It's Massachusetts, you might want to consider moving out of that state?
LTC - paperwork
We live in a small town, my wife Applied for her LTC over a year ago and no reply. any suggestions? We followed up, left messages but apart from going to his home or getting a lawyer, idk what else we can do. I'm starting to think they don't want her to have the license but they don't have a legal reason to deny her.... Thoughts or suggestions appreciated.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Did you file the application through your local Police Department?
Might consider sending a registered letter with the date of the application; if you kept a copy of the application, make and send a copy with the letter.
In the letter, Politely ask the status of the application as it's been over __ months (based on your date of filing).
Hope this helps.
Might consider sending a registered letter with the date of the application; if you kept a copy of the application, make and send a copy with the letter.
In the letter, Politely ask the status of the application as it's been over __ months (based on your date of filing).
Hope this helps.
here in North Carolina it's pretty easy, take a class 100.00, take certification from class to the county sheriff office get finger printed 50.00, then fill out the paper work 100 00. then wait up to 90 days for background check but usually takes 30 days good for 5 yrs. then after five yrs to renew it cost 50.00 if done within 60 days if you don't then you have to start over again . good luck
In Massachusetts, the State is considering the recent SCOTUS decision. Some states are trying to circumvent the "new law". It's sad.
A good gun rights lawyer might be a good contact to consider making. The groups (like USCCA, Law Shield) will probably have names of attorneys in your state and many attorneys will talk with you (without charge) to see if it is "worth" pursuing.
Sorry that you live in such a crappy state concerning the Second Amendments and your God-given/"Natural" rights.
A good gun rights lawyer might be a good contact to consider making. The groups (like USCCA, Law Shield) will probably have names of attorneys in your state and many attorneys will talk with you (without charge) to see if it is "worth" pursuing.
Sorry that you live in such a crappy state concerning the Second Amendments and your God-given/"Natural" rights.
Yeah state's like New York, it's not only sad but infuriating even though I don't live there. What the State of New York is doing is giving the finger to the Supreme Court by making it more difficult than ever to get a concealed weapons permit. In spite of the fact that in the opinion of the Supreme Court the court specifically ruled that New York can not make it more difficult to get a permit than any of the 43 "shall issue" state's. They're now requiring an in person interview with the state licensing officer a 16 hour firearms course and for individuals to turn over 3 full years of their postings on social media accounts. Making it a monumental task for the state licensing officer who happens to be a county judge to pour over 100's of thousand's of postings of every individual that applies for a permit. Then trying to determine from those postings whether an individual is a threat to society based on their postings. Their 1st Amendment rights be damned. This will give the licensing officer wide latitude to deny a permit for any reason whatsoever. New York's arbitrary and capricious handgun licensing system is why this case went to court in the first place. The Supreme Court rightfully slapped them down. Ruling that individuals who are not prohibited by law from owning firearms have the Constitutional right to carry for any lawful purpose outside the home.In Massachusetts, the State is considering the recent SCOTUS decision. Some states are trying to circumvent the "new law". It's sad.
A good gun rights lawyer might be a good contact to consider making. The groups (like USCCA, Law Shield) will probably have names of attorneys in your state and many attorneys will talk with you (without charge) to see if it is "worth" pursuing.
Sorry that you live in such a crappy state concerning the Second Amendments and your God-given/"Natural" rights.
Making matters worse is they've expanded the list where licensed individuals can not lawfully carry including all places of business, unless the business specifically allows for it. So whenever you're out and about shopping or running errands you'd better leave your handgun in your vehicle where it can get stolen before entering just about any business. All public parks, playgrounds, zoo's, places of worship, public transportation, day care centers, museums, libraries, theaters and all of Times Square have been designated as gun free zones. For all intents and purposes what this means is that licensed individuals will only be able to carry from their home to their vehicle. Once they step out in public the chances are great that they'll be carrying in a so called gun free zone. The law also requires background checks for all ammunition sales, a statewide data base for all ammunition sales and a record book for each sale of ammunition.
More than likely none of this will survive in court even in the lower courts given the Supreme Court's specific ruling. The governor who signed this legislation and those legislators who wrote it should immediately be thrown out of office and charged with contempt of court. Because that's exactly what they are doing.
