Class A LTC ALP Renewal

Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
196
Likes
3
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
So, I guess this has never crossed my mind until recently when I read numerous threads about people being either denied, or given a "neutered" LTC when they apply for a Class A ALP. I have had my LTC for quite some time now, which I received when I was living out west in a "green" town. Unfortunately, I moved to Worcester, and will probably still be here when my renewal is due. Do any members have experience with trying to renew in a "red" town? If so, which license class and reason of issuance did you have, what town was it, and what was the outcome? I realize that a CLEO can deny or reduce new LTC's based on "suitability", but would he/she be held to the same standards with a renewal applicant? If a licensed citizen has already been granted a class A ALP, and has successfully held that license for four years without incident, can a CLEO deny him/her a renewal based solely on the fact that he/she now resides in an anti-gun town? I assume, that being in the wonderful state of Massachusetts, this is the case, but surely there is some degree of reasoning that must accompany such a decision?
 
Sorry man but your getting chopped.........

No one but cops and Gemme's friends get no restrictions on their liscenses.

My suggestion is to get out before the renewal.
 
I doubt they will deny you a renewal, but a downgrade on renewal in a red town is best stated as "probable". I'm not sure about Worcester, but I'd say a downgrade on renewal is pretty likely there given the anti gun police
chief.

-Mike
 
Red Town Renewal

Of course the Chief of Police can do anything he pleases. But don't count yourself out either, my past two renewals in a RED TOWN were issued for ALP or Restrictions "NONE". I have NO political pull, and don't know anyone of influence. Think positive.
 
Last edited:
Of course the Chief of Police can do anything he pleases. But don't count yourself out either, my past two renewals in a RED TOWN were issued for ALP or Restrictions "NONE". I have NO political pull, and don't know anyone of influence. Think positive.

What town was this? Do you have a class A?
 
What town was this? Do you have a class A?
Town, I rather not say, but it is located in Suffolk County. Yes it is a LTC A Restrictions "NONE". Don't know anything about Worcester, but who knows, look at Quincy now, seems to be getting better since the great Crowley has left. When its time to renew just cross your fingers and go through the process. In Red Towns, first issuance, is when the BS begins, renewals seem to go a little easier. But nothing is guaranteed in Red, Green etc.
 
Really? And just where in MGL c. 140, s. 131 is that found?

Im using 38SpecialD's copy of the MGLs, and its found right next to the part about carrying on a restricted permit [wink][wink]

do you count concealed carry as a lawful purpose? If yes, then right here "a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place;"
 
Im using 38SpecialD's copy of the MGLs, and its found right next to the part about carrying on a restricted permit [wink][wink]

do you count concealed carry as a lawful purpose? If yes, then right here "a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place;"

Meaning, by definition, concealed carry is NOT a lawful purpose for a Class B.

Ergo, a Class B could well be issued for ALP, and should be.

A restricted B would be employment only (security guard, for example), target only (thus excluding hunting or any other sporting purpose), etc.
 
Of course the Chief of Police can do anything he pleases. But don't count yourself out either, my past two renewals in a RED TOWN were issued for ALP or Restrictions "NONE". I have NO political pull, and don't know anyone of influence. Think positive.

"Thinking positive" won't do much if the red town chief happens to be having a bad hair day or whatever and decides to downgrade him when he renews.

In some locales the chiefs are so bad that restrictions may even get doled out based on how someone looks, gender, age, and other kinds of profiling. Unless the cretin consistently sticks to a set of licensing policies there is really no way to tell what is going to happen to you in a red town.

IMO it still isn't' worth the risk, unless the person doesn't care about the probability of having a restricted license.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Meaning, by definition, concealed carry is NOT a lawful purpose for a Class B.

Ergo, a Class B could well be issued for ALP, and should be.

A restricted B would be employment only (security guard, for example), target only (thus excluding hunting or any other sporting purpose), etc.

ahh, I See what you are saying.

granted, if I was issued a Class B, I would have a good mind to give it back and say "no thanks".
 
"Thinking positive" won't do much if the red town chief happens to be having a bad hair day or whatever and decides to downgrade him when he renews.

there is really no way to tell what is going to happen to you in a red town.
-Mike

Correct, but lets just look at the original Poster of this thread, he already has a LTC A unrestricted, much better than having a restricted license.

Now if the Red Chief is having a Good Hair day, the applicant may get his renewal unrestricted.

Thinking positive, is something I have always done throughout my life. I really want to relax the poster and give him a bit of encouragement.

I also know people that live in so called Red Towns, like Quincy, Salem, Chelsea, that have been issued LTC A's Restrictions "None" Some which have actually posted on this very forum.

So the bottom line is, there is a possibility he may be granted what he is applying for.
 
I certainly understand and respect the practice of thinking positively, but in this case, I believe the salient point is that the consequences of having a downgraded license are such that it's better to avoid the risk altogether if that is still an option. That's all people are saying. Why risk it? So, if the poster can be encouraged to move while there is still time that may be the better option. Positive thinking is for when action-oriented options are depleted.



