LTC in Westport

[Jpix1]

I've just relocated to Westport, Ma from Las Vegas and have to apply for an LTC. I have the forms and completed an approved safety course. I now need "3 letters of reference written and signed by persons of impeccable moral character", and a letter explaining my reason for requesting said license. ("for all lawful purposes" is no longer accepted). Does anyone have experience getting their LTC in Westport or have any advice as to what they are looking for in these letters?
Thanks,
Josh

 

[FreeWillie]

Welcome to MA.... Westport is a "Green" town. That's a good thing. You might want to consult with one of the firearm attorneys that are active on the board. There is a "sticky" that lists them. Unfortunately MA regs are a bit more complicated than NV.

 

[finest]

Call the dispatch desk and ask for officer couto or officer roberts they are both great guys and will answer all of your questions.

And welcome to westport.

 

[center442]

Welcome to Westport. It is, indeed, very green. If you have no statutory disqualifiers you should be fine. The request for a letter saying "why" throws a lot of people. Here's a sample of one:

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing this letter in support of my request for issuance of a Class A License to Carry.

I currently hold an FID card, issued to me when I was 18. I have never been arrested or charged with any crime, felony, or misdemeanor. I am a high school graduate and am gainfully employed. I am not a user of any illegal drugs or narcotics. I am in good mental health and have a strong moral code. (Obviously, you'll have to edit this part to reflect your own situation)

I have grown up with firearms, and have been instructed in their proper use. I have participated in target practice at local ranges many times, and have competed in matches. The importance of safe and responsible firearms use and ownership has always been stressed to me as I was growing up. These were lessons I learned at an early age, and they have been constantly reinforced.

I look forward to continuing with my personal and recreational use of firearms in a safe and responsible manner. (Insert any personal info such as military experience that may prove helpful)

I am aware of the legal and moral responsibilities that go with owning and using firearms, and it is a responsibility I take very seriously. I believe I am a suitable person to be licensed, and am applying for an LTC-A to be used for all lawful and legal purposes.



Sincerely,



XXXXXXXXXX

I've edited out some of the personal info, so the letter may appear a bit choppy, but you'll get the general idea. Keep it factual and brief.

I've found the PD in town to be very straightforward and professional. In fact, a couple of officers have just opened a gun shop in town. If your record has no blemishes you should be fine. If you have any doubts, please spend a few dollars and consult with a firearm attorney BEFORE PROCEEDING.

ETA: The other letters are just general character reference type letters. Nothing fancy, just statements that the person believes you to be of sound mental judgment and good moral character. In other words, don't ask a former cell-mate for a reference letter.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Welcome to Westport. It is, indeed, very green. ......

I call BS!

I'm starting to think that requirements above those stipulated by law are incongruous with 'green' status. The chief is still falling back on his power to determine suitability in any manner he sees fit and will likely deny an applicant who declines to provide references or anything else that isn't required by law. Maybe we need to rethink this whole green town / red town mentality.

 

[cekim]

I call BS!

I'm starting to think that requirements above those stipulated by law are incongruous with 'green' status. The chief is still falling back on his power to determine suitability in any manner he sees fit and will likely deny an applicant who declines to provide references or anything else that isn't required by law. Maybe we need to rethink this whole green town / red town mentality.

You mean it isn't based on the courtesy and efficiency with which they issue restricted licenses or deny you?

What he said...

 

[center442]

I call BS!

I'm starting to think that requirements above those stipulated by law are incongruous with 'green' status. The chief is still falling back on his power to determine suitability in any manner he sees fit and will likely deny an applicant who declines to provide references or anything else that isn't required by law. Maybe we need to rethink this whole green town / red town mentality.

Knuckle, I understand what you're saying. By my own personal standards, no license should be required at all, but if I use that standard than all of the cities and towns in MA are red, but just to varying degrees. When I said Westport was green I was referring to the fact that they issue LTC-A, unrestricted.

Do getting and writing letters go beyond the law's requirements? Yes. It's an extra hoop for a licensee to jump through. IMHO, it serves no purpose. I've yet to hear anyone justify what purpose the letters serve. But the OP has two choices: he can comply with the request and he will achieve his goal, which is an unrestricted LTC, or he can refuse to comply, in which case he may or may not achieve his goal, and probably not without great $$ cost.

From the OP I gathered that he was already willing to comply, so I based my response on that. If he had said "Why in the hell do I have to have letters to exercise my rights?" my response would have been different.

Maybe we do need another way of describing towns instead of just black/red/green. How about describing towns like Westport as yellow? They issue unrestricted A, but have an additional requirement?

The best and easiest solution would be if this state became "shall issue" then we wouldn't have to deal with all this color and geographical bull$hit.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I can be argumentative and say Boston is a green town because they issued me ALP after I jumped through their hoops. After all, they do issue ALP and do so more readily than many other towns. I can fulfill Boston's ALP requirement more easily than someone moving from out of state to a town that requires in-town letters of reference.

Even without going down the route of shall issue or no permit at all, I think that we should be evaluating a town based upon how they issue according to the law (and Heller/McDonald isn't the law yet). Is a town green because they issue ALP to anyone who is statutorily qualified, or do you have to lick the chief's boot as well? I actually think there are 4-5 grades that a town can have except for one thing: many of them are not consistent.

I'm thinking of something like this:

1 - Routinely issues ALP to all statutorily qualified persons without additional requirements.
2 - Routinely issues ALP to all statutorily qualified persons provided the applicant complies with additional requirements.
3 - Does not routinely issue ALP except to connected individuals or those meeting a very narrow set of qualifications (i.e. Boston)
4 - Does not appear to issue ALP under any commonly understood circumstances. (i.e.Brookline?)
5 - Routinely "B-rams" applicants. (i.e.Canton?)
6 - Refuses to issue LTC/A at all (are there any of these?)

 

[center442]

A more detailed breakdown would be nice, but would probably be a heck of a lot of work. That, plus it could change dramatically if the Chief changes. The current green classification

Bold Green usually Issue "Class A" "All Lawful Purposes"

seems to encompass your categories #1 and #2, which is why many folks, myself included, list towns like Westport as green, even though we both agree that it truly isn't.

The color categories the forum uses now are at least useful in letting an applicant know what type of license (if any) he's most likely to get. I don't know if there is a simple answer to this classification problem.

ETA: In Westport's case I don't believe the reference letters have to be from town residents. I know of at least two people who submitted reference letters from people outside of town. The real irony is that everyone I've spoken to who has gone through the process all report that all the letters and paperwork they brought in was placed in a folder and the licensing officer went on to complete the form on-line without even looking at the letters. I'm damned if I can figure out why they even ask for them.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How about:

Green - issues LTC/A restrictions: none without any extra requirements.

Pale green - issues LTC/A restrictions: none, but you have to do something that Scrivener will tell you you should not have done.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

How about:

Green - issues LTC/A restrictions: none without any extra requirements.

Pale green - issues LTC/A restrictions: none, but you have to do something that Scrivener will tell you you should not have done.

Something like that, but my real intent is not to complicate the system.

Rather, I want to all out that chief who add additional requirements and indicate that they are not necessarily our friends. They are still part of the problem even if they issue ALP permits once we jump through their hoops.

The intent of the current law is that chiefs make an up or down decision on general suitability and whether or not restrictions are in order without imposing additional requirements. Chefs that impose additional are as bad as those who b-ram.