Under the gun

Your hometown can be the key to a concealed-weapon license, and some say that's not fair

Gun owners are complaining that local police chiefs have far too much leeway in considering applications for the state's concealed-weapons license, creating a frustrating patchwork of regulations that varies from community to community.

In a recent letter to the state attorney general's office, an advocacy group for gun owners complained that police chiefs use unnecessary and possibly illegal roadblocks for anyone seeking a "license to carry." The Class A license allows the holder to carry a concealed handgun or to own rifles with a large capacity for ammunition.

Keith G. Langer of Wrentham, a lawyer who handles firearm license cases, said the rules vary so much from town to town, it's bewildering.

"There are 351 cities and towns, each of which can apply their own capricious rules," he said.

For instance, some communities require applicants to take a firearms certification course every time they reapply for a license. That's ridiculous, Langer said, adding it's like requiring drivers to pass their road test every time they renew their license.

Also, gun owners say, some chiefs require letters of reference or letters from physicians, charge fees that are more than what state law requires, or force applicants to join gun clubs. Other owners are upset when restrictions are placed on their license that might limit them to hunting or sport shooting.

The law does call for some fundamental conditions. To get a Class A license, an applicant must be at least 21, a US citizen, and never been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor with a sentence longer than two years. They must also complete a firearms safety course. The license is good for six years.

But the law also gives municipalities and local police chiefs broad discretion to force applicants to meet other requirements.

For instance, Waltham requires three letters of reference, and Sudbury requires two. Braintree requires five. Brookline orders licensed owners to pass a gun certification test when they renew their license every six years. Boston requires membership in a gun club. Andover requires a note from a doctor.

Some reasons for denial are specific - those convicted of a violent felony are not eligible - but others are open-ended. For example, the law allows chiefs to decide how "suitable" an individual is. Some chiefs feel a person charged but not convicted of assault and battery might qualify for a license; others disagree.

For their part, local chiefs shrug off the complaints. Their requirements are within the law and local officials should have some control over who is armed in their communities, they said.

In Newton, Lieutenant Bruce Apotheker, the Police Department spokesman, said his city follows the letter of the law.

"If someone is a stable candidate and meets the statutory requirements, they will be issued a gun license," said Apotheker.

But Henry Minsky, a 45-year-old software engineer in Newton, was upset after he applied in 2005 for an unrestricted Class A license, but received one restricting him to target shooting and hunting. The community has a reputation among gun owners as a place where it is tough to get an unrestricted license, he complained.

He didn't protest the restriction, Minsky said, because he didn't feel he would win. He said he decided to get a license after developing an interest in target shooting, and after watching the civil unrest in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The Northborough-based Gun Owners' Action League, a nonprofit group that is an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, sent the letter complaining about the inconsistencies to the attorney general's office in March.

Licensed owners are not being treated equally, said the letter, which was signed by GOAL's executive director, James L. Wallace. The letter said some communities were charging more than the $100 allowed by law for permits, and Lawrence and Andover required notes from doctors.

Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, said Coakley's office and the state's Executive Office of Public Safety are reviewing the information from GOAL.

In a follow-up to his letter, Wallace met last week with Coakley to press his view that police chiefs statewide should use uniform standards when considering license applications.

Melissa Karpinsky, another spokeswoman for Coakley, described the meeting as productive and said, "We're in the process of reviewing the concerns" that were raised by Wallace.

GOAL has already won one victory. The organization complained in November to the state inspector general's office that Cambridge was charging gun owners $120 for a license; Cambridge has since cut the fee to $100.

The issue of licensing disparity is a hot topic among gun owners. An online forum, northeastshooters.com, has a color-coded map of Massachusetts showing the ease or difficulty in obtaining a license in each community, based on feedback from members.

A database of license denials provides partial evidence that standards vary widely. Tough communities, such as Revere, Quincy, Brookline, and Lowell, denied from 6 to 9 percent of applicants between 2004 and 2007, according to figures from the Criminal History Systems Board.

More than 80 departments showed no denials, and many others had only a handful. However, the figures are missing some nuances that make them difficult to interpret, especially for communities where it appears there are few or no denials. In some communities, a prescreening process allows applicants facing rejection to back out before submitting a formal application and paying a fee.

Others might discourage applicants from even applying because they have so many requirements. And some might place restrictions on a Class A license that would not be applied in another community and do not show up in the statewide data.

Part of the problem is confusion among gun owners and even chiefs about what exactly the restrictions mean.

That's understandable, because the restrictions are allowed by law but are not defined by law, said Lee's police chief, Ronald C. Glidden, who is also chairman of the state Gun Control Advisory Board, appointed by the governor and considered an authority on the issue.

"They may mean different things to different people because they are not a regulation," said Glidden. "That has been a problem historically, since day one."

To reduce confusion and limit the range of Class A restrictions, a shorter list was developed about a year ago with four categories: target and hunting; sporting; employment; and other. It means, for instance, that a license granted for sporting can't be used for employment.

The restrictions are defined by the Massachusetts Instant Record Check System, which is available to law enforcement officers but apparently not readily available to the public, said Glidden. If a person violates a restriction, the chief who issued the license can suspend it.

There are three additional levels of licenses issued by Massachusetts: The Class B license, which applies to nonconcealed handguns that carry less ammunition, and large-capacity rifles and shotguns; an unrestricted Firearms Identification card, which applies to nonlarge-capacity rifles and shotguns; and a restricted Firearms Identification card, which allows the owner to carry a chemical repellent.

John Rosenthal, founder of the nonprofit Stop Handgun Violence organization in Massachusetts, said he is happy with the way the Class A restrictions work now.

"We make it at least a little bit harder for criminals and terrorists to get guns, and we have the lowest firearm fatality rate in the nation, second only to Hawaii. Gun laws work in this state," he said.

Some police chiefs were frank about being tough in handing out licenses.

"There has to be a need before I'm going to be giving you a license to carry with no restrictions," said Quincy Chief Robert F. Crowley.

He said a homeowner worried about protection can get a firearms identification card, which is far easier to obtain than a Class A, and can buy a shotgun, "one of the most deadly weapons available," that can be kept at home.

But some people take a dim view of what they see as the obstacles used by police departments.

"They are trying to discourage you, and they put as many roadblocks in your path as possible to give you a hard time," said Jim Lynch, a 38-year-old resident of Wilton, N.H., who left Boston two years ago partly because of what he felt were the city's obstructionist licensing policies.

Lynch and others pointed out that Boston requires applicants to take a gun certification course at a city facility, using city weapons.

"It's clearly geared toward discouraging people," he said.

Matt Carroll can be reached at mcarroll@globe.com.