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 too much leeway in considering applications for the state's concealed weapons license, creating a frustrating patchwork of gun regulations that vary from town to town.

In a letter to the state attorney general's office, gun owners say that police chiefs throw up roadblocks that are unnecessary, and possibly illegal, for gun owners to obtain a Class A license that allows the holder to carry a concealed handgun or own rifles with a large capacity for ammunition.

"You don't know what you are going to get into with your local police chief," said Daniel S. Noreck, a 59-year-old electrical engineer from Mansfield.

Noreck said he was required to supply two letters of reference when he renewed his license in Mansfield. That was not required in the town in which he lived before, where he received his original license.

To get a Class A license, state law says an applicant must be 21, a US citizen, and never convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor with a sentence longer than two years. Applicants 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 example, communities such as Easton, Mansfield, Sharon, Walpole, and Worcester require two or three letters of reference for certain kinds of licenses. Braintree requires five. Brookline requires licensed owners to pass a gun certification test when they renew their licenses every six years. Boston requires membership in a gun club. Andover requires a note from a doctor.

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

"There are 351 different standards for getting a gun license," said Ken Sherman, a Navy veteran and gun owner for 40 years who decided not to move from North Grafton to Falmouth a few years ago when he learned that he might not be able to renew his license. "It is what each chief wants."

For their part, local chiefs shrug off the complaints. Their requirements are legal and it's good that local communities have some control over who is armed, they say.

In Braintree, Chief Paul H. Frazier said he has had few complaints - maybe six over 15 years. The requirement for five letters of reference has been in place for about 20 years.

"Not all communities are the same," said Falmouth Chief Anthony J. Riello, who is president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. "Braintree is different from Falmouth, Pittsfield is different from Braintree and Falmouth."

The Gun Owners' Action League, or GOAL, a nonprofit representing gun owners and an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, sent a letter in March to the attorney general's office complaining about the inconsistencies.

Licensed owners are not being treated equally, said the letter, signed by James L. Wallace, executive director of the gun owners' group.

In a follow-up to his letter, Wallace met last week with Attorney General Martha Coakley to press his desire that police chiefs statewide use uniform standards to judge gun-license applicants.

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

The state Executive Office of Public Safety is also reviewing information that the gun owners' group submitted.

In its letter, the gun owners' group said communities such as Cambridge, Holden, and Methuen were charging more than the $100 allowed by law, for instance, while Andover and Lawrence require notes from doctors.

The group has 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, $20 above what is allowed by state law, and the inspector general's office agreed. Other communities are also overcharging, the gun owners' group stated. Cambridge since has cut the fee to $100.

The issue is a hot topic among gun owners. An online forum called Northeastshooters.com has a color-coded map of Massachusetts, delineating 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 Brookline, Lowell, Quincy, and Revere denied between 6 percent and 9 percent of applicants from 2004 to 2007, according to data from the Criminal History Systems Board.

More than 80 departments showed zero denials, and many had only a handful. In some cases, however, the denial rate could be higher but not reflected if, for example, prescreening prompted applicants to back out before paying a fee.

Other communities might discourage applicants from even applying because they have so many requirements. And some might place restrictions on Class A licenses that would not be applied in another town and do not show up in the 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 Chief Ronald C. Glidden of Lee, chairman of the state Gun Control Advisory Board, which is appointed by the governor.

"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, a shorter list of Class A restrictions was developed about a year ago. The restrictions on a license are for target and hunting, sporting, employment, and other. That means, for example, a license granted for sporting cannot be used for employment.

They are defined on the Massachusetts Instant Record Check System, which is available to law-enforcement officers, but apparently are 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 rifles and shotguns without large capacities; and a restricted Firearms Identification card, which allows the owner to carry a chemical repellent.

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

"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."

Some chiefs are 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. The problem with some gun organizations, said Crowley, is that they want Massachusetts to issue licenses to anyone who is not explicitly disqualified.

"I think that is insanity."

Some people take a dim of view of what they see as the obstacles thrown up 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 because of, among other things, what he felt was the city's obstructionist licensing policies.

Lynch and others pointed out that the city requires applicants to take a gun certification course only 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.