I want to know the process of renewing your LTC CLASS A. Does the renewal have to be ok'd by your CLEO? Or does it get generated from the state? Do you have to take another gun safety course too? How about if you move from one town to another, do you have to apply all over again? What happens if you move into a town/city where the CLEO is not as gun friendly as the original issuing authority? What if you had $30,000 in firearms and not get your license renewed??? That is my concern.
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Question about renewal of LTC A
- Thread starter Lxpony
- Start date
Lx- if you do a thorough search of the Gun Laws section you'll see that these questions have been answered several times over, some times by lawyers even.
The reapplication is the same form you filled out first time around. Still $100. It depends on which town you live in if you need another safety course.
It's always up to the discretion of the issuing officer. Here today, gone tomorrow. Just because you have no restrictions today doesn't mean you won't after you renew.
And if you're in posession of even $5 worth of firearms without a license that's a felony. So don't consider it. Though if you're licensed now you do have a grace period after your license expires. You shouldn't carry, transport or purchase during that time unless you're feeling daring or rich. This is MA after all![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
The reapplication is the same form you filled out first time around. Still $100. It depends on which town you live in if you need another safety course.
It's always up to the discretion of the issuing officer. Here today, gone tomorrow. Just because you have no restrictions today doesn't mean you won't after you renew.
And if you're in posession of even $5 worth of firearms without a license that's a felony. So don't consider it. Though if you're licensed now you do have a grace period after your license expires. You shouldn't carry, transport or purchase during that time unless you're feeling daring or rich. This is MA after all
oh- and if you move, you have to notify the issuing town, the new town and the state of your new address. Also covered several times in the Gun Laws forum.
If you are worried, perhaps you should make an appointment
to speak with one of the several attorneys who frequently post on this
board. It could be well worth your money to protect your rights
to pursue your passion.
F
to speak with one of the several attorneys who frequently post on this
board. It could be well worth your money to protect your rights
to pursue your passion.
F
Yes, people with LTCs have been denied on renewal. Probably rare, but it certainly has happened.
EVERY renewal is treated as a "new application" by the CLEO and the "system". Although they don't do full fingerprints and the law does not require training for each renewal (although some chiefs do), the process and decision by the CLEO is "new" each time.
If you properly notify upon moving, your LTC is valid until expiration. Some chiefs in your new town may make you do everything that a brand new (never had a LTC/FID) applicant has to go thru when you go to renew (for the first time in their town). It's their prerogative under "suitability" to pile on anything they want to to the process. I have been known to state that if your chief wants you to stand on your head and spit nickles as a pre-requisite to issuance of a LTC, then this is what you must do in order to get your LTC.
The only ways in MA to "change" a chief's mind about the BS they put you thru is by hiring an attorney to prepare your package of info per MGLs with a cover letter to the chief or be very politically connected above the chief's head. Occasionally those that stand against tyranny will win the battle.
EVERY renewal is treated as a "new application" by the CLEO and the "system". Although they don't do full fingerprints and the law does not require training for each renewal (although some chiefs do), the process and decision by the CLEO is "new" each time.
If you properly notify upon moving, your LTC is valid until expiration. Some chiefs in your new town may make you do everything that a brand new (never had a LTC/FID) applicant has to go thru when you go to renew (for the first time in their town). It's their prerogative under "suitability" to pile on anything they want to to the process. I have been known to state that if your chief wants you to stand on your head and spit nickles as a pre-requisite to issuance of a LTC, then this is what you must do in order to get your LTC.
The only ways in MA to "change" a chief's mind about the BS they put you thru is by hiring an attorney to prepare your package of info per MGLs with a cover letter to the chief or be very politically connected above the chief's head. Occasionally those that stand against tyranny will win the battle.
I often wondered the same thing about my LTC A if if was downgraded or restricted. What is it I would do with everything I own that is now "illegal"?
Would I wait for something to happen?
Would I wait for something to happen?
Paul- that is my exact concern.....
Do I press my luck and ask for my CLEO's signature to SBR my Uzi.. or not run the risk of pissing him off by asknig for it and have him not renew my LTC in 2008.
I do not carry and never will but I would not want my ALP LTC - A to be stripped from me because the CLEO thinks I am a Chuck Norris wannabe...
Also- should I buy a $4,000 preban HK rifle only to have it illegal if I lose my LTC? what the hell good is anything if I cant own it 5 years from now.
Do I press my luck and ask for my CLEO's signature to SBR my Uzi.. or not run the risk of pissing him off by asknig for it and have him not renew my LTC in 2008.
I do not carry and never will but I would not want my ALP LTC - A to be stripped from me because the CLEO thinks I am a Chuck Norris wannabe...
