Helpful information about a restricted LTC Class A

[Mass Firearms]

The following letter was given to one of our students from the Brockton Police Department. He received a LTC Class A with a "Sporting" restriction. Note very carefully the Brockton PD's interpretation of the restrictions.

The wording is such that if he decided to take up bird watching he may be able to CCW 90% of his day.

 

[Tater]

Step one: buy hiking boots.

step two: wear every day.

step three: CCW all the time.

 

[trophygrl]

i have that same letter

 

[Becka]

Damnit why couldn't I get sporting instead of target and hunting?!

 

[tbone]

what does it mean if it says , resrictions presonal protection

 

[Mass Firearms]

Your local pd has the final word on what "personal protection" means...my guess is that it basically means your license is all lawful purposes or unrestricted.

 

[tbone]

thank u

 

[zblang]

I am coming to MFS very soon. I was wondering, living in Newton, is there even a point in applying for an LTC A unrestricted? and if they ask why I want A instead of B, what's a good reason to tell them?

 

[DickWanner]

I am coming to MFS very soon. I was wondering, living in Newton, is there even a point in applying for an LTC A unrestricted? and if they ask why I want A instead of B, what's a good reason to tell them?

There are several. One could be that a LTC-B would limit your handgun choices. Another could be the ambiguity of the laws. You can talk with us during class or e-mail Steve, buy really it just comes down to you putting on your thinking cap and coming up with some well thought out reasons.

 

[GSG]

and if they ask why I want A instead of B, what's a good reason to tell them?

The #1 reason a Class A is better than a Class B is that it removes a ton of gray area about what guns and magazines you can legally own. Below is a quote from another thread on the subject.

There is another large capacity magazine issue that only applies to LTC-B holders. For instance, an LTC-B holder could lawfully purchase a Beretta CX4 Storm carbine. But, that gun is designed to operate with handgun magazines, so the LTC-B holder could only legally purchase and possess magazines for it that hold 10 rounds or less. The same goes for LTC-B holder who want to buy an AR-15 that’s modified to take pistol magazines, or other pistol caliber carbines like the KelTec Sub-2000.

Another legal gray area involves AR or AK pistols in Mass. Because Mass. adopted the 94 AWB there’s not many (if any) legal AR or AK pistols in Massachusetts, but the issue is that some might consider the rifle magazines that fit in those pistols to be pistol magazines. If legally they are considered pistol magazines because of this, they would require an LTC-A to purchase or possess; the implication is that an LTC-B holder would be able to have an AR-15 rifle, just not mags for it that hold more than 10 rounds. This will remain a gray area until Mass. law is modified by the legislature or interpreted by the SJC to define how it should be determined what is a rifle mag and what is a pistol mag.

There's a bit of confusion over what guns are considered "large capacity" or not, and make the wrong choice with a Class B and you'll put yourself in felony territory.

 

[HooVooLoo]

I was wondering, living in Newton, is there even a point in applying for an LTC A unrestricted? and if they ask why I want A instead of B, what's a good reason to tell them?

DON'T DO THAT! Never apply for a class B. Ever. You are better off applying for the class A and being restricted than getting a class B. The folks at MFS will explain it all to you when you go there.

 

[SeanT]

The #1 reason a Class A is better than a Class B is that it removes a ton of gray area about what guns and magazines you can legally own. Below is a quote from another thread on the subject.

There's a bit of confusion over what guns are considered "large capacity" or not, and make the wrong choice with a Class B and you'll put yourself in felony territory.

Both of these are the main reasons, but when you really think about it, you're paying the same $100 for the application whether you apply for an A or a B. Why would you say "I don't want the most possible for my money"?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Your local pd has the final word on what "personal protection" means...my guess is that it basically means your license is all lawful purposes or unrestricted.

Only partially true.

The local PD has the dang near final word with regards to LTC revocation. The courts have the final word as to what a "restriction" means as only the court, and not the police department, can find you responsible for a violation and issue the fine.

Also, the fact that the issuing police department does not consider a particular behavior (for example, concealed carry to a range) to be a violation of a "target only" restriction on an LTC, does not preclude another department from filing charges for violation of the restriction - although they may, in many cases, refer the situation to the issuing dept.

In other words, like so much in MA, "it depends and is hard to predict".

 

[GSG]

Both of these are the main reasons, but when you really think about it, you're paying the same $100 for the application whether you apply for an A or a B. Why would you say "I don't want the most possible for my money"?

I was responding to the poster who seems to live in a town unfriendly to gunowners, where you'll probably need to say more than that.

 

[Blitz1]

Only partially true.

The local PD has the dang near final word with regards to LTC revocation. The courts have the final word as to what a "restriction" means as only the court, and not the police department, can find you responsible for a violation and issue the fine.

Also, the fact that the issuing police department does not consider a particular behavior (for example, concealed carry to a range) to be a violation of a "target only" restriction on an LTC, does not preclude another department from filing charges for violation of the restriction - although they may, in many cases, refer the situation to the issuing dept.

In other words, like so much in MA, "it depends and is hard to predict".

In other words it's total bullshit and Unconstitutional since McDonald v. Chicago.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

 

[Rob Boudrie]

In other words it's total bullshit and Unconstitutional since McDonald v. Chicago.

McDonald v. Chicago incorporated Heller which absolutely did not cover the issue of "carry" (in the plain English, rather than MGL, sense of the word). Despitr your wishful thinking, neither Heller of McDonald addresses concealed carry ... yet. There is hope with some pending cases, however, we do not currently have any major "pro carry" decisions based on Heller or McDonald.

 

[Blitz1]

McDonald v. Chicago incorporated Heller which absolutely did not cover the issue of "carry" (in the plain English, rather than MGL, sense of the word). Despitr your wishful thinking, neither Heller of McDonald addresses concealed carry ... yet. There is hope with some pending cases, however, we do not currently have any major "pro carry" decisions based on Heller or McDonald.

I hear what you're saying. But it really doesn't matter to the bad guys, does it?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I hear what you're saying. But it really doesn't matter to the bad guys, does it?

Which bad guys are you talking about? The ones in the street or the ones in the fancy building with the dome on top?

 

[SeanT]

I was responding to the poster who seems to live in a town unfriendly to gunowners, where you'll probably need to say more than that.

Yes, I was too. He asked if there was even a point in asking for an A unrestricted. My response was geared towards, why not for for the gold standard if it costs the same?
I agree that he'll need better reasoning.

 

[zblang]

Thanks for the input. I'm heading to MFA tomorrow afternoon for my first class. I'm looking forward to it and in joining everyone here at the range!!!

 

[GSG]

Yes, I was too. He asked if there was even a point in asking for an A unrestricted. My response was geared towards, why not for for the gold standard if it costs the same?
I agree that he'll need better reasoning.

In some towns I know that it might upset them more. A friend applied for an unrestricted in a red town, and his interview turned into an hour long ordeal with the licensing officer angrily telling him why he didn't need to carry.

But in general I agree with you, there's no point in applying your own restriction if you can avoid it.