For someone in Milford with a clean criminal record and certifiably sound mind, getting a license to carry a concealed weapon is not much tougher than filling out some paperwork and waiting for a background check.
Not in Newton. Novice gun owners there cannot get an unrestricted license to conceal and carry a weapon — even if they have a spotless record. “It’s been consistent policy: not for first-time applicants,” Newton police Lieutenant Edward Aucoin said. “I’ve had people who come in here and want to get a license without having shot a gun in their life.”
Comments
Seems pretty reasonable to me, local control, what's the problem? If residents of Newton aren't happy, they can enact different policiies or get themselves a new police chief. Of course, the "gun-rights" group is insane, unless they can actually cite a situation of red-heads being denied a gun permit because of their hair color. Mr Stasiowski, you need counselling, not a gun Or maybe you just need a girlfriend.
Dear PL: Did someone shoot your sense of humor, or is your insistence on taking literally what was meant as a "figure of speech" (actually scouring around to find red heads who were denied permits) yet another example of "no-gunners'" tunnel vision on the issue?
C'mon, release yourself from your straight jacket, and flex a little.
@aperture, not sure which is worse, your reading or writing skills. Mr Carlton, of Comm2A, is being silly with regard to red-heads, as am I. But he is serious with his accusation that some police chiefs deny permit requests for unreasonable cause. I say "prove it." And we'll see how the US District Court sees it. From reading this article, both Newton and Milford police chiefs, while using different criteria, seem to reasonable and reflective of their community.
What? This article suggests that there are such things as "first time applicants".
The Liberal Talking points distributed over the weekend - and dutifully carried by the Globe and Times says that gun ownership is declining and all the "gun and ammo" shortages are driven by bitter clingers who already have guns.
Brian - please re-edit this story to match the talking points. The DNC will be unhappy that you went off script!
In my city the requirements are to pass a state certified gun safety course, CORI check, and be interviewed by the chief.
I passed easily and was issued a license, but if I had received any unwarrented flak at all, I was ready to either get an attorney or contact the NRA.
I don't want any right due me to be put at the whim of someone who might have gotten off the wrong side of the bed that morning or has a differing opinion on what the 2nd amendment says.
And you would have lost that case. Unless you could actually show you were denied a permit because the police chief woke up on the wrong side of the bed. This article indicates that permitting decisions, while varying across the state, are applied consistently and reasonably. Courts have consistently ruled that Constitional rights can be restricted on the grounds of Public Safety. Despite the First Amendment, you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Newton, which is your typical liberal suburban community is making decisions about a license to carry a firearm based on their ideology not the law. It is decisions like thoise in Newton that cause gun advocates to dig in their heels. The Newton Chief of Police has the authority to issue gun permits or reject them, but he cannot put restrictions on the license such as for "hunting an target practice only". only ther legislature can put a restriction on a Massachusets General Law. There is no provision in the general law for making such a restriction. Courts have ruled on that in the past that the police cannot enforce those "restriciton" by arresting people, with a valid license to carry, in circumstances that would not justify a claim of being engaged in "hunting or target practice".
Ah, but remember the "suitability" clause. Assume you have an LTC-A (target/hunting) and stop to pick up a pizza on your way home from the range. Licensing officer, who happens to be waiting for his pizza strikes up a conversation with you, hears that you are on your way home from the range, and your firearm is properly stored in your trunk under G.L. 140, s. 131C. He decides to revoke your permit because you had the firearm and were neither target shooting, nor hunting. You are no longer "suitable" because of your poor judgment in violating the terms of the license. Preposterous, you say -- similar things have happened. Sue to get it back, you say, -- do you have $10,000-$20,000 for the attorney time involved?
And that's assuming that a court doesn't decide that if you are vilating that restriction you aren't carrying without a permit -- penalty for guessing wrong -- mandatory 1 year sentence.
The reasons for issuance stuff is just wrong-headed and a lawsuit or criminal conviction waiting to happen.