Also- should I buy a $4,000 preban HK rifle only to have it illegal if I lose my LTC? what the hell good is anything if I cant own it 5 years from now.
Lxpony. You have been given very good advice so far so I will add only one addl point: If possible, visit the Licensing Officer in the town that you expect to move to and discuss these matters BEFORE you close on a house. I know that this may be too late for you, but this is what I did on my way from looking at my house to the Real Estate office to discuss particulars.
At that time, the PD was a shack about 12 X 16 feet (and I may be exaggerating) but I found it in the dark. The then Chief and his Sergeant (now Chief) and I discussed the matter and within ten minutes they knew all about me, background and interests, club membership, etc. Discussion ended up with their statement that I would have no problems in this town. I bought the house in March --- of 1975 and have had not one whit of a problem with my PD. My town is a LTC-A issue ONLY w/All Lawful Purposes as the reason for issuance.
Best ten minutes I ever spent.
Good luck to you.
dd
At that time, the PD was a shack about 12 X 16 feet (and I may be exaggerating) but I found it in the dark. The then Chief and his Sergeant (now Chief) and I discussed the matter and within ten minutes they knew all about me, background and interests, club membership, etc. Discussion ended up with their statement that I would have no problems in this town. I bought the house in March --- of 1975 and have had not one whit of a problem with my PD. My town is a LTC-A issue ONLY w/All Lawful Purposes as the reason for issuance.
Best ten minutes I ever spent.
Good luck to you.
dd
Well, that's a personal decision you have to make. You can move to a
better town (assuming your disqualification isnt statutory in nature) or
move to a a free state, like NH.
FWIW, most licensing problems are not outright "denials". People are usually
only denied a permit for statutory reasons, unless some major event
happens to you (eg, like that marine that fired a shotgun out his window
and then got acquitted). Most problems for most people are restricted
licenses. Many times people have permits downgraded when they move
into an anti town, and they didn't know it was that way until they went to
renew.
If one is going to stay in MA, its wise to investigate the local issuing authority
and their standpoint on licensing. If you're going to move into another
town, you have to do that all over again, to make sure you're not going to
get shackled on a renewal. Granted, its never a guarantee, (eg, chiefs
change jobs, policies change, etc).
Me personally, if I was downgraded on a renewal or was told to take a
restricted license, I'd just leave MA. I'm already on a thread about this
state as it is. Having A/ALP, for me, is the minimum I'd consider to be
a barely acceptable existence. Anything less than that is really
bad. Keep in mind that at best, MA is retardedly bad with gun
laws. Having an A/ALP just means that the poop sandwich of gun laws
one encounters here will have a layer of mint frosting on top. That doesn't
change, however, that you're still forced to accept a poop sandwich.
-Mike
Stating it is easy; proving it is not. Got a cite for that assertion?
Some towns "require" you to belong to a club. LenS claims they can. Case law says he - and those towns - are wrong. See Fox v. Randolph (Quincy Dist. Ct.).
Some towns demand that you provide letters, including "doctor's letters." LenS says they can. However, the statute says there is but one application; that application is the F 25/26 and it only requires two references; no letters. Note that even they are not required for an FID card and it so states on the form.
Some towns "require" a new test or certificate for each renewal. LenS says they can. However, both the controlling statute and CMR clearly state otherwise.
A certain Boston suburb/Cambridge wanna-be town requires "range tests," even for renewals and has denied renewal to a 30-year long licensee who refused to jump through that hoop. The challenge was filed Friday morning.
News as it happens.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Last edited:
A certain Boston suburb/Cambridge wanna-be town requires "range tests," even for renewals and has denied renewal to a 30-year long licensee who refused to jump through that hoop. The challenge was filed Friday morning.
News as it happens.
Piece by piece. Good news.
Oh that smiley is just perfect. I wish I had been chewed out by you before I had applied for my license.IF this town falls, at least 2 others imposing the same requirement would logically fall also.
Accommodation accomplishes no such goals.![[jihad]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/039.gif "Jihad [jihad]")
Denying a renewal is illegal, it could be challenged. According to Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth 1972 (US Supreme Court) and U.S. v Medina (1st Circuit court of Appeals), if you have a property interest in something, it can not be stripped away from you on something as administrative as a license renewal. Once issued a license to carry, it can not be denied without due process. I'm not sure why more people don't put up this fight.
People have fought renewal denials in Rhode Island (for attorney general permits only) and have won on this premise, without going to court.
More suprisingly, people who have New York City Pistol Licenses who have been denied unrestricted renewals have sued and won on this premise as well.
People have fought renewal denials in Rhode Island (for attorney general permits only) and have won on this premise, without going to court.
