Lowell is still a shithole for licensing

great website.... I never knew a MA Class B allowed for open carry only low capacity guns.

s/

"Class B LTCs were previously issued and allow for only the open carry of non-large capacity firearms. Any current Class B LTCs will be valid until the expiration date."
 
greencobra said:
len, how can they win these cases? maybe the scotus is really a paper tiger. wondering what their function is now.
Click to expand...
@Rob Boudrie is the better person to answer this as he's seen it in court.
Hoover said:
The ruling directly affects NY only. The other states will need to comply or be sued but the SCOTUS ruling only impacts NY right now.
Click to expand...
Not true legally. Forcing compliance is another issue.
 
greencobra said:
len, how can they win these cases? maybe the scotus is really a paper tiger. wondering what their function is now.
Click to expand...

The issue is not one of "winning the case", but rather overcoming a finding of "not suitable" because you did not obtain a restriction free LTC before carrying.

The way it usually goes down on a "suitability appeal" is the judge courtesy listens to what both sides have to say; takes under advisement; and then carefully and impartially weighs the word of a dedicated public servant who has spent his/her life protecting the public against some random unimportant person who has the audacity to think they should be allowed to carry a gun even when the dedicated professional opposes it. Although the standard of suitability in the current law is potential dangerousness, the courts have tenaciously clung to the "should be obsolete" Moyer standard of "did the chief fee (s)he had a reason that was not arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion".

The real risk at present of carrying on a restricted LTC you have not had upgraded is picking up a revocation from a chief that must forever be disclosed on a MA licensing application, which means you are asking a chief to go against the will of a member of the blue brotherhood.

FAR safer to politely demand the upgrade and contact Comm2A if you are told "not until the next renewal".

Wallhack - if you were to lose your license, the issuing PD must issue a replacement free of charge. The FRB will no longer print LTCs with restrictions. The implication of these two facts is left as an exercise to the reader. [laugh2]
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Wallhack - if you were to lose your license, the issuing PD must issue a replacement free of charge. The FRB will no longer print LTCs with restrictions. The implication of these two facts is left as an exercise to the reader. [laugh2]
Click to expand...
Can your license be revoked for losing it? If not, from my observation those plastic cards fall out of wallets so easily don't they
 
VetteGirlMA said:
One of these states:

www.usconcealedcarry.com

Massachusetts MA Concealed Carry Gun Laws | USCCA Reciprocity Map

Last Updated 03/08/2021. May-issue LTC. Learn more about Massachusetts gun laws, concealed carry permits & view the reciprocity map.
www.usconcealedcarry.com www.usconcealedcarry.com
Click to expand...
Of course, by January 1,2023 (when Alabama’s permit less carry law goes into effect), all but three of those states (Virginia, North Carolina and Nevada) will be constitutional carry (the rest already are), so reciprocity in that case is kind of meaningless.
 
crispnipz said:
Can your license be revoked for losing it? If not, from my observation those plastic cards fall out of wallets so easily don't they
Click to expand...
Losing your license means you and your offspring are now "unsuitable". The lost license could have easily been your firearm, sort of like that law enforcement professional that left his in the shitter that one time.
 
appraiser said:
great website.... I never knew a MA Class B allowed for open carry only low capacity guns.

s/

"Class B LTCs were previously issued and allow for only the open carry of non-large capacity firearms. Any current Class B LTCs will be valid until the expiration date."
Click to expand...
Technically, they're correct. It's been discussed here previously. Leaving aside questions of if open carry is prudent, especially in MA, the ideas of concealed carry and restrictions are written into the definition of the LTC-A, such that they don't affect LTC-B holders. In the morning, I'll try to remember to find the old law to quote, if you'd like.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The issue is not one of "winning the case", but rather overcoming a finding of "not suitable" because you did not obtain a restriction free LTC before carrying.
Click to expand...
i was thinking under the assumption that if you had a ltc to begin with, no matter if there were restrictions or not, you were already "suitable". the problem was the licensing authority who didn't personally feel the need for the general public, with certain exceptions, carrying a concealed firearm in their jurisdiction for protection, and doled out ltc's but with restrictions. like boston and lowell. my thinking was that is what the courts decision changed.

i may be wrong but how i understand it, a.) if you apply, for whatever reason you want a ltc for, you cannot be denied that right to protect yourself and there is no need to show proof you fear for your life. the ltc will be issued. & b.) there will be no restrictions.

i suspect the criteria to judge suitability will be mental health, prior criminal activity, felony convictions, red flag bullshit, domestic violence charges and the host of other crap you tick off when you check the NO boxes on the application. unless those check boxes have to come off the applications now. i dunno. but, if you were issued a ltc, restricted or not, it was decided already you were "suitable."
 
one-eyed Jack said:
A little White out will take care of the "restricted". Jack.
Click to expand...
... or a hole punch ;-)


crispnipz said:
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)
Click to expand...
... unless you are visiting MA from somewhere else, then that is out the window!

