LTC training is restored for now

[milktree]

I'm not teaching any BFS courses on the basis that the student would have to take another course in 6 years. It's unfair to the student and myself.

Since that's not actually what the law says, and six years is a long time in this context, I'm going to continue to teach BFS courses.

But I'm also going to make it clear before anyone signs up that EOPSS has a bizarre, and I believe false, interpretation of what's actually written in statute.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Since that's not actually what the law says, and six years is a long time in this context, I'm going to continue to teach BFS courses.

But I'm also going to make it clear before anyone signs up that EOPSS has a bizarre, and I believe false, interpretation of what's actually written in statute.

I'm in a similar boat, except that my coming class was announced in June, so some folks already signed up.

I'm still figuring out what I'll do in the law discussion part

 

[Picton]

I'm still figuring out what I'll do in the law discussion part

Just hand out some KY.

They'll probably get the message.

 

[Dr. Claw]

Guess I’m done. No range will let me train and I will not certify someone just so they need to take a course in a few years. I am so out of this state soon

what a "tax" cost of two courses, and then whatever the live fire component costs.....and the burden of taking yet another course after you've been a lawful owner for 6 years prior....you'd think they would grant those in this situation TPS and then amnesty with the license but alas we are their favorite scapegoat

 

[milktree]

I'm still figuring out what I'll do in the law discussion part

I'm going to print out the relevant part of the actual law, the relevant part of the guidance letter, and point out that a lot can change in six years. ... and have a frank discussion about how the people who enforce this stuff are motivated by politics more than the law.

(where "politics" can mean "guns 'r bad, m'kay?", or "we'll lose big if we enforce this, so we're not going to")

 

[Darksideblues42]

Since that's not actually what the law says, and six years is a long time in this context, I'm going to continue to teach BFS courses.

But I'm also going to make it clear before anyone signs up that EOPSS has a bizarre, and I believe false, interpretation of what's actually written in statute.

Technically speaking, the EOPSS letter is correct. The law has the August 1st date as the deadline for licensing to avoid the new requirements. Don't let the fact that it is impossible to comply with the law bother you. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[milktree]

Technically speaking, the EOPSS letter is correct. The law has the August 1st date as the deadline for licensing to avoid the new requirements. Don't let the fact that it is impossible to comply with the law bother you. Nothing to see here. Move along.

No, that's wrong.

It says "anyone with an LTC on 8/1 is exempt"

It does NOT say, "anyone without an LTC on 8/1 is required to take the new course."
We just assume that part because that's the way English generally works in casual (not legal) usage.

e.g.:
"Darksideblues42 is allowed to wear red pants" is not the same as "Darksideblues42 is the only one who can wear red pants."

The clause immediately after the 8/1 stuff says: (emphasis mine)

...provided, however, that persons possessing a firearms identification card or
license to carry firearms prior to the implementation of live firearms trainings as
required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement.

LTC holders on 8/1 are explicitly exempt. That clause says nothing about those who get them later.

The clause quoted above explicitly says that anyone who gets an LTC or FID before live fire is implemented is also exempt.

 

[pastera]

Guess I’m done. No range will let me train and I will not certify someone just so they need to take a course in a few years. I am so out of this state soon

If you read the actual law, the EOPSS is full of shit on the retraining requirements.
The law exempts everyone with a license prior to 8/1 AND everyone attaining a license prior to "implementation" of the new training requirement. That requirement has a 18 month delay in the bill.
The only people who will need to retraining are those that apply before the 18 month deadline but receive their license after the new training goes live.

 

[yanici]

I didn't know that EOPSS had the power to rewrite MA laws that were passed and signed into law. Or, for that matter, that the Guv gets to amend laws that were passed and signed. This State is becoming a mini Venezuela.

 

[rep308]

I'm not teaching any BFS courses on the basis that the student would have to take another course in 6 years. It's unfair to the student and myself.

Me too, I’ll keep my certification but no more pistol classes. I used to teach teenagers to get their FID at 16, but I don’t even know if it’s ok anymore

 

[pastera]

Technically speaking, the EOPSS letter is correct. The law has the August 1st date as the deadline for licensing to avoid the new requirements. Don't let the fact that it is impossible to comply with the law bother you. Nothing to see here. Move along.

No, they are demonstrably wrong.

