Advice On Getting Their Restrictions Removed On An LTC Class A?

[Spiral Pipe]

Hello LEOs & Fellow Freedom Nuts,

I live in a Red town and received my LTC Class A in 2009. When I applied, I completed the section "Reason for Issuance" as "For all lawful purposes." I was also told that I would have to meet with the CLEO before my LTC was granted. I was looking forward to that meeting.

Long story short. About 3 weeks after I submitted my packet, (app, strong reference letters, NRA Safety Certificate....etc). My LTC just showed up in my mailbox. I never got a chance to meet with the CLEO. When I opened it, the LTC had restrictions for "target & hunting".

I have lived in the town for 11 years. I am a 46 year old guy, married 21 years, two daughters. I have a I small blemish for an open container which I incurred over 30 years ago on my record. (stupid teenager).

I belong to the MA Rifle Assoc., NRA and GOAL. I own handguns, rifles and shotguns, each one I know inside and out. I am at the range at least a couple of times a month. I consider myself a decent shooter and always honing my skills.

I am compliant with the restrictions, however, I don't feel they are justified. Let's face it, life can turn on a dime (especially these days) and I would be BS if that day came where I could not protect myself, loved ones or anybody who my be in a life or death situation which I witness. I have cool rationale judgement and would olyn use a firearm as a last resort.

I have the utmost respect for LEOs and First Responders. You professional men and women put yourselves in harm's way every day. I am not trying to gain points or brown nose with my sincere comment. I hold you in high esteem as true heroes and heroines and instill that in my children. I always tell them to say "Thank You" whenever they have the opportunity.

Any advice, guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Also, I hear conflicting information regarding the legality of these restrictions. Some say they are no longer enforceable, others say don't risk it. What do you think?

Thanks in advance and stay safe.

 

[mark056]

This is a frequent topic on this Forum. We have some top-notch people on this Forum who have a great understanding of the MGL's as they apply to Firearms Licensing in MA. I respectfully suggest that you do a search on this Forum and I think you will find that your question has been answered on many different levels .

Be glad that you live in the post-Scrivner era (this is an inside joke for long-time forum members).

 

[Ink]

Don't risk it. Whoever told you they are not enforceable is irresponsible.
My first call would be to your local PD to get face time with the chief. Talk to him man to man and just ask what his views or requirements are. I admit no one should have to do this, but for the current moment, this is your best place to start.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Also, I hear conflicting information regarding the legality of these restrictions. Some say they are no longer enforceable, others say don't risk it. What do you think?

I think (actually know) that whomever told you that does not know what (s)he is talking about.

They are absolutely enforced by statute now (MGL chapter 131a) :

A violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation.

Prior to 1998 when this law was enacted, there was some ambiguity if a restriction was enforceable. Case law (Ruggerio v. Roach) suggested it was, and the right of this issuing authority to revoke an LTC for violation of the restriction was fully in place.

Some time after passage of the new law, someone noticed that the LTCs still bore the nomenclature "Reason for issuance" and argued that an LTC with "reason for issuance" noted on it was not restricted, but bore a notation as to why it was issued. One district court judge (I think it was in Ipswitch) issued a ruling accepting this reasoning, however, it had no precedental value.

GOAL felt that it would be good to resolve the ambiguity and contacted the state demanding clarification of what "Reason for issuance" meant. The state agreed that clarification was in order, and changed the term on the license from "Reason for issuance" to "Restrictions".

Be glad that you live in the post-Scrivner era (this is an inside joke for long-time forum members).

I'll try to fill in: Whatever mendacious cretin told you that has an obvious pulmonary problem as his windpipe is being chocked off by a contracted rectal sphincter.

Scrivener was direct in a way not everyone appreciated, but his information was always to the point and very accurate. Sort of like a Kmaurer, LenS or a GSG but with an actual bar license. My opinion is that his banning was a loss to NES, but obviously, others disagree with this conclusion.

 

[Pilgrim]

you don't need to post this in multiple threads.