIG possibility is this isn't the LO's fault at all and this is some EOPS administrative bullshit. Which I wouldn't be surprised at all- that their system will "frontally" accept an LTC application and then EOPS administratively changes it, and then they go "well we granted him an FID because we didn't want to issue a denial" . That's still pretty f***ed up though, because basically they just exploited someone's error so the state could keep a couple bucks in its pocket, all because some retard programmer at EOPS doesn't know how to do a simple input filter boundary check on a form submission.

Even then if we're still going to play the "but they were just obeying the lawr!" BS game then they should have just f***ing denied him, if obeying the
law was the intent, because by the letter of the law, strictly speaking, he should have just been denied.

It's also possible that EOPS changed something from before (some policy) and the LO didn't realize it.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if they f***ed this up.

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.

That's great, but an LTC and an FID are two entirely different licenses under the law. That's not at all like giving someone a restriction within a given class/type of license. Even back in the days of B-ramming, that jackassery wasn't even conducted that way, they always committed that abuse up front... so they wouldn't get called out on it.

Also giving an LTC applicant an FID is almost a worthless gesture, depending on the intent of the license.

-Mike

 

[milktree]

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....

In those old days were you allowed to apply for an LTC before you turned 21?

My "WTF were they thinking?" comes from the statutes that make it literally impossible to go from an FID you got at 15 to an LTC at 21 without a lapse or overlapping LTC and FID and doubling the costs.

 

[drgrant]

In those old days were you allowed to apply for an LTC before you turned 21?

My "WTF were they thinking?" comes from the statutes that make it literally impossible to go from an FID you got at 15 to an LTC at 21 without a lapse or overlapping LTC and FID and doubling the costs.

That's a good question, and I would bet nearly anything a lot of non-douche LOs would just set the issue date to the applicants 21st birthday and they probably got their physical (but not usable) LTC even long before they actually turned 21. My first LTC I got after 21, but it was literally in my hands almost a month before my birthday, I just couldn't use it until then. (The LO had calibrated the issue date so I wouldn't get hosed/screwed on the permit duration on the initial license).

There was at least one guy around here too where his under 21 sons somehow got LTCs before they were 21. That was bizarre, to say the least. I think he was friends with the chief and the chief just submitted them, and EOPS approved them! this was well over 10 years ago, though. And needless to say we told
him that his kids LTCs weren't really valid, at least not by the letter of the law.

There was also another person here that tried to get his restrictions stripped off, after moving into a non douche town. The non douche town thought they could renew him early. EOPS sent the PD another license... an unrestricted one... but it had an issue date like 2 years in the future!! or some BS like that. I think this
is because EOPS did not want to cede control of the LTC to the non douche town until expiration of the original douche ltc. I forget how the guy resolved it
though.

-Mike

 

[shiprec13]

He said he asked them about applying before his birthday. He was told it wouldn’t be an issue. Who the hell would ever apply for an FID 1 or 2 weeks before their 21st birthday!
He told me this am he’s just going to go and reapply. Hopefully this thread will serve as a lesson for others thinking of applying early in hopes that once they’re 21 their license will be here and they can hit the LGS to buy their first handgun

 

[42!]

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

Or they could have denied the application because he wasn't 21. It would have been totally legit for them to deny. And then he's have a denial on his record forever.

Pay the $100, get the LTC, live and learn.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The PD could have/should have held his app until his birthday.

Mike, I respectfully disagree with you . . . the PD did nothing fraudulent, they have the right to change the license. Some towns as a matter of policy issued only LTC-B before the law change in 2014 even though the applicants applied for LTC-A. That's a different license just like the FID is a different license. Don't forget the applicant signs the form and OWNS any mistakes/changes that the PD makes.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Or they could have denied the application because he wasn't 21. It would have been totally legit for them to deny. And then he's have a denial on his record forever.

Pay the $100, get the LTC, live and learn.

A denial because he was too young would never hurt him. If a real A-hole town did that I'm sure that Comm2A would be interested, and I can only think of 2 towns that might do something like that. He would need to explain it and no LO with 1/2 a brain would hold that against a person.