More suprisingly, people who have New York City Pistol Licenses who have been denied unrestricted renewals have sued and won on this premise as well.
FALSE and true.
Denying a renewal is NOT illegal if the licensee has become statutorily disqualified.
The challenge is, per statute, AFTER the fact. Thus, there is no "due process" unless and until the licensee appeals the denial. It is only discretionary refusals to renew which would trigger the "property interest" argument.
Scrivener,
Some chiefs ask/require/demand all of what I (and you) stated. Thus they "can" since NOBODY can prevent them from asking.
Just because they ask/demand/require something doesn't make it legal (or illegal). But it takes a legal challenge to "change their minds" and most people won't go there.
I recall early on as a Special PO, when a seasoned FT PO told me (as we were responding to a call for a group of underage teenagers drinking/partying/making excessive noise late on evening on private property) that since they were on a dirt path that was private property under development, we really had no legal authority to throw them out of the property (neighbors complained, not the owner of the property and it wasn't posted) . . . but as he (FT PO) told me . . . we knew that but they didn't!
Same theory applies here. Chiefs get away with a lot because the average person doesn't know what the law really is, refuses to spend money on a lawyer, figures that it's not worth the hassle and cost of litigation.
So again . . . they "can" and "do" whether legal or not! [Your old sig line is indeed correct.]
Some chiefs ask/require/demand all of what I (and you) stated. Thus they "can" since NOBODY can prevent them from asking.
Just because they ask/demand/require something doesn't make it legal (or illegal). But it takes a legal challenge to "change their minds" and most people won't go there.
I recall early on as a Special PO, when a seasoned FT PO told me (as we were responding to a call for a group of underage teenagers drinking/partying/making excessive noise late on evening on private property) that since they were on a dirt path that was private property under development, we really had no legal authority to throw them out of the property (neighbors complained, not the owner of the property and it wasn't posted) . . . but as he (FT PO) told me . . . we knew that but they didn't!
Same theory applies here. Chiefs get away with a lot because the average person doesn't know what the law really is, refuses to spend money on a lawyer, figures that it's not worth the hassle and cost of litigation.
So again . . . they "can" and "do" whether legal or not! [Your old sig line is indeed correct.]
I'm just gonna throw this out, and please ignore it if it is out of line,
but would some of our attorneys give us a ball park estimate of what it
would cost to have their assistance with an LTC submission or renewal?
I've had nothing but good luck with the 2 chiefs that I have dealt with,
but perhaps if others know what range they are looking at to be represented
in such an action they could judge if it is worth it to them.
Just a thought, but please ignore if it would be considered rude.
F
but would some of our attorneys give us a ball park estimate of what it
would cost to have their assistance with an LTC submission or renewal?
I've had nothing but good luck with the 2 chiefs that I have dealt with,
but perhaps if others know what range they are looking at to be represented
in such an action they could judge if it is worth it to them.
Just a thought, but please ignore if it would be considered rude.
F
That is NOT what you said. THIS is:
Again, what's your cite for that assertion?
The chief's determination of "suitabilitity" is not carte blanche for anything he demands, your statement notwithstanding. The F 25/26 provides the parameters for his inquiries, together with the requirements of c. 140.
Telling people a chief can make any demands he/she wishes because of the "suitability" element reinforces the mindset that allows that abuse.
J
JellyFish
The Boston Police Department does whatever it wants. Who will hold them accountable? A judge? BWHAHAHHAHAH!!!! Right... ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Scriv,
As Jellyfish stated, the chiefs can do as they please. No judge is going to do more than slap their wrist even if you do get a chance to attack them in court. No penalty means that they will continue to pull this BS impervious to your or my beliefs in what's right or "allowed" by law.
My "cite" for my assertion is simple:
- They still require these BS doctors letters, don't they? Even if you've made them back down in a handful of cases, those without representation are still required to produce letters, right?
- They still require range tests, don't they?
- They still require re-cert by NRA/MSP trainer for each renewal, don't they?
If this stuff is still happening in even one town, it means that nobody cares enough in the higher up legal system to slap them down, sanction them with personal out-of-pocket expense (not paid for by town insurance/funds), etc. for their wrong-doing, right?
What's worse is that they use the MCOPA as their "vehicle" to communicate these mis-uses of authority to other chiefs who then implement the same BS in their towns. If they were severely slapped down, the MCOPA would be admonishing the chiefs to "toe the line" and strictly follow the law ONLY . . . and this is not happening and isn't about to in PRM.
As Jellyfish stated, the chiefs can do as they please. No judge is going to do more than slap their wrist even if you do get a chance to attack them in court. No penalty means that they will continue to pull this BS impervious to your or my beliefs in what's right or "allowed" by law.