Bladerunner said:
Losing your license means you and your offspring are now "unsuitable".
Click to expand...
... except subjective "suitability" is gone because of Bruen.


Mesatchornug said:
if open carry is prudent, especially in MA
Click to expand...
As I said before elsewhere, open carry used to be REQUIRED BY LAW in Massachusetts. This was long before 1998. You could not "hide" your handgun.
 
greencobra said:
i suspect the criteria to judge suitability will be mental health, prior criminal activity, felony convictions, red flag bullshit, domestic violence charges and the host of other crap you tick off when you check the NO boxes on the application. unless those check boxes have to come off the applications now. i dunno. but, if you were issued a ltc, restricted or not, it was decided already you were "suitable."
Click to expand...

The problem, as I uncomfortably pointed out in the Highland Park thread, is that writing actual statutes about things like this is complicated. You have to come up with wording that allows police to take into account "prior criminal activity" that isn't formally pursued up the chain toward court, while still keeping them from becoming abusive JBTs that deprive people of their rights. The Highland Park case sounds like a poster child for pre-Bruen MA laws: kid makes threats, gets his swords taken away, local cops know about that but can't prevent him from getting a FOID because nobody ever filed a formal complaint...

The issue is that every CoP who has the freedom to do that also has the freedom to abuse the rights of all the rest of us. I'm not sure how to write that statute, and even less sure how to enforce it. It's a balancing act of lawmaking, and I don't think I trust any politician to get it right.
 
Picton said:
The problem, as I uncomfortably pointed out in the Highland Park thread, is that writing actual statutes about things like this is complicated. You have to come up with wording that allows police to take into account "prior criminal activity" that isn't formally pursued up the chain toward court, while still keeping them from becoming abusive JBTs that deprive people of their rights. The Highland Park case sounds like a poster child for pre-Bruen MA laws: kid makes threats, gets his swords taken away, local cops know about that but can't prevent him from getting a FOID because nobody ever filed a formal complaint...

The issue is that every CoP who has the freedom to do that also has the freedom to abuse the rights of all the rest of us. I'm not sure how to write that statute, and even less sure how to enforce it. It's a balancing act of lawmaking, and I don't think I trust any politician to get it right.
Click to expand...
But don't you know? NES loves it some precrime and extrajudicial penalties, as long as they're meted out to someone not obviously on the same team.

Looks like he wants to be the next Brian Warner while making videos he imagines could be the next Jeremy? Do not pass go; do not collect $200; straight to lifetime PP it is! "If he were in MA..."
 
greencobra said:
i suspect the criteria to judge suitability will be mental health, prior criminal activity, felony convictions, red flag bullshit, domestic violence charges and the host of other crap you tick off when you check the NO boxes on the application. unless those check boxes have to come off the applications now. i dunno. but, if you were issued a ltc, restricted or not, it was decided already you were "suitable."
Click to expand...
The courts have already refused to use the new dangerousness standard of suitability in the law and still use the old Moyer standard because they like it better. That may continue.

The "suitability" argument would be "This applicant demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the law because he carried in public before obtaining the necessary unrestricted LTC. SCOTUS has ruled it is acceptable to require a license, so this is no different that someone without an LTC arguing he could carry without an LTC because he was qualified to get one if he applied. The department asks the court to uphold it's finding of unsuitable based on the willingness to knowingly violate the law."'

Remember, it is not your declaration of what the law means that counts - it is that of a system which, in practices, heavily favors the issuing authority in suitability determinations.

You have to come up with wording that allows police to take into account "prior criminal activity" that isn't formally pursued up the chain toward court
Click to expand...
You either do, or do not, have due process.

The 2A is either subject to the same protections as the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th (and others) or it is a right of the second class.

Perhaps we need to come up with a way to nullify the exclusionary rule on searches when the subject is obviously of the criminal class.

But, there are unintended consequences. The upstanding citizen who makes a mistake that would warrant a CWOF, or who is actually innocent and takes a CWOF to avoid the risk and expense of a trial, could find that due process in LTC issuance results in a "no deal without loss of gun rights" position on the part of the state, and something a basic boring, balding, overweight citizen without any criminal record could recover from becomes a lifetime burden of PP status.
 
greencobra said:
@Rob Boudrie...rob, have there been cases already in the courts in massachusetts regarding the recent supreme court ruling on issuance?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of. We're not even at the 40 day alleged deadline.

