-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Guide to gun rights in your Massachusetts town
- Thread starter Moderator
- Start date
- Status
I just renewed my LTC worcester i was told the cheif will not use the word ALP
BUT he will use PP and PP is the same as ALP but i was told he only gives them to a few people THANK GOD I WAS ONE OF THEM
so on 12/27/2008 i got my LTC=PERSONAL PROTECTION
ROG
BUT he will use PP and PP is the same as ALP but i was told he only gives them to a few people THANK GOD I WAS ONE OF THEM
so on 12/27/2008 i got my LTC=PERSONAL PROTECTION
ROG
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
I find that real funny. So evidently those ltc's he is issuing cannot be used to go to the range, or hunt with, as it is restricted to personal protection.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,156
- Likes
- 1,646
yes, but range time could be considered training to make sure you are proficient at personal protection. Thats an easy one to get past if anyone actually wanted to press the "personal protection means no range use" issue.
Back in the day, LTCs were issued with a "reason for issue" in contrast to the current specification of any restrictions. While GOAL and most of us advocated licenses being issued for "all lawful purposes", some police chiefs either seemed to find this simple statement confusing, or they simply wanted to underscore their control by using different language to indicate the same thing. The result was that many licenses were issued for "personal protection" or "protection of life and property" (even there isn't and never was any legal right to use lethal force simply to protect property). After the changes to licensing procedures, the standard LTC no longer has a reason for issue, but a specification of any restrictions. The state developed a list of possible restrictions that can be used, with "none" being the equivalent of the old "ALP" or "protection" licenses. If any department continues to put verbiage such as "personal protection" on an LTC, it's simply continuing its old practice, even though any such annotation is without the slightest legal meaning. The only thing that matters is the restrictions specified on the license.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
i wasnt really serious, just pointing out how stupid it is to put that on the new license. I could see back in the day of reason for issue, but now it doesnt make sense, like some of the licenses that say restrictions: all lawful purposes
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
just an observation
Did anyone ever think that this color coding may backfire! We don't post ammunition companies that will ship to ma. for fear of the AG's office coming down on them. Also can not pass on any companies selling C+R firearms for the same reason. Yet we are posting the cities and towns that issue LTC's and rating them. If the AG's office is indeed reading/monitoring this web site they are going to have a field day with this.
Just my opinion so please don't jump all over me about my comment/ observation.
Did anyone ever think that this color coding may backfire! We don't post ammunition companies that will ship to ma. for fear of the AG's office coming down on them. Also can not pass on any companies selling C+R firearms for the same reason. Yet we are posting the cities and towns that issue LTC's and rating them. If the AG's office is indeed reading/monitoring this web site they are going to have a field day with this.
Just my opinion so please don't jump all over me about my comment/ observation.
I'm jumping all over this
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
.It's done as a service for the members/users here and is extremely helpful IMO.
It's a little different from posting companies that sell ammo.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,037
- Likes
- 21,188
Fred, when the AG sent a letter to every chief in MA TELLING them to immediately go out and revoke MA Licenses to Sell Ammo/Guns for every home-based dealer, many chiefs "round-filed" the letter. [When up for renewal the chiefs didn't renew based on MGL, but they mostly didn't hassle the dealers during the term of their MA dealers' licenses.]
I had a few local chiefs tell me "I don't work for the AG, he doesn't tell me what to do!"
So, MGLs doesn't give the AG any authority at all over the LTC process and I would count on the chiefs telling the AG to pound sand if they tried it.
Just one person's opinion.
I had a few local chiefs tell me "I don't work for the AG, he doesn't tell me what to do!"
So, MGLs doesn't give the AG any authority at all over the LTC process and I would count on the chiefs telling the AG to pound sand if they tried it.
Just one person's opinion.
PM sent on proposed update.
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
MagnumAl
NES Member
maybe move the green/red discussion to a green only members of the site? I know its not foolproof, but it could protect those towns (albeit only a bit) that are gun friendly.
I don't see how that would help. A red city/town today could become green tomorrow with a new gun friendly chief.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,980
- Likes
- 2,841
Not a terribly good idea. To get the most accurate data, you need as much input data as possible, and the way to get that is make this as known far and wide as possible. If you lock up the data, no one will chime in and lets face it, there are still a lot of blue/white towns where nothing definitive is even known. I have to imagine that less than half of the NESers are green, which means theoretically at least, half of the towns will have info in the future.