My "cite" for my assertion is simple:
- They still require these BS doctors letters, don't they? Even if you've made them back down in a handful of cases, those without representation are still required to produce letters, right?
- They still require range tests, don't they?
- They still require re-cert by NRA/MSP trainer for each renewal, don't they?
If this stuff is still happening in even one town, it means that nobody cares enough in the higher up legal system to slap them down, sanction them with personal out-of-pocket expense (not paid for by town insurance/funds), etc. for their wrong-doing, right?
What's worse is that they use the MCOPA as their "vehicle" to communicate these mis-uses of authority to other chiefs who then implement the same BS in their towns. If they were severely slapped down, the MCOPA would be admonishing the chiefs to "toe the line" and strictly follow the law ONLY . . . and this is not happening and isn't about to in PRM.
Police practice is not a statement of law; ergo, it is not a cite.
You are, however, absolutely right about MCOPA aiding and abetting the abuse of power. It exists to promote chiefs' agendas and that most specifically includes any aggregation of power by whatever means they can get away with.
Note that even Glidden admonished the Brookline PD licensing officer, Raskin, about its practice of demanding "range tests" and that communication is an exhibit to the petition filed Friday.
You are, however, absolutely right about MCOPA aiding and abetting the abuse of power. It exists to promote chiefs' agendas and that most specifically includes any aggregation of power by whatever means they can get away with.
Note that even Glidden admonished the Brookline PD licensing officer, Raskin, about its practice of demanding "range tests" and that communication is an exhibit to the petition filed Friday.
I wasn't making an assertion of law . . . just one of reality.
I fully agree with you on the law. Too bad that the judges don't also agree and hold officials as accountable as they sometimes hold just everyday citizens. [Usually only good citizens, they let the bad guys skate too.]
I fully agree with you on the law. Too bad that the judges don't also agree and hold officials as accountable as they sometimes hold just everyday citizens. [Usually only good citizens, they let the bad guys skate too.]
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
I defended a father whose kid had jimmied the gun cabinet lock so he could show off to his scumbucket buddies. The buddies had:
1. ALREADY broken into a drug dealer's apartment to steal dope and took a pistol as icing on the cake;
2. PLANNED to steal a gun from the jimmied cabinet;
3. DID steal the gun; yet
were NOT PROSECUTED FOR ANY OF THOSE CRIMES. Instead, the ADA hung the father out to dry.
Her reason: "I can always get them the next time."
I am glad my initial question sparked this conversation. My opinion from all the banter is that my CLEO can ask me to jump through any hoops he/she wants- but that is not to say their requirements are legal or grounded in any law whatsoever.
If, upon the time I need to renew my license, I get stonewalled by my local CLEO then I will contact legal advice and or hire a legal rep- but I dont see them successfully making what I currently own illegal for me to own (via not allowing me a LTC-A) unless I commit an act which would statutorily disqualify me (committ crime, abuse girlfriend/Wife).
My reason for posting this question intitially was to inquire if increasing my collection to tens of thousands of dollars is risky if I run the risk of not being able to legally own it, as long as I dont do something stupid to disqualify myself OR move to a town that shuns on an LTC-A, I should be fine.
If, upon the time I need to renew my license, I get stonewalled by my local CLEO then I will contact legal advice and or hire a legal rep- but I dont see them successfully making what I currently own illegal for me to own (via not allowing me a LTC-A) unless I commit an act which would statutorily disqualify me (committ crime, abuse girlfriend/Wife).
My reason for posting this question intitially was to inquire if increasing my collection to tens of thousands of dollars is risky if I run the risk of not being able to legally own it, as long as I dont do something stupid to disqualify myself OR move to a town that shuns on an LTC-A, I should be fine.
D
daceman63
Do you think the BPD puts Gun License Applicants through the ringer because it may be mandated by Menino to do so? Do you think it would really matter who the chief was in Boston that Menino hates guns so much he would do everything within and even a bit outside the confines of the law to discourage people from applying???? Just a thought....I don't live in Boston anymore so I don't know....
The Boston Police Commissioner is hand-picked by Mumbles and does what Mumbles tells him/her or else goes looking for a job elsewhere!
If you look historically over the past 20 or so years, Police Commish's have come and gone, folks in Licensing have come and gone . . . the run-around that everyday citizens get to put up with has been reasonably constant.
--------------------------------
Now what was your question again?
If you look historically over the past 20 or so years, Police Commish's have come and gone, folks in Licensing have come and gone . . . the run-around that everyday citizens get to put up with has been reasonably constant.
--------------------------------
Now what was your question again?
