# Class A LTC - Employment Restriction Question



## DoItNow22

I am a Police Officer currently working on a College Campus. I graduated from the MSP SSPO Academy. Our duty weapons are stored in a lock-box in our Police Department when we are off duty, however numerous guys I work with have LTC ALP or LTC Personal Protection and carry off duty.

I am young and just beginning my LE carrer and was issued a Class A LTC - Employment Restriction. I know I cannot carry while I am off duty, however I am unsure as to if I am allowed to own a personal firearm for shooting at the range with the other Officers I work with, on our personal time. 

Other than qualification, my department only gets to the range for training 2-3 times per year. I would like to own the same model Glock and keep up with my training on my own, however I don't want to get myself in the glue over it.

My local PD that issued my LTC is not "Gun-Friendly" so-to-say, hense my LTC restriction. However they were very unclear as to what I could and could not do with it. I was issued a Pin # with my LTC to purchase firearms and ammunition but again I didn't want to get myself in the glue at the gun store attempting to buy a firearm without the proper LTC.

I am asking you guys if you have any knowledge of what my restriction limits me to do? 

Can I own a personal firearm and just not carry unless I am on duty? Or, is my deparment issued firearm the only weapon I am allowed to posses while I am on duty and I cannot own a personal firearm?

Thanks guys


----------



## mpd61

OMG/WTF/TIJW!!!!

So you carry a *Glock at work *and are a proud graduate of New Braintree *SSPO*? Not that it should matter, but are you Full-time, do you have decent looking official creds? I can't figure this one out...

Have you considered an LTC from the town you work in?:wink_smile:


----------



## DoItNow22

I'm not sure exactly what your asking sir, I consider myself a Very Proud Graduate of the New Braintree SSPO Academy, as needed for my employment at my College Police Department. I do not have a Full Time Municiple Academy.

I am a Full Time Police Officer at my College PD. I have had no disiplinary actions while employed however I am still considered a Rookie Officer for the first 5 years.

I do carry a .40 Caliber Glock 23 at work, however with my Employment Restriction on my Class A LTC has me confused as to if I can own a personal firearm, even if I can't do concealed carry. I want to be able to go to the range to keep up my firearms proficiency.

My LTC is issued in the same city/town as I both live and work so it is not an option to apply for a LTC ALP in another city. I had applied for a LTC ALP but only recieved the Employment Restriction LTC.


----------



## 263FPD

Let me put it to you like this, 

Restrictions on a Class A "All Lawful Purposes" is an oxymoron.

You certainly are allowed to own a personal weapon, and carrying it off duty WILL NOT jam you up. Your town PD's licensing authority is an ass-hat. You may not be State Federal or Local, but in their eyes you should be considered LE. I was always of the opinion that one can not restrict a Lawful Porposes LTC. I know that Boston PD Licensing Plays Fucky Fucky with that. You say you live in Central Mass.? PM me with details of where it is you live and properly identify your self to me. I am not looking for your name just more detail. I will then check wth our licensing people and see if they know this practice to be legit, and if so how to get around this B.S.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy

Fucky Fucky? What kinda shenanigans... 

...I coulda swore I saw some guy on a segway ripping around a mall, radioing to someone he was going to go play that game...


----------



## 263FPD

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> Fucky Fucky? What kinda shenanigans...
> 
> ...I coulda swore I saw some guy on a segway ripping around a mall, radioing to someone he was going to go play that game...


Nope, if you are talking about Snipe, the game I believe is called "Sucky Fucky"


----------



## grn3charlie

263FPD said:


> Let me put it to you like this,
> 
> Restrictions on a Class A "All Lawful Purposes" is an oxymoron.
> 
> You certainly are allowed to own a personal weapon, and carrying it off duty WILL NOT jam you up. Your town PD's licensing authority is an ass-hat. You may not be State Federal or Local, but in their eyes you should be considered LE. I was always of the opinion that one can not restrict a Lawful Porposes LTC. I know that Boston PD Licensing Plays Fucky Fucky with that. You say you live in Central Mass.? PM me with details of where it is you live and properly identify your self to me. I am not looking for your name just more detail. I will then check wth our licensing people and see if they know this practice to be legit, and if so how to get around this B.S.


One way to interpret the employment restiction is, you have a personal weapon, you go to the range on your own to be more proficient in your employment, you should be good to and from the range. Can't say much for carry off duty all time though.

Anyway, my first license was in Boston. They consider themselves to be the ONLY police ageny/officers in the city. So, the occupation section of my license was "school police!" Jackoffs put me in my fake cop 2 point five oh place. Whatever, I got the license. I since moved out of state and have to renew every year now at $100.00 a pop. Because of the shenanighans of the BPD, my state license has the same eff'n restriction.

