-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
All Lawful Purposes not acceptable reason in "Green" town?
- Thread starter THUNDERCHIEF
- Start date
There have been quite a few changes. When I was perusing a used book store, I looked at an introductory type gun book dated to (IIRC) 1973. In it was a reproduction of the then current 4473. Apparently, in the very early days following the passage and implementation of the GCA, the 4473 also provided the dealer with 2 options for identifying the purchaser- on basis of identification (which was recorded) or by attestation (by the dealer) that the transferee was personally known to him.
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
MA is not as bad as several states. People don't bother to differentiate between how a state sucks. Whether its with respect to carry or possession.
In MA, you don't generally need to justify your desire for a LTC. And if you are given a LTC restricted to range or hunting use, its a very minor offense (I believe a non-criminal infraction) if you do actually carry on a restricted license. Compared to states where you need to show justification like NY, NJ, and CA, and even RI, its much better.
RI is a great example of what I meant abot differentiating. In RI, you can have any gun you want, with all the standard cap mags that you want. But you for all intents and purposes can not get a carry license.
What would you rather have, access to any gun and no ability to carry, or restricted access with the ability to carry? Which sucks less? I guess it depends on the person.
CT is exactly the opposite of RI. The pistol permit in CT is effectively "shall issue". Once you have a PP, you can carry a firearm pretty much anywhere other than schools.
You can even carry while drinking. Its funny because the BAC over which its illegal to carry a LOADED handgun is .1%. Higher than it is to drive. Also, if you are drinking, simply unloading makes you legal. There are no restrictions on carry into bars, Colleges, or places of worship, unlike many "gun friendly" states down south.
CT is actually more carry friendly than many very pro-gun states, because of this. Strange huh?
Ma is pretty much the same way. There are no restrictions on where you can carry as far as bars and churches.
And yes, I'm a glass half-full kind of person.
Don
In MA, you don't generally need to justify your desire for a LTC. And if you are given a LTC restricted to range or hunting use, its a very minor offense (I believe a non-criminal infraction) if you do actually carry on a restricted license. Compared to states where you need to show justification like NY, NJ, and CA, and even RI, its much better.
RI is a great example of what I meant abot differentiating. In RI, you can have any gun you want, with all the standard cap mags that you want. But you for all intents and purposes can not get a carry license.
What would you rather have, access to any gun and no ability to carry, or restricted access with the ability to carry? Which sucks less? I guess it depends on the person.
CT is exactly the opposite of RI. The pistol permit in CT is effectively "shall issue". Once you have a PP, you can carry a firearm pretty much anywhere other than schools.
You can even carry while drinking. Its funny because the BAC over which its illegal to carry a LOADED handgun is .1%. Higher than it is to drive. Also, if you are drinking, simply unloading makes you legal. There are no restrictions on carry into bars, Colleges, or places of worship, unlike many "gun friendly" states down south.
CT is actually more carry friendly than many very pro-gun states, because of this. Strange huh?
Ma is pretty much the same way. There are no restrictions on where you can carry as far as bars and churches.
And yes, I'm a glass half-full kind of person.
Don
Didn't they tweak the law a few years back so that (1) the various restrictions are now defined in law, and so that (2) carrying outside your restriction is now a criminal offense rather than just an infraction? The penalties now include potential license revocation and a fine up to $10,000.
GlockJock
NES Member
Meanwhile, during the "litigation" and "interesting" lawsuit, law abiding citizens must now leave their guns home as ISIS says (translated from Arabic) "Thanks for the assistance, Winchester".
??
I wonder if, God forbid, someone was stabbed to death by two "career criminal" thugs on the T on his way home from Boston... murdered because they couldn't defend themself since their once legal firearm had to stay home "restricted". Can the murdered victim's family sue the Winchester f*cks who restricted their late husband/father's 2nd Amendment right?
What a joke this system is. I live in a very green town. I was instructed by my training instructor to use "For all lawful purposes including hunting, competition, recreation, and personal protection." The licensing officer looked at it and asked "You don't want any restrictions... right?". I agreed and they typed "all lawful purposes" into the system. Now I hear every day about towns that are refusing "ALP" and demanding a "reason". Somebody I certified last month came to me and said "Duxbury wants a reason". I went to the Duxbury PD website and sure enough they are now saying that "ALP" is not acceptable and that you must supply a reason.
Has anybody ever tried "Because I want to exercise my Second Amendment rights"? I sometimes wonder what restriction that would fall under.
Has anybody ever tried "Because I want to exercise my Second Amendment rights"? I sometimes wonder what restriction that would fall under.
Last edited:
Gov't is NEVER responsible for what they do or don't do. That's reality, regardless of law.
When I worked as a Reserve PO, my late chief told me that if we got hurt/killed, our widows (or us if we survived) would get absolutely NOTHING! That's just the way it is.
Well my Wife answered this as a verbal question during our prior chief's interrogation procedure and answered "it is my 2nd Amendment right" to which that chief replied "Sorry but state law supersedes the Constitution!" and he was dead serious! I almost fell off the chair but realized that it was fruitless to argue with an idiot. We always put down simply "All lawful purposes" in this red town, but always get unrestricted anyway . . . it helps to be a known quantity and active in town government.
inerlogic
NES Member
Hunh, so I was half-right, anyway. Anyway, carry outside your restriction and your license goes bye-bye. No more guns for you. (I think it used to be a small fine.)
I know that many years ago there was some contention about what the commonly-issued restrictions actually meant, with interpretations varying among different licensing authorities. I think the Leg was kicking around the idea of defining some common restrictions in law, or maybe the FLRB or EOPSS was talking about issuing some kind of order or ruling or opinion defining them? Memory's fuzzy on this one, but I'm pretty certain it got talked about in the last few years.
There is none and no CMR either. FRB issued a short list with definitions, but since they aren't chartered with the interpretation of law, said definitions only are in affect for LTCs that they issue to NRs. For resident LTCs, the "definitions" are whatever your chief feels like and depending on the day of the week and the phase of the moon.
namedpipes
NES Member
I feel confident that the authority discovering you were carrying concealed on a restricted license would promptly notify your town's COP and they in turn, being douches (or else it would not BE a restricted license) will promptly revoke it.
So yes, you'd walk with maybe a fine, but wind up sans LTC and with all your guns given to Dowd.
dcmdon
NES Member
Yes that is a risk.
But if you are a normal, law abiding person, that might be a risk worth taking.
If you lost your guns in that circumstance you would have to be pretty uninformed, since you would have ample opportunity to move them out of state following such an encounter.
Life is not without risk. Someone needs to weigh the risks of doing what I described with the risks of not doing what I described above.
If you have a nice collection, the risk is much different than if you have a handgun and a couple of rifles.
So, please don't dismiss this as a bad idea. For some it could be a bad move. For others, there is very little risk.
Don
But if you are a normal, law abiding person, that might be a risk worth taking.
If you lost your guns in that circumstance you would have to be pretty uninformed, since you would have ample opportunity to move them out of state following such an encounter.
Life is not without risk. Someone needs to weigh the risks of doing what I described with the risks of not doing what I described above.
If you have a nice collection, the risk is much different than if you have a handgun and a couple of rifles.
So, please don't dismiss this as a bad idea. For some it could be a bad move. For others, there is very little risk.
Don