Correct, but lets just look at the original Poster of this thread, he already has a LTC A unrestricted, much better than having a restricted license.

Now if the Red Chief is having a Good Hair day, the applicant may get his renewal unrestricted.

Thinking positive, is something I have always done throughout my life. I really want to relax the poster and give him a bit of encouragement.

I also know people that live in so called Red Towns, like Quincy, Salem, Chelsea, that have been issued LTC A's Restrictions "None" Some which have actually posted on this very forum.

So the bottom line is, there is a possibility he may be granted what he is applying for.
 
I certainly understand and respect the practice of thinking positively, but in this case, I believe the salient point is that the consequences of having a downgraded license are such that it's better to avoid the risk altogether if that is still an option. That's all people are saying. Why risk it? So, if the poster can be encouraged to move while there is still time that may be the better option. Positive thinking is for when action-oriented options are depleted.

Off course moving to a green town would be the best thing he could do and avoid the problem completely. But sometimes people don't have that option.

Whatever direction he takes I just wish him the very best, I've been there myself twice.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice guys, you all make very good points. I have moved twice within the last year due to job transfers, and I would honestly hate to have to do it again. My LTC is something I value very much however, and I don't want to take the chance of losing it. I guess I will keep my eye on the situation with the CLEO, and cross this bridge when I get to it. Just out of curiousity, does anyone know if they cross reference any other databases for address verification when you apply for a renewal? For example, if I were to change my address on my LTC to a "green" town and attempt to renew there, would I run into any issues if my driver's license had a different address? I still have a place in a different town, although I don't reside there. Any thoughts on this?
 
I am no expert, but common sense would seem to suggest that if caught, you definitely could lose your LTC.

Personally, I would rather have a restricted LTC than no LTC.
 
Just out of curiousity, does anyone know if they cross reference any other databases for address verification when you apply for a renewal? For example, if I were to change my address on my LTC to a "green" town and attempt to renew there, would I run into any issues if my driver's license had a different address? I still have a place in a different town, although I don't reside there. Any thoughts on this?

In order for you to do what you're planning, you'd have to have a full legal residence change. Most issuing authorities require a current DL and proof of residency. Of course, some guys are going to come out of the woodwork and tell you "this isn't legal unless you actually live in the other town." (If you do a search on NES, you can come up with a few mind numbingly pedantic, but perhaps informative threads about what constitutes residency).


-Mike
 
In order for you to do what you're planning, you'd have to have a full legal residence change. Most issuing authorities require a current DL and proof of residency. Of course, some guys are going to come out of the woodwork and tell you "this isn't legal unless you actually live in the other town." (If you do a search on NES, you can come up with a few mind numbingly pedantic, but perhaps informative threads about what constitutes residency).
-Mike

Mike, First of all you being a moderator, your knowledge is greater than mine for sure.

My head is beginning to spin on this one. Looking at this reminds me of the person who lives in one town and registers his automobile in another town, then gets caught.

The poster should have just left his residency alone in the green town, and moved to the red town.

So, if something went wrong, this person could have a serious problem on his hands?[thinking]
 
My head is beginning to spin on this one. Looking at this reminds me of the person who lives in one town and registers his automobile in another town, then gets caught.

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison. You're talking about insurance
fraud and the like, I expect, which is a wholly different ballgame.

The poster should have just left his residency alone in the green town, and moved to the red town.

Yeah, but if he lives (eg, spends most of his time at the house in the red town) he's technically not a resident of the green town he left anymore, at
least by some standards.

Again, of course, it depends how we qualify what it means to be a resident
of a given town/city.

Of course, there's the usual debate- "whose to know? does it matter?" There's lots of gray at play, as well. There's all this business about intent, and so on.. .but frankly, if someone jumps through 20 hoops to change their residency, how is the state going to "disagree" with that, even if the whole thing is intentional subterfuge?

Here's one example. We'll take a guy, he lives in Worcester. His girlfriend lives in a green town, called Businblah. Guy says "hey I'll just claim I'm a resident of Businblah, as I spend most of my time at the GF's house anyways" and then changes his DL, bills, voter registration, etc, to reflect his residence in Businblah. If someone challenges the guy, what real proof are they going to come up with that the guy is NOT a resident of
Businblah?

Obviously, this is NOT the case as outlined by the OP, but it might be in a
similar case.

So, if something went wrong, this person could have a serious problem on his hands?[thinking]

IMO the problems are more likely to be practical than legal. I'm not sure what you mean by something "going wrong." A person either meets the requirements for residency in a given locale or they don't, at least in practical terms. In legal terms, it could be a completely different ballgame, though. If you do a search on "residency" in the NES search engine, you'll probably find one of those threads I was referring to- in which case you'll probably get more confused, because legally speaking, you can have situations where someone is, on paper, by most normal people's accounts, a resident of "town A" but after much legal discourse, is really considered, by the terms/standards of law/case law, to -really- be a resident of "town b".