My apologies to BPD members on this board that have nothing to do with this BS, but my rant essentially says that this pratice is BS!:stomp:

It's bad enough that we have libtards in MA that hate guns, but to have chiefs or thier designees hating them in the hands of cops goes beyond redonkulous!


----------



## Edmizer1

I used to work at an armed boston campus and we went to the full time academy. Before my time in the 1980s, the BPD academy would let our guys attend their academy with their officers if there were open spots. One of our guys was a Boston resident and went to one of these classes where 99% of the class was BPD officers. He told us that they took everyone to BPD HQ one day to apply for LTCs. Near the end of the class, they handed out the LTCs. His said "Boston Police Officer" as his occupation and the LTC was unrestricted. He informed the academy staff of the error and they threw a fit. They typed new phrases on pieces of paper and glued them onto the LTC. The LTC was then re-laminated. They changed "Boston" to "Campus" and added "Valid During Employment Hours Only". He kept the LTC and showed it to me. The glued over phrases and relaminating looked ridiculous.


----------



## MetrowestPD

Employment restriction is a vague statement at best. Does it mean the LTC is valid while you are employed by the College PD? Does it mean you can only carry while on duty at the College PD? Does it mean you can carry to and from work also? What if you change employment what happens to the LTC? You never want to be the test case, but I can't stand agencies that limit LTC's for any police officer. 

Why are you responsible enough to make arrests and take away peoples freedom, but not to carry a firearm off duty? Makes no sense.


----------



## 78thrifleman

"Other than qualification, my department only gets to the range for training 2-3 times per year."



Ha!..... ONLY...


----------



## mpd61

LawMan3 said:


> Those restrictions on a LTC-A are asinine. I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you that any decent cop wouldn't jam you up carrying off duty if you produced the *proper credentials* (LTC-A and LE ID).


That is half the problem too...many of these college agencies won't give their people anything decent in the way of "official" creds.


----------



## pahapoika

i believe a "Class A" is a "Class A" regardless of the nonsense Boston or other towns put on the license.

GOAL is trying to get the state to clean up the wording on this kind of s**t.

their good people to talk to Gun Owners' Action League - GOAL.org - "Protecting Your Freedom Begins Here"


----------



## jettsixx

mtc said:


> And here I'm thinking... "Hey cool! The new kid works for an ARMED College PD!!"


I was thinking wow a newbie with a well thought out intelligent question. As far as the restriction does sound like BS.


----------



## samadam78

I work for a state school and have a non-resident class A ltc. I went to the full time academy so i fall under the Federal Law Enforcement Safety Act. When I was told I had to get my MA LTC I started the process by going to my state for an ltc first they were laughing at me because they just couldn't understand why a police officer needed an LTC. It then took me about 8months of BS to get the state to issue me an LTC and I'm a full time LEO! gotta love it


----------



## mpd61

jettsixx said:


> I was thinking wow a newbie with a well thought out intelligent question. *As far as the restriction does sound like BS*.


Exactly. That particular Licensing "Official" is an official a-hole:throwball:


----------



## DoItNow22

LawMan3 said:


> If they fall under G.L. 22c 63,the white SSPO ID issued by the MSP should suffice. That's as "official" as it gets.





mpd61 said:


> That is half the problem too...many of these college agencies won't give their people anything decent in the way of "official" creds.





LawMan3 said:


> If they fall under G.L. 22c 63,the white SSPO ID issued by the MSP should suffice. That's as "official" as it gets.


On and Off duty I carry my wallet which contains my wallet badge, a picture ID that identifys me as a Police Officer at my College Department, as well as my Special State Police Officer Warrent card, which is signed by Colonel Marian McGovern of the MSP which actually gives me my Full Police Powers/Powers of Arrest and also has my picture on it. Then obviously my Class A LTC - Employment Restriction...

Those four peices of ID are on my person 24/7.

My only worry is that if I may be able to own and posses a firearm in my home, I know I would still get jammed up somehow if I were ever carrying and got stopped by a State or Municiple guy who has the feeling that SSPO's are nothing but rent-a-cops even though we bust our asses at a Full Time Academy run by the State and deal with all the same isses all "Real Cops" do, only inside our smaller "City inside a City".

It is just an uneasy feeling driving into work in uniform and not feeling the mag-well of my firearm under my elbow. Even if I don't have my uniform shirt on, the pants are a dead give away that I'm LE. And some badguy is not going to look at me and say to himself, "oh hes not armed, I'm not going to shoot him", They are going to automatically assume im armed and I then have nothing to protect myself or others.

I know I don't have to wear by uniform while commuting to work, but either way its either going to be on or its going to be hanging in my window...

I know my jurisdiction, however, if I see a felony taking place, I do have the power to act. I'm not saying I would, especially unarmed I absolutely would not, because most situations it is better to be a phenominal witness, but I'm sure you guys know what I'm getting at with this.

