Lexington Resident Just Got LTC, With Sporting Restriction

[allen-1]

I received a detailed description of all kinds of restrictions with my LTC.

"Sporting - Restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns); and for outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing, or similar activities. Includes travel to and from activity location."

Now I realized that at least in Lexington, the "Sporting" restriction is defined quite broadly, much more than "recreational shooting or competition".
As far as I can see, "Sporting" restriction allows "hiking" "or similar activities", and "Includes travel to and from activity location". That means as long as I think about taking a walk somewhere, anywhere, in my mind, I can carry a firearm concealed, because I can legally claim that I am in the "travel to and from activity location".
I do realize that this restriction does NOT allow me to carry concealed when I am working in an office, going to restaurants, or do shopping. For now I really do not have any plan to carry any firearm outside of my house, except to remote places for real hiking and camping.

A monkey wrench thrown into my practice of my gun right is that the series of school shooting recently has turned many people into gun haters, that include my kids. So I may not possess a gun anyway, at least not in this year. I have owned air guns for several years. So I can keep practicing my air guns. I can go to Granite State Range in Nashua, New Hampshire to rent guns and practice firing a real firearm. That does not require a LTC anyway.
So you can see that Lexington is a unique town in a unique state, and I am in a unique environment. "Sporting" restriction in my LTC does not give me any inconvenience.

I have a t-shirt that I wear fairly frequently, on it it says "Which part of 'Shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

The differences between the laws that I live under and the laws that you live under are absolutely breathtaking. And we live in the same country.

 

[Jason Flare]

I wouldn’t beat up on the guy. He is a thinker. He’s already calculating how most of what he does is a sport.

He’ll get there when he figures out the absurdity of another man limiting his freedom when he intends no harm.

I like the guy. He’s a thinker.

 

[drgrant]

So you can see that Lexington is a unique town in a unique state, and I am in a unique environment. "Sporting" restriction in my LTC does not give me any inconvenience.

It's the principle of the thing, though.

Even if I was a pacifist and didn't believe in EVER carrying a gun for self defense, I would still be pissed off about getting a restricted license...

Someone would ask "But if you were a pacifist, why would you care?"

Because its the principle- that .gov is TELLING me what I can do with my rights- instead of allowing me to have the CHOICE of making that
determination on my own- and that it sets up a precedent that- they can do the same thing to someone else. Someone else that might need
that capability.

Of course some of it is difficult to see if you haven't crossed the bridge yet. It's the same reason I think that "courts and police being forced to respect the 4th amendment is important" despite the fact that, for most people, it's not an issue- but I can see the value in protecting it.

-Mike

 

[Squire]

All gun laws are anti-Constitutional, until someone amends 2A to say "except with common sense legislation".

The sporting restriction may work for the OP needs, but it does not work for Liberty and the People's ability to protect it from Tyranny of Government or Tyranny of the Majority.

 

[allen-1]

It's the principle of the thing, though.

Even if I was a pacifist and didn't believe in EVER carrying a gun for self defense, I would still be pissed off about getting a restricted license...

Someone would ask "But if you were a pacifist, why would you care?"

Because its the principle- that .gov is TELLING me what I can do with my rights- instead of allowing me to have the CHOICE of making that
determination on my own- and that it sets up a precedent that- they can do the same thing to someone else. Someone else that might need
that capability.

Of course some of it is difficult to see if you haven't crossed the bridge yet. It's the same reason I think that "courts and police being forced to respect the 4th amendment is important" despite the fact that, for most people, it's not an issue- but I can see the value in protecting it.

-Mike

I've said it before. I had NO interest in AR-15's or in "high-capacity" magazines until Dannel Malloy said that he was going pass "common sense" gun control legislation in Connecticut. Then that bastard slid through "emergency legislation" when there was no emergency.