Of course this begs the question, could a guy get in trouble for having such a scheme? I'll qualify that with a "maybe". I've never heard of someone running into such trouble, then again most I know who change residency are doing it in a "clean enough" way so that it would never be an issue anyways. Hell, walking down the street in MA might be legally perilous, too. If he thinks his scenario might be legally perilous, he should
talk to a real lawyer. [wink]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Kind of an apples to oranges comparison. You're talking about insurance
fraud and the like, I expect, which is a wholly different ballgame.



Yeah, but if he lives (eg, spends most of his time at the house in the red town) he's technically not a resident of the green town he left anymore, at
least by some standards.

Again, of course, it depends how we qualify what it means to be a resident
of a given town/city.

Of course, there's the usual debate- "whose to know? does it matter?" There's lots of gray at play, as well. There's all this business about intent, and so on.. .but frankly, if someone jumps through 20 hoops to change their residency, how is the state going to "disagree" with that, even if the whole thing is intentional subterfuge?

Here's one example. We'll take a guy, he lives in Worcester. His girlfriend lives in a green town, called Businblah. Guy says "hey I'll just claim I'm a resident of Businblah, as I spend most of my time at the GF's house anyways" and then changes his DL, bills, voter registration, etc, to reflect his residence in Businblah. If someone challenges the guy, what real proof are they going to come up with that the guy is NOT a resident of
Businblah?

Obviously, this is NOT the case as outlined by the OP, but it might be in a
similar case.



IMO the problems are more likely to be practical than legal. I'm not sure what you mean by something "going wrong." A person either meets the requirements for residency in a given locale or they don't, at least in practical terms. In legal terms, it could be a completely different ballgame, though. If you do a search on "residency" in the NES search engine, you'll probably find one of those threads I was referring to- in which case you'll probably get more confused, because legally speaking, you can have situations where someone is, on paper, by most normal people's accounts, a resident of "town A" but after much legal discourse, is really considered, by the terms/standards of law/case law, to -really- be a resident of "town b".

Of course this begs the question, could a guy get in trouble for having such a scheme? I'll qualify that with a "maybe". I've never heard of someone running into such trouble, then again most I know who change residency are doing it in a "clean enough" way so that it would never be an issue anyways. Hell, walking down the street in MA might be legally perilous, too. If he thinks his scenario might be legally perilous, he should
talk to a real lawyer. [wink]

-Mike

Well, it's funny you use that example, as my situation is very similar. The reason I asked is because I actually spend the majority of my time in the "green" town. My driver's license and LTC have the address of the "red" town however, which I assume constitutes residency. Eventually I am planning on moving completely to the green town, but I'm afraid it won't happen before my renewal is due. I suppose I should just change my info to the other address. I see nothing wrong with that as I do spend greater than 50% of my free time there.
 
Kind of an apples to oranges comparison. You're talking about insurance
fraud and the like, I expect, which is a wholly different ballgame.



Yeah, but if he lives (eg, spends most of his time at the house in the red town) he's technically not a resident of the green town he left anymore, at
least by some standards.

Again, of course, it depends how we qualify what it means to be a resident
of a given town/city.

Of course, there's the usual debate- "whose to know? does it matter?" There's lots of gray at play, as well. There's all this business about intent, and so on.. .but frankly, if someone jumps through 20 hoops to change their residency, how is the state going to "disagree" with that, even if the whole thing is intentional subterfuge?

Here's one example. We'll take a guy, he lives in Worcester. His girlfriend lives in a green town, called Businblah. Guy says "hey I'll just claim I'm a resident of Businblah, as I spend most of my time at the GF's house anyways" and then changes his DL, bills, voter registration, etc, to reflect his residence in Businblah. If someone challenges the guy, what real proof are they going to come up with that the guy is NOT a resident of
Businblah?

Obviously, this is NOT the case as outlined by the OP, but it might be in a
similar case.



IMO the problems are more likely to be practical than legal. I'm not sure what you mean by something "going wrong." A person either meets the requirements for residency in a given locale or they don't, at least in practical terms. In legal terms, it could be a completely different ballgame, though. If you do a search on "residency" in the NES search engine, you'll probably find one of those threads I was referring to- in which case you'll probably get more confused, because legally speaking, you can have situations where someone is, on paper, by most normal people's accounts, a resident of "town A" but after much legal discourse, is really considered, by the terms/standards of law/case law, to -really- be a resident of "town b".

Of course this begs the question, could a guy get in trouble for having such a scheme? I'll qualify that with a "maybe". I've never heard of someone running into such trouble, then again most I know who change residency are doing it in a "clean enough" way so that it would never be an issue anyways. Hell, walking down the street in MA might be legally perilous, too. If he thinks his scenario might be legally perilous, he should
talk to a real lawyer. [wink]

-Mike

VERY DANGEROUS scenario since the girlfriend now holds his life in her hands. If he steps out of line in any way that displeases her, he, his gun collection, his LTC, and potentially his freedom are at stake.[frown]

I would advise against this.[laugh2]
 
Back
Top Bottom