 

[drgrant]

The PD could have/should have held his app until his birthday.

Mike, I respectfully disagree with you . . . the PD did nothing fraudulent, they have the right to change the license. Some towns as a matter of policy issued only LTC-B before the law change in 2014 even though the applicants applied for LTC-A. That's a different license just like the FID is a different license. Don't forget the applicant signs the form and OWNS any mistakes/changes that the PD makes.

If they changed it after he signed off on it, it's still a sort of fraud or deception. And even if a PD did it back (whenever) I'd still say it was fraud, unless this change was disclosed at the time of the application. (eg like the LO saying "I'm whiting this out and checking off B, because you'll never get an A in this town".

It's also just bad form/acting in bad faith on the part of the PD. A denial sucks less than what just happend to this guy, he wasted a ton of time and $100 to get nothing.

The more I think about it though the more I think this is an EOPS f***up. They probably thought they were "doing him a favor" or something. Or they probably thought the PD made a mistake because the
applicant wasn't 21....

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

A denial because he was too young would never hurt him. If a real A-hole town did that I'm sure that Comm2A would be interested, and I can only think of 2 towns that might do something like that. He would need to explain it and no LO with 1/2 a brain would hold that against a person.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing "Administrative denial due to a paperwork error" or similar isn't going to be terrifying to any issuing authority that isn't a 110% douche/problem town anyways.

Lots of people have been denied while trying to get their RI AG permit and then succeeded later. I'm sure they're just scarred for life and lose sleep over it... not.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Remember that the paper form goes nowhere, it is what is typed into MIRCS that counts and that printout is what the applicant signs . . . and since whatever he signed (that the computer generated) is what FRB sees, it's the applicant's responsibility to check the form before signing it. My last renewal had multiple errors on the MIRCS form, per the secretary's response, I pen & ink changed them before signing. I have no idea if she changed it in the system (and none really would change what is printed on my LTC).

 

[ThePreBanMan]

In Fairhaven, it's not a ton of time to apply/renew. They are VERY flexible. You drop off your application, they call you to come in for pics WITHIN A WEEK. They let YOU decide when to come. After hours / work - no problem. Officer Phill will be there for you.

You'll be hard pressed to find another town/officer that makes it as smooth as it could/should be... Coming from New Bedford previously - where I was lucky if they did the pics within 45 days and I had to take time off of work, let me say I really appreciate how things are done here.

 

[milktree]

That's a good question, and I would bet nearly anything a lot of non-douche LOs would just set the issue date to the applicants 21st birthday and they probably got their physical (but not usable) LTC even long before they actually turned 21. My first LTC I got after 21, but it was literally in my hands almost a month before my birthday, I just couldn't use it until then. (The LO had calibrated the issue date so I wouldn't get hosed/screwed on the permit duration on the initial license).

There was at least one guy around here too where his under 21 sons somehow got LTCs before they were 21. That was bizarre, to say the least. I think he was friends with the chief and the chief just submitted them, and EOPS approved them! this was well over 10 years ago, though. And needless to say we told
him that his kids LTCs weren't really valid, at least not by the letter of the law.

There was also another person here that tried to get his restrictions stripped off, after moving into a non douche town. The non douche town thought they could renew him early. EOPS sent the PD another license... an unrestricted one... but it had an issue date like 2 years in the future!! or some BS like that. I think this
is because EOPS did not want to cede control of the LTC to the non douche town until expiration of the original douche ltc. I forget how the guy resolved it
though.

-Mike

It just occurred to me that if you could get an appointment *on your 21st birthday*, you could legally apply for an LTC, you'd have a receipt that you'd applied, so your FID would still be valid until the LTC came in, and you wouldn't have to pay twice.

Assuming, that is, that applying for an LTC counts as a "renewal" for C. 140 § 131(i).

That doesn't seem like a totally crazy interpretation, given the first sentence: "A license to carry or possess firearms..." What's a "license to possess firearms"? Does it literally mean "firearms" as defined in 140§121?

 

[AHM]

What's a "license to possess firearms"? Does it literally mean "firearms" as defined in 140§121?

A license to possess firearms is something which entitles a holder thereof of a license to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority considers proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it considers proper.

