Guide to gun rights in your Massachusetts town

Status
Not open for further replies.
Len-2A Training said:
I guess some chiefs just like to be sued. Too bad they can't pierce that immunity barrier and go after the chief's personal assets. That's about the only thing that would stop this sort of abuse.
Click to expand...


Seems "simple" to me. We need to draft legislation which would hold public officials personally responsible for obvious and reprehensible violations of the constitutionally protected rights of the people in the areas the officials have direct control of.

An officer intentionally threatens to arrest someone for something which is lawful, such as passively recording a situation, they are on the hook for any judgement. This does not exclude the possibility of liability on the part of the town or agency the official works for.

A chief flatly refuses to comply with the law with regards to the issuance of LTC or FID, they are personally responsible under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 as they are depriving someone of their rights under color of law.

Simple (in theory)
 
Darksideblues42 said:
Seems "simple" to me. We need to draft legislation which would hold public officials personally responsible for obvious and reprehensible violations of the constitutionally protected rights of the people in the areas the officials have direct control of.

An officer intentionally threatens to arrest someone for something which is lawful, such as passively recording a situation, they are on the hook for any judgement. This does not exclude the possibility of liability on the part of the town or agency the official works for.

A chief flatly refuses to comply with the law with regards to the issuance of LTC or FID, they are personally responsible under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 as they are depriving someone of their rights under color of law.

Simple (in theory)
Click to expand...

Don't you recall the Katrina Bill (I think that GOAL filed some years ago)? MCOPA went to war against it and killed it . . . why? Because it would have held officers/chiefs PERSONALLY LIABLE for a violation of a person's rights!! No chance in hell of ever passing something like this in MA. They know that they violate fed laws/Constitution, are proud of it and know that they can't be held personally accountable . . . and they plan on using whatever coercive power to keep it that way.
 
Darksideblues42 said:
Seems "simple" to me. We need to draft legislation which would hold public officials personally responsible for obvious and reprehensible violations of the constitutionally protected rights of the people in the areas the officials have direct control of.
Click to expand...

You can draft whatever you want. That's easy.

The hard part is getting it passed.
 
Coyote33 said:
Just curious, how is Millis? Saw a bumper sticker yesterday saying "Troopers are your best protection.".Had me laughing in my car.


Is the list in "Post #1" out of date? It shows as:
. Or has nothing changed anywhere since then?
Click to expand...


I don't know, why don't you go through all the posts since then and let us know if anything needs to be changed.
 
Coyote33 said:
Just curious, how is Millis? Saw a bumper sticker yesterday saying "Troopers are your best protection.".Had me laughing in my car.


Is the list in "Post #1" out of date? It shows as:
. Or has nothing changed anywhere since then?
Click to expand...
Moderator said:
I don't know, why don't you go through all the posts since then and let us know if anything needs to be changed.
Click to expand...
Sounds like someone needs an inflatable donut to sit on...
Usually it's updated as soon as relevant data is dropped here. Doesn't mean some towns aren't up to snuff on color coding though...
 
Darksideblues42 said:
This seems like a no-brainer. Cities and Towns could see a reduction in legal fees and settlement costs.
Click to expand...

Do you really think they care when it's not their money? Not to mention most people don't go to court, they come on NES and whine about their lot in life when they get handed a restricted, even though they KNEW that was a possibility going in, and didn't bother ponying up the bucks to try to work the system.

-Mike
 
I have lived in Winchester for over 20 years and this is news to me. I have never had a problem with any of my renewals. I can't speak for new applicants, only for myself.
Click to expand...

Now, all new LTCs issued in Winchester are restricted.
 
Last edited:
Just got "Restrictions: None" in Belmont. Had to supply two letters of reference and write a letter to the Chief asking for/justifying unrestricted LTC, per the instructions on the town PD website. I don't remember whether this was a requirement or not but I had both my letter writers indicate that they were aware I was applying for unrestricted LTC.

Interview process was very informal--just pictures, prints, "Why do you want an LTC?".
 
