Lowell is still a shithole for licensing

[appraiser]

a friend posted this on FB : I called the Lowell PD firearms licensing bureau and asked about an upgrade to my restricted license. I was told that I would have to wait for my renewal to do that. I am nowhere near my renewal date yet, so now what? Do I have to sue them again?

I told him to call Comm2a

 

[CATI]

Seems like you just carry with the license he has now and the restriction is unenforceable / won't be enforced

 

[whacko]

Seems like you just carry with the license he has now and the restriction is unenforceable / won't be enforced

That's how I read the Healey memo.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I would carry, just make sure you have money tucked away in case the state wants to play f*** around.

 

[greencobra]

we were talking about this a little while back. i didn't think they'd start issuing new ltcs...the system is so taxed and over burdened now, we don't need anything else to get them farther behind. it's just understood there are no restrictions so continue on with the old ltc under the new scotus ruling. the guidelines of which have been distributed from the ag office to law enforcement agencies last week. of course don't take my word for it, i can't bail you're buddy out of jail.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Sounds like lawsuits are in their future.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Sounds like lawsuits are in their future.

I would send them the Maura letter

 

[greencobra]

Sounds like lawsuits are in their future.

i don't see why you would file a suit if they are recognizing the current ltc with restrictions as one with no restrictions...until it's renewed. it just doesn't make sense to reissue all the restricted ltcs if there are no restrictions anyway now...unless you need to have a ltc that says "no restrictions." this just isn't a massachusetts thing, it's country wide.

 

[enbloc]

 

[PappyM3]

i don't see why you would file a suit if they are recognizing the current ltc with restrictions as one with no restrictions.…..

Is Lowell PD saying that? I haven’t seen them say that.

 

[greencobra]

Is Lowell PD saying that? I haven’t seen them say that.

haven't seen anyone say it actually.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

i don't see why you would file a suit if they are recognizing the current ltc with restrictions as one with no restrictions...until it's renewed. it just doesn't make sense to reissue all the restricted ltcs if there are no restrictions anyway now...unless you need to have a ltc that says "no restrictions." this just isn't a massachusetts thing, it's country wide.

What happens when that person travels to a state that recognizes a MA LTC. It could be a crap shoot.

 

[RumRunner]

Can't they just issue a letter to accompany the current LTC. That is what I had when I got my first LTC it had restrictions and about a year or 2 into it I asked to have the restrictions lifted and they issued a letter stating that and said to keep the letter with my LTC. When I renewed it was without restrictions. Of course this was 30+years ago, but seems easier than getting new LTC's.

 

[greencobra]

What happens when that person travels to a state that recognizes a MA LTC. It could be a crap shoot.

this just isn't a massachusetts thing, it's country wide.

i suspect they are all obeying the ruling

 

[PappyM3]

Can't they just issue a letter to accompany the current LTC. That is what I had when I got my first LTC it had restrictions and about a year or 2 into it I asked to have the restrictions lifted and they issued a letter stating that and said to keep the letter with my LTC. When I renewed it was without restrictions. Of course this was 30+years ago, but seems easier than getting new LTC's.

Yup, but instead of requiring the possession of such a letter, they should broadly announce all restrictions are lifted and to not worry about what the LTC says as long as you have a valid LTC.

 

[xero2099]

we were talking about this a little while back. i didn't think they'd start issuing new ltcs...the system is so taxed and over burdened now, we don't need anything else to get them farther behind. it's just understood there are no restrictions so continue on with the old ltc under the new scotus ruling. the guidelines of which have been distributed from the ag office to law enforcement agencies last week. of course don't take my word for it, i can't bail you're buddy out of jail.

its not taxed or overburdened; it takes 5min or less for them to pull up your info and change it they are just dragging their feet

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Seems like you just carry with the license he has now and the restriction is unenforceable / won't be enforced

A little White out will take care of the "restricted". Jack.

 

[whacko]

What happens when that person travels to a state that recognizes a MA LTC. It could be a crap shoot.

The scotus decision effects all states no?

 

[VetteGirlMA]

The scotus decision effects all states no?

Who knows how all of that will play on the side of the road in another state. You might get lucky, you might get the one cop that wants to have the cash and gun photo op on twitter for the world to see. Who knows.

 

[greencobra]

i really think the big deal is people who wanted that coveted no restriction ltc and couldn't get one just want it in hand. if they want to spend a couple of grand to sue a department for something they have the right to do anyway, hey, more power to them.

i don't think local departments wouldn't follow the attorney general's letter with the new guidelines...kind of silly to try and defend a suit you couldn't win. i would think the city attorney would have already discussed this with them.