The FRBs declaration that they will not print restricted licenses will make it hard for Brookline et. al. to play the "we still restrict" game.

What I am very interested in is seeing how the traditionally restrictive PDs react when existing LTC holders ask for replacement LTCs. I doubt that "wait until your next renewal" will hold up.
 
So... I'm that Lowell guy. Originally, during the first year of Covid, Lowell was not open to accepting or processing new LTC applications. They used the necessity to fingerprint the applicant and the social distancing guidelines to close all public offices. I went through GOAL and filed a lawsuit. Suddenly the application process was opened up again. Which is when I applied.
The officer asked what kind of license that I wanted and I responded that I wanted an unrestricted LTC. He then asked for my supporting documents. I refuse to write an essay begging to be allowed to exercise my constitutional rights and told him that. He then informed me that he could not process my application without the documents. I asked for him to put it through as unrestricted without the documents. (so that maybe they would deny my application and give me further reason to go after them in court) He insisted that he could not process it without the documents, so it was sent in as "restricted". Several months later I received it in the mail.
Which leads me to the recent phone call to the Lowell PD. When I was informed that I would need to wait until my renewal to change my license to unrestricted.
Since then I have been working to have a motion brought before the city council. The motion will be for the City Manager and City Solicitor write a definitive policy regarding how the Lowell PD is going to handle mine and similar requests in the immediate future. They will try to punt it down the road, but eventually they will need to produce it in black and white. Now the City Solicitor has made several bad calls regarding policies and bylaws that were blatantly wrong I the face of MA SJC and SCOTUS rulings in the past. Then the city had to absorb the lawyer's fees when someone sued the city and won. So I will remind the council that the tax payers of the city do not need to foot the bill for another bad call by their people. Maybe I get somewhere. Maybe I piss a few of them off. Most of them are familiar and even friendly with me from years of contact regarding veteran activities in the city. Which means they also know I won't just go away.
Any info, suggestions or support will be appreciated.
 
Len-2A Training said:
@gt_pedaler

Welcome!

My only suggestion is that you contact Comm2A and try to coordinate your efforts with them on-board. They like Federal lawsuits against a-hole cities/towns.
Good luck!
Click to expand...
Comm2a is coordinating closely with GOAL on this issue and I've already PM'ed this person requesting additional details and contact info.
 
Does this mean that they will print the license without restrictions no matter what the issuing authority says? OR, does it mean that they'll kick it back to the issuing authority for revision and the issuing authority will refuse to remove the restriction? At which point an impasse will result and the applicant has to go to court.

Rob Boudrie said:
Not that I know of. We're not even at the 40 day alleged deadline.

The FRBs declaration that they will not print restricted licenses will make it hard for Brookline et. al. to play the "we still restrict" game.

What I am very interested in is seeing how the traditionally restrictive PDs react when existing LTC holders ask for replacement LTCs. I doubt that "wait until your next renewal" will hold up.
Click to expand...
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The FRBs declaration that they will not print restricted licenses will make it hard for Brookline et. al. to play the "we still restrict" game.
Click to expand...

I could see them slapping a little printed sticker with restrictions on the card at the station and then telling the recipient that he's restricted to xy and z when he goes to pick up the LTC. If a change of address sticker on the back of a driving license is good enough for the RMV why not this?
 
JenkkiMike said:
I could see them slapping a little printed sticker with restrictions on the card at the station and then telling the recipient that he's restricted to xy and z when he goes to pick up the LTC. If a change of address sticker on the back of a driving license is good enough for the RMV why not this?
Click to expand...
The license "exists" in the database of the FRB. That would likely not have any legal merit, plus it would be like wrapping up evidence of a civil right violation in a nice gift box with a bow and a card saying "We look forward to paying your 1983 claim".
 
@gt_pedaler is a close friend of mine, for longer than I have been on NES.

I assure you he is going to be assertive with the Lowell PD, City Manager and City Council..... you can take that to the effn bank....

If Comm2A is looking for the perfect person to represent against Lowell, IMHO he is that person.

Here is my level of trust with him.... I followed him down from the top of Mount Washington on our Kawi's in near zero visibility.... I knew if I could see his tail light I'd be safe.... I don't know if I'd try to keep up with him on Hurricane Road again but that is a story for a different day
 

Similar threads

Roseanne Rosannadanna was right. NJ is a shithole.
Replies
9
Views
311
BigTimber
BigTimber
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Where is a Signal 9 Reliant???
Replies
11
Views
220
Mountain
Mountain
Kennedy is a no vote.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
HARRYM
H
is thompson/center still still a viable company under s&w?
2
Replies
31
Views
944
KBCraig
KBCraig
Back
Top Bottom