No one absolutely no one should be allow to carry or own any type of fire arm unless they have been properly trained. Plinking at a target at 50 feet is not training PMI (Primary Marksman Training) should be a prerequisite for licensing. TRAINING TRAINING. A trained firearms carrier is not a danger to Public Saftey and untrained one is a neigborhood nightmare.
At last! A sensible suggestion that if carried out fairly, WOULD certainly reduce the incidences of accidental death or maining. As long as the relentless "no carry zoners" would not require a PhD from the Training Programs.
Oh, excuse me, does training mean you're not going to go off your rocker and start shooting people randomly? Or even, planned murders? It seems to me that many of the crazy shooters were skilled marksmen. (Lee Harvey Oswald comes to mind.) Why is it so important for anyone to carry a concealed weapon? Is hunting a "fair" sport? I don't think the animals think so. Not much reason to have a gun. I say ban them totally. The second amendment was written about 300 years ago! It has no relevance today.
If we didn't have the NRA consistantly killing efforts to gather data and fund enforcement so we know what the problems are with gun ownership and sales, we might have enough info to aid the chiefs in permit issuance.
My oh my, whatever would we do without the NRA to kick around?
very informative article. I would like to see thestatistics for every city and town in Ma.as to gun ownership and then the stats onhow many renew or re register. I took a citizens police academy course in the towm where i raised my kids and i was schocked by the number of persons who owned guns. That did not take into account those who owned but failed to register..... It really made me rethink whose houses i wanted my kids to hang out at, or to do a sleepover at.
Right. So which would you rather have--a sleepover where the owner has a means of protecting ALL the kids at the sleepover, or in a house that has no means of protection?
Another possibility is to have the owner sign an affadavit that he has no guns, or if he does, ask him to produce a license.
You're right to be worried about your kids, always good to know their friends and friend's parents, though not easy. The odds of a child being injured in a home with firearms present is much, much higher than in a home without. As for the odds of a house being attacked while a sleepover is occuring, well, someone is watching way, way too much TV.
I would like to see national standard of recognizing the licenses of each state in other states. If I'm hunting with my Massachusetts issued firearms license I should not worry about a felony charge if I accidently walk 50 feet into RI.
I agree there should be a state agency like the RMV for LTCs. Only with better service. You can yak about local control, but that can also add local prejudice. Police officers are only human.
No thanks. Other states are much more lenient about carrying concealed weapons, due to history, the particular recreational culture, etc. I think we do a good job here in Massachusetts, that's one of the reasons I live here. And, seriously, is wandering 50' into RI really going to result in a felony charge? Could you cite some real instances where this has happened? Just saying "it could" means nothing.
How about wearing a red wig, and ensuring that you get a red-headed police chief who got out of the wrong side of the bed? One would cancel the other out, right?
THE 2ND AMENDMENT: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Is the second amendment confusing? Is it clear? Is it open to misinterpretation?
Note the wording. First the word “militia.” What is meant by this? A military force such as we have now, a separate institution? The military we have now is not the people. Get the point? So what is the amendment saying? That the people, you and I, are the military?
Why should the two words “militia” and “people” be considered the same? Is that the intended meaning of the amendment? To me, the militia, the military and the people are two different entities.
But the confusion of the amendment is one thing. What gun rights people want is another. Should you as a citizen have the right to bear arms. Sure, but still, I say, you are not the military. You should not have military weapons that are used in warfare. Otherwise, you could own a howitzer, not that you would want one. But do you need to have an assault weapon, which is a military weapon? Remember, you and I are not the military. We are the people. I say, however, that every citizen should have the right to carry a handgun. Teachers and principals, for one example, should but they don’t need an assault weapon. One bullet to the head of the insane Newtown killer would have been sufficient. But back to the point: What is the meaning of this amendment? What is meant by the word "militia?" The rank and file, the people, or the military? The military are not the people.
Actually, when framed, the people WERE the militia.
CPT is correct, and the founders had great fear of standing armies. Fools who do not have the confidence in their own common sense cling oh so tightly to rulings from another age.