 

[crispnipz]

What happens when that person travels to a state that recognizes a MA LTC. It could be a crap shoot.

literally comes down to if the state Gov/AG you're in is pro-2A (aka, by proxy, are they are GOP or Dem Gov/AG)

I wouldn't have been afraid to carry in my native Ohio with my restricted MA LTC but I would have thought twice about doing it in Michigan (despite both states recognizing MA LTCs).

 

[greencobra]

its not taxed or overburdened; it takes 5min or less for them to pull up your info and change it they are just dragging their feet

yeah, agree. but you haven't read the literally hundreds of posts here with people complaining they've waited months and months for a renewed ltc. if it takes that long for something that should take a few weeks start to finish, reissuing tens of thousands of ltc's for really no reason is kind of silly. i understand if you could never get a non restricted ltc, you would want to have that new one in hand. the elephant in the room is people want that new ltc! let's wait and see what really happens before you all go off the rails and start go fund me pages to sue the local departments.

 

[greencobra]

yeah, lowells been no joke. you all remember the woman i posted about, i went to school with her in 2015. 11-12 years of army service, 2.5 afghanistan tours, was a truck driver and did duty as her units armorer. mentioned to the lowell licensing officer she had been to va treatment for ptsd while applying for her ltc. they ceased the ltc conversation at that point. nice woman. remember those rockers that said "civillian as f***" someone had made and we could group buy them? i gave her one and you would have thought i gave her a million bucks, she loved it, very appreciative.

 

[enbloc]

yeah, lowells been no joke. you all remember the woman i posted about, i went to school with her in 2015. 11-12 years of army service, 2.5 afghanistan tours, was a truck driver and did duty as her units armorer. mentioned to the lowell licensing officer she had been to va treatment for ptsd while applying for her ltc. they ceased the ltc conversation at that point. nice woman. remember those rockers that said "civillian as f***" someone had made and we could group buy them? i gave her one and you would have thought i gave her a million bucks, she loved it, very appreciative.

Did not know this story. That sucks for her treatment.

 

[appraiser]

the friend I mentioned in the OP is also a IIRC Desert Storm era Veteran... I know he served honorably

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

I have a feeling asking any PD about a licensing question is about as useful as asking a Bestbuy employee specifics about a computer's motherboard. They probably should know the answer because of where they work, but either DGAF or just don't keep up with changing information.

 

[Len-2A Training]

i don't think local departments wouldn't follow the attorney general's letter with the new guidelines...kind of silly to try and defend a suit you couldn't win. i would think the city attorney would have already discussed this with them.

I respectfully disagree.

Until some departments get their asses hauled into court by Comm2A on 1983 cases, some will refuse to abide by the USSC ruling and will persecute people carrying under a restricted LTC.

The PDs and DAs do NOT work for the AG, they are not bound to abide by the AG's memos. I also know of one case where a DA and ADA asked to drop a case, but the PD refused and still went forward with it. The defendant claimed to have spent ~$20K before the judge dismissed the charges. Said defendant wanted to sue the judge and police officers and asked me to serve the summons and complaints (I refused) and told me the gory details.

 

[Broc]

a friend posted this on FB : I called the Lowell PD firearms licensing bureau and asked about an upgrade to my restricted license. I was told that I would have to wait for my renewal to do that. I am nowhere near my renewal date yet, so now what? Do I have to sue them again?

I told him to call Comm2a

1. Consult Comm2A.
Or
1 a. Consult a competent gun attorney.

2. Do whatever Comm2A or the attorney tell your friend to do.

My guess is a simple phone call wont be enough, a lawyer will want something in writing. But check before writing anything, so it can be written in a way that the rejection will help Comm2A or an independent attorney.

Think of chess. You need to think several moves ahead, not move and pray.

 

[Drix]

Yeah, Lowell's licensing officer doesn't have a clue.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Who knows how all of that will play on the side of the road in another state. You might get lucky, you might get the one cop that wants to have the cash and gun photo op on twitter for the world to see. Who knows.

In public was the wording.

In his majority opinion, Thomas wrote that New York’s law violated the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment — which says citizens have a right to equal protection under the law — because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms” as authorized by the Second Amendment.


Applying that new and more stringent standard to the New York proper-cause requirement, Thomas found that the challengers’ desire to carry a handgun in public for self-defense fell squarely within the conduct protected by the Second Amendment. The amendment’s text does not distinguish between gun rights in the home and gun rights in public places, Thomas observed. Indeed, he suggested, the Second Amendment’s reference to the right to “bear” arms most naturally refers to the right to carry a gun outside the home