1569 for the issuance of a firearm identification card pursuant to section 129B. Persons lawfully possessing a firearm identification card or license to carry firearms on August 1, 2024, shall be exempt from this section upon expiration of such card or license and when applying for renewal of such licensure as required under this chapter; provided, however, that persons possessing a firearms identification card or license to carry firearms prior to the implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement.

2454 SECTION 159. Sections 38 and 75 74 shall take effect 18 months after the effective date of this act.

The bolded part is quite flipping clear.
You can't say something is implemented when the section of law isn't effective for another 18 months.

 

[pastera]

Me too, I’ll keep my certification but no more pistol classes. I used to teach teenagers to get their FID at 16, but I don’t even know if it’s ok anymore

They have been able to apply 14 and be issued at 15 for over a decade.
We NEED people like yourself getting kids licensed and involved.

Keep up with God's work brother.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If you read the actual law, the EOPSS is full of shit on the retraining requirements.
The law exempts everyone with a license prior to 8/1 AND everyone attaining a license prior to "implementation" of the new training requirement. That requirement has a 18 month delay in the bill.
The only people who will need to retraining are those that apply before the 18 month deadline but receive their license after the new training goes live.

I didn't know that EOPSS had the power to rewrite MA laws that were passed and signed into law. Or, for that matter, that the Guv gets to amend laws that were passed and signed. This State is becoming a mini Venezuela.

The black and white written law is irrelevant!

What we should have learned in 2016 is that the gov and/or AG can create whatever anti-gun law they wish merely by holding a news conference and issuing a "letter ruling".

This means that nobody taking a class and/or getting a LTC or FID between 8/1/24 and whenever the new training curriculum is released and instructors are certified to teach it are at risk of being required to take another class. So some of us have thus decided to wait it out and refuse to teach the current BFS classes in the meantime.

No matter what the end result is, the potential students are getting screwed . . . uncertainty is worse than either the new law or political interpretation by those in power.

 

[Darksideblues42]

No, they are demonstrably wrong.




The bolded part is quite flipping clear.
You can't say something is implemented when the section of law isn't effective for another 18 months.

I should have been more clear, the original law, prior to the mid September amendment, only had the August 1st date as the drop dead date.

 

[pastera]

I should have been more clear, the original law, prior to the mid September amendment, only had the August 1st date as the drop dead date.

It was clear that the section 159 call out of section 75 was a typo
And section 74 was not changed so the text I quoted in that section was still valid and therefore the old training requirements would have been in effect until the state developed, approved and implemented the new training.

 

[rep308]

They have been able to apply 14 and be issued at 15 for over a decade.
We NEED people like yourself getting kids licensed and involved.

Keep up with God's work brother.

I coached a youth shotgun team for 10 years, at one point that was not allowed under the bill. Half the kids used Remington 1100 semi to reduce recoil. I don’t know what is allowed now

 

[pastera]

I coached a youth shotgun team for 10 years, at one point that was not allowed under the bill. Half the kids used Remington 1100 semi to reduce recoil. I don’t know what is allowed now

Semiauto is now allowed only while supervised by an LTC holder.

Don't know if they consider this a 1:1 thing or one LTC can supervise a group (how else does live fire training happen?)

 

[Chappy7]

The black and white written law is irrelevant!

What we should have learned in 2016 is that the gov and/or AG can create whatever anti-gun law they wish merely by holding a news conference and issuing a "letter ruling".

This means that nobody taking a class and/or getting a LTC or FID between 8/1/24 and whenever the new training curriculum is released and instructors are certified to teach it are at risk of being required to take another class. So some of us have thus decided to wait it out and refuse to teach the current BFS classes in the meantime.

No matter what the end result is, the potential students are getting screwed . . . uncertainty is worse than either the new law or political interpretation by those in power.

I agree with you, unfortunately it would come down to a court battle.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I agree with you, unfortunately it would come down to a court battle.

That is what I also expect. A court has to slap down the memo/press conference creation of law, so that everyone knows what is really required and when.

Of course, the unknown is whether or not those in gov't would abide by a court ruling or just ignore it like they have been doing for years!

 

[milktree]

I should have been more clear, the original law, prior to the mid September amendment, only had the August 1st date as the drop dead date.

This isn't true. September 16th / Chapter 206 only changed the effective date of H.4885's SECTION 74 / §131P