Pissed me off no end that people who know little to nothing about firearms are suddenly going to tell me how I'm going to live my life. I'm a fully grown adult, tax payer, property owner, been vetted by multiple state and federal agencies -- and the state of Connecticut has determined that they're my mommy all of a sudden.

If they'd left me alone, I probably wouldn't own any AR's, or Glocks for that matter.

Instead, I bought a completed AR, (2) stripped lowers, and four new pistols before their new laws went into effect. Had to run up my credit card which I NEVER do, but it was worth it.

And as I listened to these pompous, arrogant, holier than thou legislators - I grew angrier. Net result, we moved up our plans and left. Two more tax payers leaving the state.

That original 3 ARs have multipled. I've got the jig to build out 80% lowers and some of the AR's in my safe don't have serial numbers or paperwork - and that's legal here in Georgia. The Glocks multiplied in the same fashion. My wife feels pretty much the same way, so she's got her own ARs - and because she likes Sigs instead of Glocks - we've got some of them.

If you'd left me alone - I'd probably still be shooting my 10/22, my Buckmarks and my 1911's in Connecticut. Instead, I pay taxes to Georgia, and I've got a lot more firearms than I used to.

 

[uwaeve]

I received a detailed description of all kinds of restrictions with my LTC.

"Sporting - Restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns); and for outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing, or similar activities. Includes travel to and from activity location."

Now I realized that at least in Lexington, the "Sporting" restriction is defined quite broadly, much more than "recreational shooting or competition".
As far as I can see, "Sporting" restriction allows "hiking" "or similar activities", and "Includes travel to and from activity location". That means as long as I think about taking a walk somewhere, anywhere, in my mind, I can carry a firearm concealed, because I can legally claim that I am in the "travel to and from activity location".
I do realize that this restriction does NOT allow me to carry concealed when I am working in an office, going to restaurants, or do shopping. For now I really do not have any plan to carry any firearm outside of my house, except to remote places for real hiking and camping.

A monkey wrench thrown into my practice of my gun right is that the series of school shooting recently has turned many people into gun haters, that include my kids. So I may not possess a gun anyway, at least not in this year. I have owned air guns for several years. So I can keep practicing my air guns. I can go to Granite State Range in Nashua, New Hampshire to rent guns and practice firing a real firearm. That does not require a LTC anyway.
So you can see that Lexington is a unique town in a unique state, and I am in a unique environment. "Sporting" restriction in my LTC does not give me any inconvenience.

Do you interpret that you can carry for personal protection outside the home? Does law enforcement? I'm not a lawyer but klaxons and lights start going off when I read the "for personal protection in the home" sentence. Remember that if you wind up in a deadly force encounter you first need to win the encounter, then potentially win the court case. With your restriction are you sure your options in a defensive scenario outside your home aren't simply run or die?

 

[easycity]

Well, I value the comfort of my children more than my right of carrying arms. Also, I do not perceive any urgent need to defend my home in the near future. Life cannot be perfect, I have long recognized and reconciled with myself.

 

[SpiderMA]

Hmm nuff said. I see where this is going

 

[allen-1]

Well, I value the comfort of my children more than my right of carrying arms. Also, I do not perceive any urgent need to defend my home in the near future. Life cannot be perfect, I have long recognized and reconciled with myself.

It is indeed your life to live as you choose. Congratulations on your new permit, enjoy it.

 

[CCW]

Well, I value the comfort of my children more than my right of carrying arms. Also, I do not perceive any urgent need to defend my home in the near future. Life cannot be perfect, I have long recognized and reconciled with myself.

I’d wager a fair amount that majority of home invasion victims didn’t see it coming either.
Maybe in Lexington criminals send out notifications in advance....

 

[Freddy B]

I’d wager a fair amount that majority of home invasion victims didn’t see it coming either.
Maybe in Lexington criminals send out notifications in advance....

I'm not aware of any home invasions, but we've had serious problems with home burglaries. The only difference is the perp knows you're home in one and doesn't know in the other.

