• 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.

Lowell is still a shithole for licensing

Mesatchornug said:
That's a confusing page. It talks about upgrades, as if to imply they still intend to restrict. Otherwise, most of that garbage would be unnecessary.

I'll likely try to come up, if only for moral support. Undecided if I'll ask to talk.

Anyone want to find a beer afterward? (Unofficial NES meetup?)
Click to expand...

This is their updated requirements?

Applicants for an unrestricted LTC should also provide any additional documentation they may have that will assist the Superintendent in making a determination that issuance of an unrestricted LTC to the applicant will not pose a threat to public safety. Applicants are encouraged to submit as much such documentation as possible. Examples of such documentation include, but are not limited to:

  • Current or prior service in the military;
  • Current or prior service in law enforcement;
  • Prior receipt of an unrestricted LTC from another community or state, with no record of any violation of any term or condition of the LTC;
  • Prior receipt of a restricted LTC from Lowell or from another community or state, with no record of any violation of any term or condition of the LTC (the receipt of such from Lowell will carry greater weight than the receipt of such license from elsewhere
  • Prior receipt of a Firearms Identification Card (FID) from Lowell or from another community or state, with no record of any violation of any term or condition of the FID (the receipt of such from Lowell will carry greater weight than the receipt of such license from elsewhere);
  • Prior receipt of a hunter safety training and/or experience hunting;
  • Signed letters of recommendation that show the applicant's good character and emotional stability. Such letters of recommendation should indicate that the applicant is not subject to excessive drinking habits, substance abuse, or violent behavior. Letters of reference may, but need not, be from the references listed on the applicant's application. Letters from an applicant's relatives are not acceptable. Each letter of reference must be on 8.5 inches x 11 inches paper and be signed, dated, and show the reference's name, address and telephone number. The Superintendent of the Lowell Police Department, or his or her designee, reserves the right to contact each reference.

Do note the should in the above.
 
Mesatchornug said:
That's a confusing page. It talks about upgrades, as if to imply they still intend to restrict. Otherwise, most of that garbage would be unnecessary.

I'll likely try to come up, if only for moral support. Undecided if I'll ask to talk.

Anyone want to find a beer afterward? (Unofficial NES meetup?)
Click to expand...
What Lowell PD should do is inform their officers that

"If a person is lawfully carrying concealed with the old Restricted License, do not detain/badger/or arrest the individual. He or she is within compliance of the Law."

When it is time to renew, then the new license would reflect the new law.
That is to say, Everyone with ANY form of LTC is now fully within compliance of the Law.
No Upgrades needed.
 
vicorjh said:
This is their updated requirements?

Applicants for an unrestricted LTC should also provide any additional documentation they may have that will assist the Superintendent in making a determination that issuance of an unrestricted LTC to the applicant will not pose a threat to public safety. Applicants are encouraged to submit as much such documentation as possible. Examples of such documentation include, but are not limited to:

  • Current or prior service in the military;
  • Current or prior service in law enforcement;
  • Prior receipt of an unrestricted LTC from another community or state, with no record of any violation of any term or condition of the LTC;
  • Prior receipt of a restricted LTC from Lowell or from another community or state, with no record of any violation of any term or condition of the LTC (the receipt of such from Lowell will carry greater weight than the receipt of such license from elsewhere
  • Prior receipt of a Firearms Identification Card (FID) from Lowell or from another community or state, with no record of any violation of any term or condition of the FID (the receipt of such from Lowell will carry greater weight than the receipt of such license from elsewhere);
  • Prior receipt of a hunter safety training and/or experience hunting;
  • Signed letters of recommendation that show the applicant's good character and emotional stability. Such letters of recommendation should indicate that the applicant is not subject to excessive drinking habits, substance abuse, or violent behavior. Letters of reference may, but need not, be from the references listed on the applicant's application. Letters from an applicant's relatives are not acceptable. Each letter of reference must be on 8.5 inches x 11 inches paper and be signed, dated, and show the reference's name, address and telephone number. The Superintendent of the Lowell Police Department, or his or her designee, reserves the right to contact each reference.

Do note the should in the above.
Click to expand...
Reads to me like it is.

I see a lot of should and encouragement.

Should doesn't mean will or required, encouraged doesn't mean required.

I'm more curious what happens when you pass in your app with none of that bullshit. My guess is officer High a d Mighty over there wouldn't accept it because, as I've stated before, he's got no idea what's going on.
 
I’d hire a good 2A lawyer and consult with them - my immediate recommendation is Neil Tassel, though I cannot speak for him obviously. Upon consult, request that they connect with the licensing officer for the town in writing and ask what process needs to be taken to immediately remove unconstitutional restrictions on the LTC in light of the SCOTUS decision on Bruen.
 
Palladin said:
It's obvious they still don't get it. The letters are all bullshit, none of that crap is necessary. If you are not a prohibited person you get your LTC unrestricted.
Click to expand...
Yep. This must be litigated by the first applicant refused... By NRA/GOAL
 
Mesatchornug said:
NRA has shown that they're joiners in these cases, not leaders any more. GOAL writes legislation. COMM2A and FPC present - and win - legal challenges.
Click to expand...