Last edited:
rivet_42 said:
Just got "Restrictions: None" in Belmont. Had to supply two letters of reference and write a letter to the Chief asking for/justifying unrestricted LTC, per the instructions on the town PD website. I don't remember whether this was a requirement or not but I had both my letter writers indicate that they were aware I was applying for unrestricted LTC.

Interview process was very informal--just pictures, prints, "Why do you want an LTC?".
Click to expand...
If you could, could you share what type of info you had in your letter for unrestricted? Was it specific to you, or just blanket type stuff?
 
bostonasphalt2 said:
If you could, could you share what type of info you had in your letter for unrestricted? Was it specific to you, or just blanket type stuff?
Click to expand...

The letter was generic blanket-type stuff, listing all the reasons I wanted an LTC (sporting, hiking, camping, improving and maintaining proficiency, target shooting, collecting, personal protection inside and outside the home).

According to Comm2A's information, Belmont mostly issues Unrestricted, so despite the requirement for extra letters with the application, I don't think they're really looking for reasons to deny or restrict people, like some towns.
 
Hello all!

Been reading up on the forums recently, I decided to make an account. Does anyone have any recent information in regard to Marlborough, MA. How was the process? any restrictions?

Thanks in advance!
 
I think Framingham should be Green again.
Wife just picked up her license today. No restrictions on a first time applicant with no background other than shooting with me.

The licensing officer intimated to me when I had my restrictions lifted last year that his policy is more or less "I don't see the point of issuing restricted licenses. Either I think you should have one, or you shouldn't." That's a big change from the previous CoP and Licensing Officer.
 
It may be time to change Woburn to "Orange, unrestricted LTC renewals remain unrestricted."

While it appears that licenses for first-time applicants or those renewing restricted licenses are issued with restrictions, those with unrestricted licenses are able to renew them as such.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Winchester has taken the unprecedented action of recalling and downgrading LTCs that were issued "Restrictions: None". In the case of Batty, they've even done this to people who no longer reside in Winchester. Batty v. Albertelli They are non 'Green'.
Click to expand...
Holy crap, I was just looking at Winchester to possibly move to.

How about Arlington or Lexington? True green or no?
 
browncoat said:
Just search for some of dcmdon's posts on Arlington and you'll see how green it is ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip. Looks like they're slow to get moving but don't give applicants too much crap and don't bother with restrictions. Not bad for the Boston area. Lot's of nanny laws elsewhere but hey, it's MA.
 
Last edited:
browncoat said:
Just search for some of dcmdon's posts on Arlington and you'll see how green it is ;)
Click to expand...

kalash said:
Thanks for the tip. Looks like they're slow to get moving but don't give applicants too much crap and don't bother with restrictions. Not bad for the Boston area. Lot's of nanny laws elsewhere but hey, it's MA.
Click to expand...

Arlington still isn't above denying licenses for trivial reasons. Someone is dealing with that now.
 
kalash said:
Thanks for the tip. Looks like they're slow to get moving but don't give applicants too much crap and don't bother with restrictions. Not bad for the Boston area. Lot's of nanny laws elsewhere but hey, it's MA.
Click to expand...

I believe Burlngtion and Billerica are Green. If you own a business (plumber, electrician, etc) Woburn will give you unrestricted usually.
 
I do not own a business and Burlington and Billerica are a bit far, as I work in Boston. The big catch is that my gf works in Woburn and has no be ~20min driving tops.
 
browncoat said:
Just search for some of dcmdon's posts on Arlington and you'll see how green it is ;)
Click to expand...

Arlington is better than its neighbors but it's still a little "****y around the edges." Nobody bitches much though because its licensing policies are generally somewhat better than most of its contemporaries which are also filled with similar levels of commies and menotomy moonbats. [rofl]

-Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LTC application in your town
Replies
1
Views
359
dragonballzz
D
LTC renewal question
Replies
4
Views
164
Sam P
S
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
269
M1911
M1911
What not to do with your new gun.
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Rockrivr1
Rockrivr1
LTC Turnaround Woburn?
Replies
1
Views
181
2-4-5 Trioxin
2-4-5 Trioxin
Back
Top Bottom