 

[kalash]

Well, I value the comfort of my children more than my right of carrying arms. Also, I do not perceive any urgent need to defend my home in the near future. Life cannot be perfect, I have long recognized and reconciled with myself.

Nobody buys a gun because they "perceive any urgent need to defend [their] home" - if I genuinely thought I needed a gun ASAP at home, I'd move! The whole point is to be ready for the threats you DO NOT anticipate. Personally, I'd be more concerned about being able to protect my kids than about hurting their precious feelings over a hunk of metal in my safe, but that's just me.

 

[Royal]

Well congratulations on obtaining your restricted LTC and I’m glad to hear your licensing experience was a pleasant one.

Now that you are properly licensed, please introduce your other liberal friends to firearms ownership and the shooting sports!

 

[Squire]

Nobody buys a gun because they "perceive any urgent need to defend [their] home" - if I genuinely thought I needed a gun ASAP at home, I'd move! The whole point is to be ready for the threats you DO NOT anticipate. Personally, I'd be more concerned about being able to protect my kids than about hurting their precious feelings over a hunk of metal in my safe, but that's just me.

JFC, why do Left-wing Statists insist on a reason for one to exercise 2A? I'm not worried about home invasions or robberies. I don't gun hunt near my home (I have land in 3 other states). I shoot for sport little, and rarely CC. Although I don the tinfoil from time to time, I'm honestly not trying to arm myself against the US military, as it's volunteer of fellow Citizens, not (yet) a mercenary force led by a Tyrant. Truth be told, at this point, the most likely reason I may have to defend myself and my rights are from Left-wing Statists who are rabid with their Political Dogma to create a Society devoid of Individualism and full of Dependents, such that they actually espouse Genocide toward Individuals who disagree with their anti-Individualist dogma. To that end, I'm a competent Individual Citizen of this Nation, ie, one of "the People", and by God, the Founding Fathers documented my Natural Right to maintain the means to defend myself from whoever I might find it necessary to at some unforeseen time in the future, so that's what I do.

 

[jhblaze1]

Well, I value the comfort of my children more than my right of carrying arms. Also, I do not perceive any urgent need to defend my home in the near future. Life cannot be perfect, I have long recognized and reconciled with myself.

it's good that you don't perceive any threat to your home. I mean cuz violent criminals usually call you first to schedule your home invastion and wife rape.

As a gun owner, the ONLY thing you should feel regarding your neutered license is outrage and violation. But you're not alone. Many many many people in MA have Stockholm Syndrome too.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Cite the law that states a sporting restriction means range use only.

The relevant law is the one that gives the IA the authority to deem you unsuitable.

The chances of the legal sanctions coming into play (civil fine) are very slim. The real issue is revocation of the LTC, which is already provided for in law. For all practical purposes, you have to feel the chief did not feel he had a reason to revoke the LTC in order to prevail at an appeal of the revocation.

 

[HiCap]

Tread on Me Harder Daddio

 

[Picton]

It is indeed your life to live as you choose. Congratulations on your new permit, enjoy it.

I see what you did there.

Congrats, OP. You’ll get there someday. Baby steps. Meanwhile, I hope your kids start to come to the realization you’re starting to come to. I’m sure it would help if you took them to the range once in awhile. Once they let you get a firearm.

 

[Cabin Fever]

Doesnt the weston shooters club have lockers? You could join that club and store any pistols you buy there.

Or, introduce your kids to some target shooting! I bet they will enjoy it.

 

[Sparkey]

I didn’t buy fire extinguishers for my home thinking i would need them.Six years down the road I did and I was dam glad I had them to put out the fire.

 

[Waher]

Doesnt the weston shooters club have lockers? You could join that club and store any pistols you buy there.

Or, introduce your kids to some target shooting! I bet they will enjoy it.

BGRA in Boston also has club lockers.

Bank safe deposit boxes are also kosher, but a pain in the rear to deal with.