NRA will throw some money into the pot, though, if only so that they can claim victory later.

The first MA case that hits the state courts will be a BIG litmus test for Bruen in this state, and might cost some money. Might not. The next few cases after that? Either they won't need to see a courtroom or it'll just be a letter from a lawyer.
 
So, by following the procedure explained to me in a 3 way call between myself, the interim Superintendent and the officer who takes the applications. I called and made an appointment to go in and upgrade my LTC. I was told the first available appointme t is on August 10th. That is 4 weeks away.
Also, the requirements for concealed carry class and live fire are still going to stay. They feel it is a reasonable condition.
 
are you still going to speak to the City Council to get the stupid LPD licensing page fixed to reflect the Court decision?
 
Coyote33 said:
So,

Brookline
Lowell
Framingham
Canton
Cambridge
Newton

sound about right?
Click to expand...
if you reread the thread, I'm pretty sure Lowell got straightened out.

Similarly, Canton has been corrected for years.

According to this thread, Newton has been fine since they got their new chief
www.northeastshooters.com

Guide To Gun Rights in your MA Town - 2020 + Edition

This is a replacement for THIS thread which is ancient and somewhat outdated https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/guide-to-gun-rights-in-your-massachusetts-town.8703/ Things have changed, in 2021 there are very few full on red towns anymore. What we need here is feedback, and I will...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com

so no, probably not right.
 
Did you read the post directly above mine?

So, some of those things were corrected. Are the towns actually better, or just in these specific cases?

If so, what are the "problem towns" in MA now. Your turn.
 
Coyote33 said:
Did you read the post directly above mine?

So, some of those things were corrected. Are the towns actually better, or just in these specific cases?

If so, what are the "problem towns" in MA now. Your turn.
Click to expand...
There are tons of them but the problems are different now vs restrictions. Turtling, poor communication, and extrajudicial requirements are often not well documented.

The problem is now some "green" towns are also douche towns because the focus of the bad behaviors is not based on restrictions but other problems.
 
Coyote33 said:
Did you read the post directly above mine?
Click to expand...
Someone who doesn't even live in MA any more shared their generalized opinions about Lowell. That's your defense?

Coyote33 said:
So, some of those things were corrected. Are the towns actually better, or just in these specific cases?
Click to expand...
Go to the correct threads for the topic, and read them. You're years behind and factually out of your depths.

Please define "actually better" vs "these specific cases." All the information we have from applicants shows that these towns are behaving better. Most, for years.

Coyote33 said:
If so, what are the "problem towns" in MA now. Your turn.
Click to expand...
Brookline? Almost certainly. I don't think we've heard any updates, but based on the last things I've seen and heard, they're still the only ones demanding the Moon Island test. That's a really bad sign. The biggest problem is that new applicants are rare there, so we don't get a lot of info.
Framingham? Obviously. Per the ongoing thread.
Cambridge? Maybe? I have three people in the application process now. When I have more info from them, I'll share it.

I can say that two friends just got their Worcester LTCs with no problem.
Medford, after some back and forth, reached out to every licensee in the city to give them their new unrestricted cards.
Woburn - the only city I've ever heard of actually calling and following up on reference letters - similarly called their licensees to come get their unrestricted LTCs.

Newton's recent problems, like Wellesley (a couple whose names escape me) and now Littleton, have been asinine zoning updates to prevent FFLs in town. This isn't something we've historically tried to track, as that's such a tiny edge case as to be (relatively) unimportant. Maybe we should. Want to contribute something useful? Go find out where that stands, and start a thread tracking it.
 
drgrant said:
There are tons of them but the problems are different now vs restrictions. Turtling, poor communication, and extrajudicial requirements are often not well documented.

The problem is now some "green" towns are also douche towns because the focus of the bad behaviors is not based on restrictions but other problems.
Click to expand...
Not sure what "turtling" means other than just slow. What about the whole "appointment" not available thing?

Would you say overall, that MA is better or worse than a year ago? Than 2 years ago? It seems like you said, the "focus has changed". Maybe eliminating some bad things made the remaining stuff stand out more. Yes?


Mesatchornug said:
Someone who doesn't even live in MA any more shared their generalized opinions about Lowell. That's your defense?
Click to expand...
I did not even notice that. What am I in "defense" of again?

????
Last thing I need is to be stalked around NES. Good grief.
 
Turtling = sitting on apps. A common obstruction trope

Overall things are better because they can't dick people around on restrictions. However, people getting that first license is still a big problem/hurdle in some towns.
 

Similar threads

Roseanne Rosannadanna was right. NJ is a shithole.
Replies
9
Views
303
BigTimber
BigTimber
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
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?
Replies
21
Views
742
nm1
N
Is a SAR a reasonable substitute for a CZ?
2
Replies
39
Views
924
Happy feet
Happy feet
Back
Top Bottom