Civil contempt occurs when the contemnor willfully disobeys a court order. This is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside the judge's immediate realm, and evidence must be presented to the judge to prove the contempt. A civil contemnor, too, may be fined, jailed, or both. The fine or jailing is meant to coerce the contemnor into obeying the court, not to punish him, and the contemnor will be released from jail just as soon as he complies with the court order. Contempt of Court: Everything You Need to Know
The Governor can't be thrown out of office because she was not elected to office. She's running now and if NYS Residents have their wits about them, they'll vote for Lee Zeldin. The subjective review of all candidates is of course a concern. There's a plethora of people who perform these administrative reviews from police officers to civilians, It depends on the agency. Some are assigned to administrative tasks because they have been removed from patrol duties for various reasons, maybe those of poor judgment..."hint." Others because they wish to be off of patrol or have a political contact that gets them a desk job. Might be a good idea to start a FOIA request on staff who refuses candidates permits for perceived spurious reasons. All these decisions must be approved up the ladder.Yeah state's like New York, it's not only sad but infuriating even though I don't live there. What the State of New York is doing is giving the finger to the Supreme Court by making it more difficult than ever to get a concealed weapons permit. In spite of the fact that in the opinion of the Supreme Court the court specifically ruled that New York can not make it more difficult to get a permit than any of the 43 "shall issue" state's. They're now requiring an in person interview with the state licensing officer a 16 hour firearms course and for individuals to turn over 3 full years of their postings on social media accounts. Making it a monumental task for the state licensing officer who happens to be a county judge to pour over 100's of thousand's of postings of every individual that applies for a permit. Then trying to determine from those postings whether an individual is a threat to society based on their postings. Their 1st Amendment rights be damned. This will give the licensing officer wide latitude to deny a permit for any reason whatsoever. New York's arbitrary and capricious handgun licensing system is why this case went to court in the first place. The Supreme Court rightfully slapped them down. Ruling that individuals who are not prohibited by law from owning firearms have the Constitutional right to carry for any lawful purpose outside the home. Making matters worse is they've expanded the list where licensed individuals can not lawfully carry including all places of business, unless the business specifically allows for it. So whenever you're out and about shopping or running errands you'd better leave your handgun in your vehicle where it can get stolen before entering just about any business. All public parks, playgrounds, zoo's, places of worship, public transportation, day care centers, museums, libraries, theaters and all of Times Square have been designated as gun free zones. For all intents and purposes what this means is that licensed individuals will only be able to carry from their home to their vehicle. Once they step out in public the chances are great that they'll be carrying in a so called gun free zone. The law also requires background checks for all ammunition sales, a statewide data base for all ammunition sales and a record book for each sale of ammunition. More than likely none of this will survive in court even in the lower courts given the Supreme Court's specific ruling. The governor who signed this legislation and those legislators who wrote it should immediately be thrown out of office and charged with contempt of court. Because that's exactly what they are doing. Civil contempt occurs when the contemnor willfully disobeys a court order. This is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside the judge's immediate realm, and evidence must be presented to the judge to prove the contempt. A civil contemnor, too, may be fined, jailed, or both. The fine or jailing is meant to coerce the contemnor into obeying the court, not to punish him, and the contemnor will be released from jail just as soon as he complies with the court order. Contempt of Court: Everything You Need to Know
The problem with New York State is that the people who care about their 2nd Amendment rights and Constitutional law are vastly outnumbered by those that don't. Their former governor the disgraced and loathsome Andrew Cuomo even came out and stated after the passage of New York's "Safe Act" that people that don't think like him are not welcome in New York. Which is the intended purpose of the "Safe Act" to begin with. Either get out or the Great State of New York will turn you into a felon for possessing what was once your lawfully owned private property. Which unto itself is a violation of Ex Post Facto statutes that are written into the Constitution. How they can get away with that is beyond me? But then again it's New York State, the Constitution be damned.The Governor can't be thrown out of office because she was not elected to office. She's running now and if NYS Residents have their wits about them, they'll vote for Lee Zeldin. The subjective review of all candidates is of course a concern. There's a plethora of people who perform these administrative reviews from police officers to civilians, It depends on the agency. Some are assigned to administrative tasks because they have been removed from patrol duties for various reasons, maybe those of poor judgment..."hint." Others because they wish to be off of patrol or have a political contact that gets them a desk job. Might be a good idea to start a FOIA request on staff who refuses candidates permits for perceived spurious reasons. All these decisions must be approved up the ladder.
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
Art 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. ---https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.
The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "t is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves." The desire to thwart abuses of power also inspired the Framers of the Constitution to prohibit bills of attainder, which are laws that inflict punishment on named individuals or on easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of a trial. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder deprive those subject to them of due process of law—that is, of notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.---https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws
It's Massachusetts, you might want to consider moving out of that state?
What you need is somebody with a lot of money to fight the bastards, or move, or stop voting for the aholesThe problem with New York State is that the people who care about their 2nd Amendment rights and Constitutional law are vastly outnumbered by those that don't. Their former governor the disgraced and loathsome Andrew Cuomo even came out and stated after the passage of New York's "Safe Act" that people that don't think like him are not welcome in New York. Which is the intended purpose of the "Safe Act" to begin with. Either get out or the Great State of New York will turn you into a felon for possessing what was once your lawfully owned private property. Which unto itself is a violation of Ex Post Facto statutes that are written into the Constitution. How they can get away with that is beyond me? But then again it's New York State, the Constitution be damned.
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
Art 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. ---https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.
The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "t is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves." The desire to thwart abuses of power also inspired the Framers of the Constitution to prohibit bills of attainder, which are laws that inflict punishment on named individuals or on easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of a trial. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder deprive those subject to them of due process of law—that is, of notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.---https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Handgun Forum
A forum community dedicated to handgun owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