 

[MAJoe]

Out of curiosity, what realistic situations do you expect to encounter hiking that you'd need a concealed firearm? Personally I bet the occurrence of a home invasion would be more probable... Just something to ponder.

Welcome and congrats on the LTC. I used to have a similar mindset, but now very glad mine is unrestricted.

 

[easycity]

Thanks for the tip about personal gun lockers in gun clubs. I will investigate these gun clubs.
I am still considering keeping some firearms inside the house. All suggestions appreciated.

 

[drgrant]

Do you interpret that you can carry for personal protection outside the home? Does law enforcement? I'm not a lawyer but klaxons and lights start going off when I read the "for personal protection in the home" sentence. Remember that if you wind up in a deadly force encounter you first need to win the encounter, then potentially win the court case. With your restriction are you sure your options in a defensive scenario outside your home aren't simply run or die?

A restriction isn't going to dramatically affect the legal outcome of an SD scenario. Worst thing they could do is administratively revoke the license after the fact, and if you just survived an assault like that its probably the least of your worries. Obviously a DA could try to "make hay" out of it, but it's not like they could charge you with an extra felony for violating the restriction. It's only an admin penalty (potential loss of license and up to a 10K fine, which never happens usually). It's not even a felony or a misdemeanor.

-Mike

 

[nstassel]

How would your carrying a gun impact the "comfort" of your children?

 

[Palladin]

This is a put on, right?

 

[kalash]

Out of curiosity, what realistic situations do you expect to encounter hiking that you'd need a concealed firearm? Personally I bet the occurrence of a home invasion would be more probable... Just something to ponder.

Welcome and congrats on the LTC. I used to have a similar mindset, but now very glad mine is unrestricted.

Good point - we don't really have dangerous animals in New England that you'd need a gun for.

Also agree with your last point. OP, you definitely took a step in the right direction. Stick around, read a lot, so your research, and soon you'll start to understand the philosophy behind our rights and then suddenly you'll be pissed off that your license is restricted.

 

[easycity]

I want to spread out the word that a LTC, even though restricted, is relatively easy to get, even in a town like Lexington.
For those who owning guns for a long time, perhaps for generations, it is difficult to believe that there are many people in Massachusetts taking for granted that handgun ownership and conceal carry are beyond their reach. Fervent anti-gun media coverage created an impression of strict and anti-gun police department in the minds of many people. Faced with risking $100 application fee and cost of gun safety course, countless people do not bother to try. Until several days ago when I saw my LTC card, I still worried that I might be rejected, and wasted several hundred dollars.
That is why I want to describe my experience in detail, and let people search the internet and found my post. One more person with LTC or FID, no matter what restrictions they have, still is one more person armed with firearms. I have a feeling that right now it is not a time to expand the gun right over the existing restrictions, but to put guns in the hands of as many responsible people as possible. To maximize gun-carrying population, it is important for the overall society to reach some common ground, including gun right loyalists and anti-gun populists. That may require compromises on both sides. I am afraid restrictions may be the easiest pill for everyone.

 

[drgrant]

I am afraid restrictions may be the easiest pill for everyone.

There are many towns in MA that simply do not issue restricted licenses, so "no, it's not. "

I would wager out of like 351 cities and towns in MA there aren't more than a a couple dozen at this point that actively restrict licenses.

Of course I don't know how Lexington works, it might be one of those towns where "If soemone is wonky enough to actually ask for a restriction, we'll give it to them" There's probably a bunch of those, too.

-Mike

 

[kalash]

I want to spread out the word that a LTC, even though restricted, is relatively easy to get, even in a town like Lexington.

Mandatory training (which costs money), application fees, multi-month wait times, essays, letters of reference, and in the end the chief of police (who you probably have never met) gets to arbitrarily decide whether you are allowed to exercise a constitutional right. What part of that is "easy"? In 38 states you don't need a license to buy a handgun at all.