Note on Canton: My application was downgraded from an A to a B. No news. Just more of the same :/
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,156
- Likes
- 1,646
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
easy to say from where I am standing, but if you dont agree to a downgrade, and they reject the class A, wouldnt that give way to an appeal?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,156
- Likes
- 1,646
No one agrees to any restrictions, they are imposed on the applicant. Same goes for class of license I'm sure. If you apply for A and they say they will downgrade to B automatically, and you don't like it then I would assume that is you wittlhdrawing your application, not them denying it. Just my two cents.
It would. And then the Chief might be forced to give me a restricted A, and then jerk me around for the next 20 years every time I tried to get the restrictions lifted.
And believe me, I considered biting this bullet. I don't agree with the chief's policy, and I made it known when I submitted my application. I disagree on several levels. The two most important beefs I have are that I believe that both the laws regarding the issue of firearms licenses in Massachusetts and this chief's policy on the same matter to be a violation of the 14th amendment. I also believe, just based on common sense and logic, that "Class B" as a designation is rather dumb, as are any restrictions. If a licensing authority is giving a person a gun and expecting them to follow the law, then why make it complicated or restricted. A law abiding gun owner is going to abide by the law and one that does not plan to be law abiding can't be stopped from doing so once you give them the firearm. They can only be caught if they make a mistake.
But...that's another issue entirely. I am a regular, law abiding guy. I can only be patient at this point.
I have reason to believe that in 12-18 months that if I reapply I will get upgraded to a class A, and possibly without restrictions. So I am choosing not to rock the boat in that manner.
I have a few friends that are on scattered police departments that I have discussed this with in depth. The general consensus is that in any town the guy that becomes the chief is kind of like the alpha dog in a whole pack full of alpha dogs, and they don't deal particularly well with being challenged. Taking a denial to court would only cause pain. I am not prepared to be that guy at this point.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,156
- Likes
- 1,646
I would put money on the far that you won't get an unrestricted A from Canton. You want ALP? Move to Stoughton, Mansfield or perhaps even over to Quincy. Canton is a no fly zone unfortunately
That is not universally true. But we shall see.
Either way I have no plans to move. I like where I live.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,156
- Likes
- 1,646
I'm speaking on the experience of two friends I have who live in Canton and have been barking up the ALP tree ever since they were upgraded to restricted A. Don't get me wrong, I wish you luck and hope it goes on your favor, but I wouldNt hold my breath.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
i hear ya, it sucks
If you like living there I would at least try to get a restricted-A, despite the
restrictions, it's still like two orders of mangitude less legally crappy than an
LTC-B.
-Mike
I understand. I know two people that have been issued, and am related to one of them. So as I said I do not believe it to be universally true.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,156
- Likes
- 1,646
good luck dude!
Thanks 
M
MACGYVR
Clock is ticking in Salem
Submitted my app today. It was a pain free and pleasant process with Lt. Ouelette. Did it all in a small interview room off the lobby. Entered everything right into the computer and even did the finger prints there. No need for letters either, just the state form.
He put me in for LTC-A but with the restriction of Target & Sporting. He said that unless I have a letter from work stating I need it or I was a business owner they will not give me an ALP.
I knew this going in and I knew that this has long been the policy in Salem eith the chief according to what I learned on this site. So i did not argue with him and it was a very nice experience.
Besides the restrictions I have no complaints.
Took all of about 30 minutes with some light hearted small talk.
He said that he would call me when it was in to pick it up and I said in about 8 weeks, he said no they have been coming in as fast as 1 week but he did not want to say that and get my hopes up. He said think 2 weeks and then it will be a surpise. He even showed me a stack that he said all were submitted last week and he had the cards today.
So now I have to a make a list for Christmas.......
Submitted my app today. It was a pain free and pleasant process with Lt. Ouelette. Did it all in a small interview room off the lobby. Entered everything right into the computer and even did the finger prints there. No need for letters either, just the state form.
He put me in for LTC-A but with the restriction of Target & Sporting. He said that unless I have a letter from work stating I need it or I was a business owner they will not give me an ALP.
I knew this going in and I knew that this has long been the policy in Salem eith the chief according to what I learned on this site. So i did not argue with him and it was a very nice experience.
Besides the restrictions I have no complaints.
Took all of about 30 minutes with some light hearted small talk.
He said that he would call me when it was in to pick it up and I said in about 8 weeks, he said no they have been coming in as fast as 1 week but he did not want to say that and get my hopes up. He said think 2 weeks and then it will be a surpise. He even showed me a stack that he said all were submitted last week and he had the cards today.
So now I have to a make a list for Christmas.......
- Status
Similar threads