Basically I want to know if I can legally own and posess a firearm?

If so, could i carry only to and from work in uniform, and to the shooting range with my LE creds. on me or is that a negative?


----------



## jedediah1

DoItNow22 said:


> On and Off duty I carry my wallet which contains my wallet badge, a picture ID that identifys me as a Police Officer at my College Department, as well as my Special State Police Officer Warrent card, which is signed by Colonel Marian McGovern of the MSP which actually gives me my Full Police Powers/Powers of Arrest and also has my picture on it. Then obviously my Class A LTC - Employment Restriction...
> 
> Those four peices of ID are on my person 24/7.
> 
> My only worry is that if I may be able to own and posses a firearm in my home, I know I would still get jammed up somehow if I were ever carrying and got stopped by a State or Municiple guy who has the feeling that SSPO's are nothing but rent-a-cops even though we bust our asses at a Full Time Academy run by the State and deal with all the same isses all "Real Cops" do, only inside our smaller "City inside a City".
> 
> *It is just an uneasy feeling driving into work in uniform and not feeling the mag-well of my firearm under my elbow. Even if I don't have my uniform shirt on, the pants are a dead give away that I'm LE. And some badguy is not going to look at me and say to himself, "oh hes not armed, I'm not going to shoot him", They are going to automatically assume im armed and I then have nothing to protect myself or others.*
> 
> *I know I don't have to wear by uniform while commuting to work, but either way its either going to be on or its going to be hanging in my window...*
> 
> I know my jurisdiction, however, if I see a felony taking place, I do have the power to act. I'm not saying I would, especially unarmed I absolutely would not, because most situations it is better to be a phenominal witness, but I'm sure you guys know what I'm getting at with this.
> 
> Basically I want to know if I can legally own and posess a firearm?
> 
> If so, could i carry only to and from work in uniform, and to the shooting range with my LE creds. on me or is that a negative?


your posts are getting more whackery....go to the gun store, and buy a gun, or at least attempt to..they'll know if you can get one or not because they see more LTC's than a divorce lawyer


----------



## DoItNow22

jedediah1 said:


> your posts are getting more whackery....go to the gun store, and buy a gun, or at least attempt to..they'll know if you can get one or not because they see more LTC's than a divorce lawyer


Good point, might as well just try right?

Anyone ever bought anything used off of Gunsamerica.com?

My cousin in a municiple officer and bought a used sig off of there but just wondering if anyone else has?

---------- Post added at 21:54 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

No more whackery posts from this guy by the way, I'll proof read haha


----------



## pahapoika

having a firearm is always a good thing , but you might find out after awhile it's not all what it's cracked up to be.

their expensive, costly to feed, dirty to clean up, need a safe to store it ,belong to shooting range to fire it, etc

but get it out of your system, have fun and be careful.

you don't want to jeopardize your pay check


----------



## Killjoy

Why not just walk into a gun store and buy one? Don't add another level of complication by buying a firearm off the internet.


----------



## mpd61

1. Go buy a gun (because you want to, and _legally_ can with _any_ LTC)
2. Don't carry it concealed ....nudge, nudge, wink!

With time and patience, the rest of it will come together for you!:shades_smile:


----------



## rg1283

Go out and buy a gun at a gun store. Get a simple revolver or something similar to what you are all ready carrying.

Maybe get a suit bag for your uniform that way its not hanging in plain view in your vehicle. 

Buying guns online is foolish.. Since used they cost almost just as much as new guns (depending on what your looking at) do at the gun store and then have to be shipped to a gun store which requires fees. A big pain in the ass.


----------



## DoItNow22

Thanks for all the help guys, I do appreciate it all. I hope to get to a gun store this upcoming week.

Thanks again guys!


----------



## cc3915

DoItNow22 said:


> Thanks for all the help guys, I do appreciate it all. I hope to get to a gun store this upcoming week.
> 
> Thanks again guys!


Good luck. Let us know how you make out.


----------



## po-904

MetrowestPD said:


> Employment restriction is a vague statement at best. Does it mean the LTC is valid while you are employed by the College PD? Does it mean you can only carry while on duty at the College PD? Does it mean you can carry to and from work also? What if you change employment what happens to the LTC? You never want to be the test case, but I can't stand agencies that limit LTC's for any police officer.
> 
> Why are you responsible enough to make arrests and take away peoples freedom, but not to carry a firearm off duty? Makes no sense.


I both live in Boston and work at one of the armed Campus Dept.'s in the city full-time. Three years ago when I went down to BPD HQ to apply for my license they played many games, apparently hoping I would go away quietly and give up on the process...they magically "lost my print cards" twice and claimed they couldn't be read another...

