You're BOTH wrong.
"I LOST my LTC when the statuory change (Ch180) occurred back in 1998(although it did not hit ME until June of 99 when I went to renew). This is because the Chiefs are allowed to "interpret" the law.Say you have 300 Chiefs of lolice as issuning authourity;now you have 300 possible different versiuons of the same law." [misspellings in original]
No; chiefs had discretion for LTC's PRIOR to the enactment of c. 180. What DID change in '98 was that it a host of misdemeanors that were never statutory disqualifiers before (OUI being a significant one) were made so. As there was no limit on the scope of the new law's effect in this regard (such as "on and after" the effective date of c. 180), a lot of prior licensees became barred.
Moreover, there were no references to, still less any authorization of, restrictions prior to c. 180. Chiefs are now expressly authorized to fabricate and impose whatever restrictions they wish:
"...subject to such RESTRICTIONS relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such RESTRICTIONS relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it deems proper." M.G.L. c. 140, s. 131
"This is because the Chiefs are allowed to "interpret" the law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they're not. They're specifically NOT allowed to do that."
Really? Got a cite that "specifically" supports that assertion?
What chiefs are allowed to do is set their own standards, add superfluous conditions, and impose whatever restrictions they feel like. An applicant can challenge the BS of course; however, the burden - both evidentiary and financial - falls squarely on the applicant.
It is not the chief's job to prove the applicant is "not suitable;" it is the applicant's ludicrous burden to prove the negative: That he is NOT "not suitable."
You're both right on this point: The system sucks.