# AWOL Denied LTC Renewal



## RECONED (Jul 9, 2014)

Isn't it an act of discretionary abuse when a chief denied an individual the right to carry based on Awol status in the National Guard? And by the way, this soldier is now serving in the reserve. Never once been to jail, no DUI, never been confined to a mental institution, just none of the reasons that would normally prevent someone from obtaining an LTC. He carried for work as an armed security officer for years. His commitment to care for himself and family has always been a top priority. could this be a political or just vague decisions that don't bear the real understanding of an individual right?


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

The unfortunate reality is that some Chiefs can and will be dicks when there is any reason whatsoever to deny a LTC. The issue as I see it is that they are allowed to, and they are not protected under the MGL from a civil claim for issuance based on good faith so many of them will tuck their tail beneath their legs and deny or restrict a LTC.

If this individual is still working as an armed security officer, you should have "them" get a letter from their employer stating such. Otherwise I would have "them" call the Chief so they can sit down and explain their situation and what they have to say and see what the Chief's position is. If all that fails, it can be a costly proposal but you do have the option of getting an attorney and appealing the denial to the court. Good luck.

PS - Nobody here likes the MA firearms laws any more than you do...trust me on that one.


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

it will only get worse with this latest bill


----------



## Cloverleaf Firearms Group (Jun 9, 2014)

pahapoika said:


> it will only get worse with this latest bill


I'm still digesting it, but the revision appears to put the burden on chief to outline a public safety issue for a denial. ..

Don't quote me on that yet.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

Cloverleaf Firearms Group said:


> I'm still digesting it, but the revision appears to put the burden on chief to outline a public safety issue for a denial. ..
> 
> Don't quote me on that yet.


Nope, you are 100% right on that.


----------