Finally after 5 trips to HQ and 2 to Moon Island to shoot (the first time we went down at the scheduled time they suddenly forgot that the academy was using the range that day and made us all leave...of course, at that point I had already taken the day off from work) I was able to submit my license paperwork. When the guy looked at it and saw that I had put "for all lawful purposes" as my reason he literally laughed in my face...then insisted I was nothing more than a "security guard" and didn't need an ALP permit. My restrictions currently read "Conditional With Employment."

What does that mean, exactly? Who knows! Nobody can tell me of course, not even the licensing division down at BPD HQ. I asked a good buddy of mine who works for BPD and who checked with several co-workers...I asked if it means I can only carry while at work? My buddy told me that he doesn't believe that's the case as he had seen permits that were issued for that exact reason that stated "For Employment Purposes Only."

The way I (and my buddy) interpret my own license as "conditional with employment" is that as long as I am employed as a Police Officer I get to keep my license, and can carry it anyway, but who's to say that's the case? Does anyone really want to be a test case for such an issue?

I'm not so sure I do...


----------



## Hush

Just keep it well hidden, and don't engage in any stupid behavior.............


----------



## OKPRMedic

I'm new here, but am an NRA / Mass Certified Instructor and have some knowledge in this area. The generally accepted interpretation of the employment restriction is actually found in the police department's firearms processing computer program. It is as follows:

Employment - Restricts possession to business owner engaged in business activities, or to an employee while engaged in work related activities, and maintaining proficiency, where the employer requires carrying of a firearm (i.e. armored car, security guard, etc.). Includes travel to and from activity location.

This definition is not found in Mass Law, and I am not sure how it was derived, but I heard it had something to do with an agreement between the Mass COP Assoc and the CHSB. Anyway, the Issuing Authority can accept, modify, or disregard these definitions and define what he means specific to your instance. You could contact the chief and ask him what he means in writing. It's just how it works, and is one reason why gun owners are very frustrated in this state.

You can certainly buy a firearm with your license, any hi-cap handgun, rifle, or shotgun which can lawfully be sold to or possessed by any LTC-A holder in the state. 

According to the definition above, you could transport your firearms unloaded and locked in your trunk or secure container and transport them to and from an appropriate range for practice.

I would be real surprised if a licensing authority would forbid you from practicing on your own time with your own firearm, especially, if the chief is giving out "Target and Hunting" to civilian applicants. The chief could also add "Target Practice" to your license at no cost to you that would completely eliminate any misunderstanding.

Good luck,

Jeff


----------



## 263FPD

> I'm new here, but am an NRA / Mass Certified Instructor and have some knowledge in this area. The generally accepted interpretation of the employment restriction is actually found
> 
> 
> 
> in the police department's firearms processing computer program
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Do not assume that this language exists in every PD as a defenition of "Employment" What Department are we speaking of?


----------



## HuskyH-2

As a campus officer, can you not ccw on your badge and id?


----------



## 263FPD

HuskyH-2 said:


> As a campus officer, can you not ccw on your badge and id?


I may be wrong but I will say "No" not leaglly per se, but most of the cops I know, would probably not bust balls too much. However, you must know that our Chief requires that all of his staff have a valid MA LTC even though under the law, a badge and my ID from the municipality is adequate. Go figure.


----------



## OKPRMedic

263FPD said:


> Do not assume that this language exists in every PD as a defenition of "Employment" What Department are we speaking of?


The language only exists as part of the online computer program (MIRCS) used by departments to issue LTCs. There is a window with these definitions that can be printed out. The police departments are not bound by these definitions. The definitions are not found in the law, and the restrictions can mean anything that the licensing authority says they mean.

So, the same definition will "pop up" on the online MIRCS system in every department but the issuing authority can totally disregard or modify them as he or she sees fit. So yes, I agree, "Employment" can mean something entirely different in town A than in town B. But the "example" or "suggested" MIRCS definition comes up on the computer the same in every town.


----------



## sdb29

DoItNow22 said:


> On and Off duty I carry my wallet which contains my wallet badge, a picture ID that identifys me as a Police Officer at my College Department, as well as my Special State Police Officer Warrent card, which is signed by Colonel Marian McGovern of the MSP which actually gives me my Full Police Powers/Powers of Arrest and also has my picture on it


I know I'm jumping into this a little late, and I really don't do Ch90 anymore so I'm not going to stop anybody but-

If I came in contact with you and you showed me your department ID, unless you were doing something incredibly stupid that would be the end of the conversation. If you tell me you're armed in the interest of my safety I'm not gonna ask to see your LTC

Does anyone remember the Boston Special that was off duty and shot the EDP in the hospital? Saved the Doc? Did anyone check his restrictions?

Basically I think if you do something with it that turns out good, like he did, no one's going to care about restrictions. If you F up, it's just one more nail. Just don't F up.


----------



## OfficerObie59

HuskyH-2 said:


> As a campus officer, can you not ccw on your badge and id?