An FID does not entitle a holder thereof to possess: (i) a large capacity firearm or large capacity feeding device therefor, except under a Class A license issued to a shooting club as provided under section 131 or under the direct supervision of a holder of a Class A license issued to an individual under section 131 at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range; or (ii) a non-large capacity firearm or large capacity rifle or shotgun or large capacity feeding device therefor, except under a Class A license issued to a shooting club as provided under section 131 or under the direct supervision of a holder of a Class A or Class B license issued to an individual under section 131 at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range.

So obviously an FID card's possessor's application for an LTC is not a renewal because the cardholder is not entitled to do all the things that an LTC holder can.

FID's are governed by MGL Ch. 140 §129B.

 

[milktree]

A license to possess firearms is something which entitles a holder thereof of a license to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority considers proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it considers proper.

Can you point to any part of MGL where the phrase "license to possess firearms" shows up *other* than in 140§131(i)?

Or put another way, how might one get a "license to possess firearms" that was *not* just an LTC? If they're the same thing, why does 131(i) bother to mention "A license to carry or possess firearms..." like they're different things?

Perhaps a holdover from the LTC-B language that didn't get cleaned out when they got rid of it in '14?

 

[EMTDAD]

once received an application must be processed... That is the law, right?

not completely true, at least in my experience. I applied, then had to go back a few hours later to NAPD to withdraw my application and payment. When I reapplied a year or so later, my info was in the system, but a LTC or formal denial was never issued.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

not completely true, at least in my experience. I applied, then had to go back a few hours later to NAPD to withdraw my application and payment. When I reapplied a year or so later, my info was in the system, but a LTC or formal denial was never issued.

As we see with the 45 day deadline as well, what the law says and what actually occurs are often not one in the same.

 

[AHM]

Can you point to any part of MGL where the phrase "license to possess firearms" shows up *other* than in 140§131(i)?

Or put another way, how might one get a "license to possess firearms" that was *not* just an LTC? If they're the same thing, why does 131(i) bother to mention "A license to carry or possess firearms..." like they're different things?

Perhaps a holdover from the LTC-B language that didn't get cleaned out when they got rid of it in '14?

I understand the generic kind of ankle kicking you're giving the law,
but I don't see anything to hang something special off of.

You should give the FID section the same depth of reading you've given the LTC section
before you try to make LTC rules apply to FIDs.

But here's one for you:
I just realized that a Firearm Identification Card
doesn't entitle the cardholder to have their own "firearms".

 

[milktree]

You should give the FID section the same depth of reading you've given the LTC section
before you try to make LTC rules apply to FIDs.

But here's one for you:
I just realized that a Firearm Identification Card
doesn't entitle the cardholder to have their own "firearms".

Ha ha ha!

You're absolutely right. That's hilarious.

 

[shiprec13]

UPDATE, LTC is in. While it didnt go the way it should have, he got the call today that his LTC is in. Four weeks from the day he had reapplied.

 

[firestorm]

There was also another person here that tried to get his restrictions stripped off, after moving into a non douche town. The non douche town thought they could renew him early. EOPS sent the PD another license... an unrestricted one... but it had an issue date like 2 years in the future!! or some BS like that. I think this
is because EOPS did not want to cede control of the LTC to the non douche town until expiration of the original douche ltc. I forget how the guy resolved it
though.

-Mike

Hey look, It's me! The guy at EOPS called and tried to get it fixed for me, the LO in weymouth told them to piss up a rope and that since he was not required to expire early he wouldn't do so. I just waited the 2 years or so until it became valid and started using it. Annoying having to wait, but at least the system didn't do anything dumb like cancel the new license because if was so far out or anything.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

I've been licensed for 65 years and nobuddy has ever asked to see the license. Look at all the $$ I've pissed away. Anyway, it's been free for a while now. Jack.

 

[Nick Fury]

WTF is this mind numbing crap fellow freedom loving humans put up
with? I do not understand...

 

[42!]

WTF is this mind numbing crap fellow freedom loving humans put up
with? I do not understand...

It's simple, put up with it or go to jail....or move.