Anyone knows how many gun owners - licensed, that is - are in MA?

[browncoat]

There has been a lot of growth in the last few years.

- - - Updated - - -



It's in their best interests to not get an LTC. A few of the MGLs criminalize behavior for people with LTCs but not without them.

Can you point me to those? As someone who will hopefully have one soon I want to be informed.

 

[Contramnky]

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/247041-Need-some-help-with-gathering-LTC-info

 

[Come and take]

This, if someone gets an A/none or A/protection, they're not likely to complain much.

Even then, a of people forget that out of a number of LTC holders, only a relatively small percentage of them actually wish to carry a handgun on a regular basis anyways (let's say, at least several times a month) restriction or not.

-Mike

I agree with this statement. I know more than a few that do not carry 24/7.


I always say what's the point having a LTC?

 

[MisterHappy]

I agree with this statement. I know more than a few that do not carry 24/7.


I always say what's the point having a LTC?

Because it gives you the choice to do so, or not.

The ability to choose is what's important.

 

[Burgundy41]

Because it gives you the choice to do so, or not.

The ability to choose is what's important.

Yeah exactly. You have to have an LTC to own a bunch of guns, so having one doesn't mean one must carry. I don't carry a lot of the time, and I do other times. People trying to say that's bad are nuts.

 

[Livefreeormass]

In most red towns, one can "upgrade" to unrestricted after the first year. Or so I thought.

 

[Sniper (+)]

In most red towns, one can "upgrade" to unrestricted after the first year. Or so I thought.

Does that "upgrade" come with another $100 tax?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Does that "upgrade" come with another $100 tax?

Depends!

- Per MGL, if it is merely dropping a restriction, there is NO FEE! [Some towns may still try to rip you off for another $100, but the law does NOT require it.]

- If you are "upgrading" from a LTC-B, that is a new license, new fee, new background check, and new wait 1-3 months for it.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Using the numbers quoted earlier in the thread, we're at roughly 4.5% of MA residents who hold an LTC. Some percentage of that already small number "see no reason why you need a magazine with more than ten rounds", " dont know why people feel the need to carry concealed", and think "only the police and the military should have "assault rifles"", etc...

In fairness, there are plenty of unlicensed people (non-criminals) who favor no gun restrictions at all. I think it balances out.

 

[OfficerObie59]

It's in their best interests to not get an LTC. A few of the MGLs criminalize behavior for people with LTCs but not without them.

If you're talking about soley for carrying while working I would agree.

Otherwise, an LTC provides far more benefits. The only gun I could carry and posess if I didn't have an LTC would be my issued M&P .45. And I couldn't buy ammo for it.

There are probably about 16,000 police officers in the state and there's nothing different about an LTC issued to a police officer. Not all agencies require their officers to get an LTC.

It is worth noting the LTC is free if your employer is your issuing authority, and $25 if it is not.

 

[drgrant]

It's in their best interests to not get an LTC. A few of the MGLs criminalize behavior for people with LTCs but not without them.

If they're gun people though (which some LEOs are) it is pretty crippling to not have an LTC, unless they have an out of state residency or something... otherwise they're pretty much hamstrung and can't even legally buy ammo, etc, down here.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The LTC, which you need to own a gun, is by default a carry license unless it's restricted, and it's only ever restricted in a few communities.

8.2% of the LTCs in MA are restricted.

Also, there is a VERY short list (schools, surface of the water with 500 ft of Logan) of locations where one cannot, and there is no binding signage laws. Even "Free states" like Arizona and Texas have more restrictions on where one can carry a concealed handgun with a license.

 

[Quiet]

8.2% of the LTCs in MA are restricted.

Also, there is a VERY short list (schools, surface of the water with 500 ft of Logan) of locations where one cannot, and there is no binding signage laws. Even "Free states" like Arizona and Texas have more restrictions on where one can carry a concealed handgun with a license.

I seem to recall that Logan (and even the roadways inside Logan) was off limits?


As far as Lifetime FIDs... I don't recall when they started issuing Lifetime FIDs but I'd guess that a whole boatload of the 1.5 million lifetime-licensed people were already dead before the 1998 law took effect.

 

[GlockJock]

Less that 10% of all LTCs are restricted.

And that's 10% too many....."the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".....

It doesn't read the "right of 90% of the people"...

And it also doesn't mention this right being restricted by any law enforcement officer who maybe doesn't like the way you look, or dress, or speak,etc.

Curiously, it also doesn't mention a certain police chief of a large Massachusetts city who, for several years (until recently when forced out of office), had the ultimate right to decide whether to allow you to exercise that non-infringeable said right....(until he was arrested, suspended, found guilty, then forced to resign, for beating the living hell out of his wife one fine evening at their home.....after (naturally) infringing the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS of several applicants of their LTCs during his tenure, determining them to be "unsuitable" or restricting them to target only.

But you're not supposed to know about all this. ("Move along, folks. Nothing to see here...")

 

[TOM1960]

Interesting... there is definitely something very odd about a "lifetime" license becoming a "non-lifetime" license. Something in that smacks of a lack of due process, like so much of the system hereabouts.

- - - Updated - - -



So most (750,000+ people) got rid of all of their 750,000+ guns just because a law got passed on beacon hill? That is disappointing.

As a guy whose first FID was the post-card-sized good-for-life original, I know others who got their FIDs at the same time that I did (late 1970s) who moved out of the state for various reasons (retirement, new jobs, etc.). Some are no longer with us due to their passing. Others, like myself, renewed and were issued the 6-year FID that I now carry. How many people still possess firearms in their homes with long-expired original FIDs is a matter of conjecture. The bureaucrats aren't asking and I do not believe that anyone is volunteering the information. Maybe some of these firearms show up at those politically-motivated gun-buy-backs that larger cities sometimes hold. Maybe not. Who really knows?

 

[Len-2A Training]

I seem to recall that Logan (and even the roadways inside Logan) was off limits?

As far as Lifetime FIDs... I don't recall when they started issuing Lifetime FIDs but I'd guess that a whole boatload of the 1.5 million lifetime-licensed people were already dead before the 1998 law took effect.

The goons that guard Logan make that claim. I honestly don't know, but I've refused to step foot on Logan property for any reason after 9/11. My personal boycott.

I believe that I was told that the Lifetime FIDs might have started in 1968. I got mine in 1976. Nobody that I know of ever made notification if they moved inside or outside MA. Obviously those that passed away were still licensed when that happened too. And that FID legally allowed you to possess ANY (other than F/A) gun in your home or business, cost $2 or $3 (I forget) and was shall issue.