Carrying "on your badge" is a priviledge provided for in MGL Ch. 41, §98, the appointment statute for MUNICIPAL police officers that essentially gives them their police powers. State police, SSPO, campus police, MBTA, EPO's, etc. all have different appointment statutes that may or may not allow carry.

Statutory language:


> CHAPTER 41 OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
> Section 98 Powers and duties
> 
> Section 98. The chief and other police officers of all cities and towns shall have all the powers and duties of constables except serving and executing civil process. They shall suppress and prevent all disturbances and disorder.* They may carry within the commonwealth such weapons as the chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town shall determine; *provided, that any law enforcement officer of another state or territory of the United States may, while on official business within the commonwealth, carry such weapons as are authorized by his appointing authority. They may examine all persons abroad whom they have reason to suspect of unlawful design, and may demand of them their business abroad and whither they are going; may disperse any assembly of three or more persons, and may enter any building to suppress a riot or breach of peace therein. Persons so suspected who do not give a satisfactory account of themselves, persons so assembled and who do not disperse when ordered, and persons making, aiding and abetting in a riot or disturbance may be arrested by the police, and may thereafter be safely kept by imprisonment or otherwise unless released in the manner provided by law, and taken before a district court to be examined and prosecuted....





263FPD said:


> I may be wrong but I will say "No" not leaglly per se, but most of the cops I know, would probably not bust balls too much. However, you must know that our Chief requires that all of his staff have a valid MA LTC even though under the law, a badge and my ID from the municipality is adequate. Go figure.


The reason I would guess for this is one is that chiefs believe it may ensure some liability insulation (whether it would really matter is another question). Keep in mind, if you really want to split hairs, to carry on one's badge, the chief actually has to authorize you to carry. So say you ND at the grocery store, the department can attempt to distance itself by saying you were carrying under your LTC.

Further, you can't just load up any old firearm and say you're carrying on your badge. The firearm has to be one that a municipal chief actually authorizes.

Remember this too: I seem to remember a case about ten years ago or so with a twenty year veteran officer in good standing who had been adjudicated delinquent of stautory rape when he was a juvenile. When the legislature changed the requirements in the mid 90's to exclude juveniles who had been adjudicated delinquent from holding an LTC, he suddenly found himself without an LTC and thus in violation of his department's policy requiring all officers to have a valid carry license. The depatment fired him and his appeals took him all the way to the SJC who later upheld the termination.

---------- Post added at 02:42 ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 ----------

In case anyone cares...took some digging; the important stuff is in bold.

Not Reported in N.E.2d, 15 Mass.L.Rptr. 748, 2003 WL 1114057 (Mass.Super.)

Superior Court of Massachusetts.*Scott WHEELER,*
*v.*
*TOWN OF FRANKLIN.*

No. 01-02034.
Feb. 14, 2003.

*MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS*

*JUDITH FABRICANT, Justice.*

*INTRODUCTION*

*1 This action for declaratory judgment arises from the plaintiff's discharge from his position as a police officer for the Town of Franklin. The plaintiff contends that his discharge violated G.L. c. 119, § 60. He seeks a declaration to that effect, and an injunction requiring the Town to reinstate him. The defendant moves to dismiss, arguing that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, both because it is barred by a prior arbitration award, and because the facts alleged do not show a statutory violation. In support of its motion, the defendant has provided a copy of an arbitration decision regarding the plaintiff's discharge. The plaintiff has not objected to the Court's consideration of that document, and indeed has relied on it. At argument on the motion, counsel agreed that the case presents solely an issue of law, and is ripe for decision on the merits based on the complaint, the arbitration decision, and the arguments presented in the memoranda on the present motion. Accordingly, the Court treats the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment.

*BACKGROUNDFN1*
FN1. The factual background of this dispute appears in _Commonwealth v. Wheeler,_ 52 Mass.App.Ct. 631, 631-632 (2001).
​The amended complaint, as supplemented by the arbitration award, provides the following factual background. The plaintiff was adjudicated delinquent in 1973. In 1982, the Town of Franklin appointed him as a police officer, despite his disclosure of the 1973 adjudication. The plaintiff performed his duties as a police officer satisfactorily. Until 1998, the plaintiff held a license to carry a firearm pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 131. On July 23, 1998, the Legislature enacted St.1998, c. 180, which amended G.L. c. 140, § 131, by adding to the list of persons disqualified from being licensed to carry a firearm, set forth at 131(d)(i), any person who "has, in any state or federal jurisdiction, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of (a) a felony" or certain other specified offenses. As a result of this enactment, the plaintiff became disqualified from being licensed to carry a firearm.

On April 6, 1999, the Town discharged the plaintiff from his position as a police officer. It did so, according to the allegations of the complaint, solely because "his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent disqualified him from possessing a license to carry a firearm under G.L. c. 141, § 131." The plaintiff's union grieved the discharge, and the grievance proceeded to arbitration. On April 20, 2000, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of the Town, concluding that the plaintiff's discharge did not violate the collective bargaining agreement, because the plaintiff's "disqualification under G.L. c. 140, § 131, rendered him legally incapable of performing the duties of a police officer." The union did not file an action to vacate the arbitration award.

The arbitrator found certain additional facts of relevance. *The Town had an established practice "to require police officers to maintain a LTC [license to carry] in accordance with c. 140, § 131, as a condition of employment."* That practice did not violate the collective bargaining agreement. Upon enactment of the amendment to that statute, the Town performed criminal history checks on all employees of the police department, and identified several who had disqualifying adjudications or convictions. Among these were the plaintiff and one other police officer. *On October 28, 1998, the police chief issued an order "restating the Town's 'practice since 1981' of issuing its police officers licenses under c. 140, § 131 and requiring 'a LTC' as a condition of employment." The Town placed the plaintiff and the other officer on administrative leave "while they sought to have their records expunged or moved for a new trial on the original charges."* The other officer succeeded in that effort, but the plaintiff did not. See _Commonwealth v. Wheeler,_ 52 Mass.App.Ct. 631, 632 (2001). *The Town then discharged him on the ground that "he was 'unable to meet the requirements of a police officer in the Town of Franklin.' "*

*DISCUSSION*

*2 The defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint first on the ground that the action is, in essence, a collateral attack on the arbitrator's award, and is barred by the failure to seek review of it. The short answer to this argument is that the plaintiff was not a party to the arbitration proceeding, had no control over it, and did not have standing to seek review; the parties in that proceeding were limited to the parties to the collective bargaining agreement-that is, the union and the employer. See _Miller v. Board of Regents of Higher Education,_ 405 Mass. 475, 480 (1989). More substantively, the arbitration decision did not address the statutory claim the plaintiff now asserts; the arbitrator's power was limited to determining whether the plaintiff's discharge violated the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the arbitration award does not bar this action. The Court will therefore proceed to the merits, and will determine and declare the rights of the parties.

The plaintiff bases his claim on G.L. c. 119, § 60. That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An adjudication of any child as a delinquent child ... shall not be received in evidence or used against such child for any purpose in any proceedings in any court ...; nor shall such adjudication ... operate to disqualify a child in any future examination, appointment, or application for public service under the government either of the commonwealth or of any political subdivision thereof.

The plaintiff argues that, in terminating him because of his ineligibility to have a license to carry a firearm resulting from his delinquency adjudication, the Town effectively disqualified him from its employment based on the adjudication, in violation of the statute.FN2 The plaintiff acknowledges the Town's policy of requiring that police officers have a license to carry, but points out that the law does not so require; G.L. c. 41, § 98, authorizes police officers to "carry within the commonwealth such weapons as the chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town shall determine." Thus, he contends, the chief could have permitted him to carry a firearm without a license to carry. Alternatively, he suggests, the police department could have assigned him to duties that would not require a firearm. Its failure to adopt either of these courses under the circumstances presented, he argues, violated his rights under G.L. c. 119, § 60.
FN2. The plaintiff's complaint alleged an additional violation of the statute in the introduction in evidence at an unspecified "hearing" of a certified copy of the adjudication. The Court infers that the hearing referred to was either the Town's administrative hearing on the discharge or the arbitration hearing or both. The plaintiff does not press this theory in his memorandum in opposition to the present motion. The Court notes that the statute refers to Court proceedings, not to administrative or arbitration hearings.
​The argument reads into the statute a protection that does not appear in its language. In essence, the plaintiff's position is that he has a right not only not to be disqualified from employment by virtue of the adjudication in itself, but also not to be disqualified from employment by any legal disability or other legal consequence resulting from the adjudication. Under this reading, a public employer could not reject an applicant for lack of a driver's license, if that lack arose from license revocation, or disqualification from being licensed, as a result of an adjudication of delinquency for an offense that triggers such revocation or disqualification. See, e.g. G.L. c. 90, § 22(f) (registrar shall suspend license upon conviction of violation of controlled substance act). Similarly, it could not refuse to hire an applicant for a position involving close contact with children on the ground that the applicant is a registered sex offender, if the applicant's obligation to register results from a juvenile adjudication. See _Doe v. Attorney General,_ 425 Mass. 210, 210 (1999) (regarding interaction of statutory registration requirement for persons adjudicated delinquent based on sex offenses with statutory provisions regarding confidentiality of juvenile records). Such a reading would, at the very least, deprive public employers of discretion to establish generally applicable, job-related criteria for employment.

**3 Massachusetts law gives police chiefs broad discretion to decide who may carry firearms. That discretion applies both with respect to members of the public seeking licenses to carry under G.L. c. 140, § 131, see Godfrey v. Chief of Police of Wellesley, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 42, 45-46 (1993), and with respect to police officers under G.L. c. 41, § 98. See Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 220, 226 (1979). Whether the chief's discretion under G.L. c. 41, § 98, is so broad as to permit him to authorize carrying of a firearm by a person whom the legislature has expressly disqualified from being licensed is open to question. Assuming it is, that discretion belongs to the police chief, not to the Court.*

Here, the police chief has exercised his discretion, apparently over a long period of time, to require that all members of the department be licensed. The plaintiff does not contend, and nothing in the facts suggests, that he did so as a pretext for disqualifying this plaintiff based on his delinquency adjudication.* Legitimate purposes for the chief's policy are apparent: Requiring all officers to be able to carry weapons promotes efficiency and flexibility in the operation of the department, particularly in a relatively small municipality that may lack a sufficient number of officers to be able to assign some on a permanent basis to duties that would not require firearms. Requiring that all be licensed, rather than merely granting them permission to carry under c. 41, § 98, effectively adopts the legislatively enacted criteria for the grant of permission to carry, serving the same public purposes as those criteria serve when applied to the issuance of licenses, and minimizing the risk of potential liability.*

The plaintiff's reading of c. 119, § 60, would require the chief to make an exception from his legitimate, generally applicable policy for any officer who is disqualified from being licensed due to a delinquency adjudication. The Legislature may fairly be assumed to have understood that some jobs, particularly law enforcement positions, require firearms, so that the 1998 amendment to c. 140, § 131, would likely result in some of the individuals affected losing their jobs. Yet it did not except police officers from the amendment. The Legislature is presumed to have been aware of its own prior enactments, including c. 119, § 60, see _Commonwealth v. Russ R.,_ 433 Mass. 515, 520 (2001). Yet it did not amend that provision to grant the expanded protection the plaintiff now proposes to read into it. These Legislative choices indicate its apparent intention that police officers, like all others, suffer collateral consequences of past juvenile adjudications. The result may indeed appear harsh, as the Appeals Court suggested. See _Commonwealth v. Wheeler,_ 52 Mass.App.Ct. at 632. But the power to mitigate such harshness lies with the Legislature, not with the Court. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, declaring that its discharge of the plaintiff did not violate c. 119, § 60.

*CONCLUSION AND ORDER*

*4 For the reasons stated, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, treated as a motion for summary judgment, is _ALLOWED,_ and it is hereby ordered that _JUDGMENT_ enter declaring as follows:

The Town of Franklin did not violate G.L. c. 119, § 60, by discharging the plaintiff from his employment as a police officer on April 6, 1999, based on his disqualification to be licensed to carry a firearm under G.L. c. 140, § 131(d)(1), as a result of his 1973 adjudication as a juvenile delinquent.

Mass.Super.,2003.
Wheeler v. Town of Franklin
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 15 Mass.L.Rptr. 748, 2003 WL 1114057 (Mass.Super.)


----------



## uspresident1

One long ass thread and 4 pages of posts all because MASSACHUSETTS GLs SUCK.


----------



## quality617

515 CMR 5 states that Special State Police Officers are required to hold an LTC.

I don't know where in the hierarchy of rules or laws the CMR supersedes or is superceded by, but there it is. It's what was used when I was an SSPO to direct us to get LTC's.

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/msp/...al-state-police-standard-of-skill-515-cmr.pdf


----------



## ItalAuxCop

You may want to look at this as well....

H.R. 218 Final Text

Federal Law HR 218


----------



## Big.G

Add me to the list of people jumping in on this late...



DoItNow22 said:


> I was issued a Pin # with my LTC to purchase firearms and ammunition but again I didn't want to get myself in the glue at the gun store attempting to buy a firearm without the proper LTC.


Going by what I was told by my local FFL, as long as you have your LTC on you, you don't need the PIN # when purchasing a firearm or ammunition. The PIN is only if you don't have you're LTC on you, which is kind of stupid if you ask me. Yea, it's a way for the FFL to verify your LTC if you "forgot it at home." But, what if you get stopped afterwards and are found with a firearm/ammunition with no LTC in possession? Kinda screwed I'd say....at least for the average person.



DoItNow22 said:


> Anyone ever bought anything used off of Gunsamerica.com?


Yes, I have. When you're looking for a particular gun that has been discontinued for decades and can't find it in any store around here, it doesn't leave me with much of a choice. My FFL couldn't care less. He even waived the transfer fee for me.



ItalAuxCop said:


> You may want to look at this as well....
> 
> H.R. 218 Final Text
> 
> Federal Law HR 218


There are varying interpretations of H.R. 218. This Lt. (now a Capt.) was trying to tell me that it applies only to F/T state and municipal officers because of two reasons. The first is the government issued ID requirement and the second is that except for F/T officers, police powers are only had while "on-duty" so in his eyes when you're "off-duty" you are not a police officer and do not qualify. I think that is bullshit if you ask me. But, the Chief I had teaching Criminal Law said during the time covering firearms law that he believes that a police officer is a police officer and that Auxiliaries/Reserves, etc. qualify for the exemption under 269-10(j) even when "off-duty," so I am assuming he would feel the same way about H.R. 218.


----------



## Lost

Big.G said:


> There are varying interpretations of H.R. 218. This Lt. (now a Capt.) was trying to tell me that it applies only to F/T state and municipal officers because of two reasons. The first is the government issued ID requirement and the second is that except for F/T officers, police powers are only had while "on-duty" so in his eyes when you're "off-duty" you are not a police officer and do not qualify. I think that is bullshit if you ask me. But, the Chief I had teaching Criminal Law said during the time covering firearms law that he believes that a police officer is a police officer and that Auxiliaries/Reserves, etc. qualify for the exemption under 269-10(j) even when "off-duty," so I am assuming he would feel the same way about H.R. 218.


Many don't believe P/T officers can carry under HR 218. The truth is, most cannot. If you are not authorized by your Chief to carry off duty, you are not covered. Most Chiefs won't authorize due to the liability of someone with less hours of training carrying on the badge.


----------



## Big.G

LawMan3 said:


> On the back of my LTC, where there would usually be a small copy of your fingerprint, it is blank. Of all the firearms I've purchased from an FFL, the fingerprint does not register, and I have to enter my pin, which works just fine.


That's odd. I've never heard of that. Is there a reason for why your fingerprint isn't on the back?

The letter with my PIN that I got when I renewed my LTC is lost in a pile of papers. My fingerprint works just fine.


----------



## mpd61

Big.G said:


> There are varying interpretations of H.R. 218. This Lt. (now a Capt.) was trying to tell me that *it applies only to F/T state and municipal officers because of two reasons.* The first is the government issued ID requirement and the second is that except for F/T officers, police powers are only had while "on-duty" so in his eyes when you're "off-duty" you are not a police officer and do not qualify. *I think that is bullshit if you ask me*. .


He's sooooo full of it. VA Police Officers are covered (Gov't Issued/FT/Statutory) and U/Mass and the State and Community College armed departments as well. EPO's too sorry! Typical "real cop" (read=state/muni) BS Mentality. Can't see outside the CH.41/s.98 or CH22C boxes.


---------- Post added at 02:54 ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 ----------



Lost said:


> Many don't believe P/T officers can carry under HR 218. The truth is, most cannot. *If you are not authorized by your Chief to carry off duty, you are not covered.* Most Chiefs won't authorize due to the liability of someone with less hours of training carrying on the badge.


Really? How many Chiefs issue authorization in writing to their FT officers to carry off-duty? How many have written policies specifically authorizing their officers to carry off-duty? Most Departments I know of (myself an MPTC Instructor) train ALL their personnel to the same standards/hours of firearms training. How many RETIRED officers are authorized by letter or written procedure by their departments to carry off-duty? HR 218 is the U.S. Congress saying who's _Qualified, _not any Chief. Myths are constantly being perpetuated.
:tounge_smile:


----------



## Lost

mpd61 said:


> Really? How many Chiefs issue authorization in writing to their FT officers to carry off-duty? How many have written policies specifically authorizing their officers to carry off-duty? Most Departments I know of (myself an MPTC Instructor) train ALL their personnel to the same standards/hours of firearms training. How many RETIRED officers are authorized by letter or written procedure by their departments to carry off-duty? HR 218 is the U.S. Congress saying who's _Qualified, _not any Chief. Myths are constantly being perpetuated.
> :tounge_smile:


OK- I'll bite-

Are you stating that your PD does not have a written policy regarding off duty carry?

Do you have part time employees at your PD? Often, full timers are explicitly differentiated in the policies (at least, the ones I've seen are). Further, a full time officer's ID in many places includes the written authorization- PT don't receive that ID.

Retired officers are explicitly spelled out.


----------



## mpd61

Lost said:


> OK- I'll bite-
> 
> Are you stating that your PD does not have a written policy regarding off duty carry?
> 
> Do you have part time employees at your PD? Often, full timers are explicitly differentiated in the policies (at least, the ones I've seen are). Further, a full time officer's ID in many places includes the written authorization- PT don't receive that ID.
> 
> Retired officers are explicitly spelled out.


I'm good to go, let's see...

1. No my current PD has no written policy specifically adressing off-duty carry.

2. My prior PD ( left 2006) had PT'ers with exact same creds as the other sworn personnel. Same exact We don't have any here.

Now to play fair, would you please consider answering my questions now?


----------

