• 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.

Mass LTC Restriction Definitions

drumenigma

drumenigma

Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
3,720
Likes
2,071
Location
Purgatory
Feedback: 13 / 0 / 0
I thought I would post the contents of a letter that I received along with my LTC A as I have not been able to find a similar post. It defines exactly what each restriction means:

None: The LTC is issued for all lawful purposes with no restrictions. This is used for all FID cards, as by statute, they may not be issued with any restrictions imposed.

Target and Hunting: 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; and for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns). Includes travel to and from activity location.

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; and 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.

Employment: Restricts possession to business owner engaged in business activities, or to an employee while engaged in work related activities, and maintaining proficiency, where the employer requires carrying of a firearm (i.e. armored car, security guard, etc.). Includes travel to and from activity location.

Other: The licensing authority creates a restriction it deems proper.


For machine gun licenses only

MPTC Instructor: Restricts possession of machine gun to MPTC certified firearms instructor acquiring or possessing such machine gun for the purpose of training law enforcement personnel.

Collector: Restricts possession of machine gun to bona fide collector for purpose of acquiring or possessing machine guns for historical significance, display, research, lecturing, demonstration, test firing, investment or other like purpose, as well as transportation to and from locations for such purposes.
 
I hope one of the lawyers come along to review this b/c I don't believe any of that has legal merit with the exception of "none" and maybe "other" (I am disregarding the Machine guns section). The CLEO who created this list would be the only one who has to agree with it. The next PD over may not be pleased to see you carrying while hiking in their town with a "Sporting LTC". But then again the CLEO who issued the LTC is the one who would take it away, so who knows. But I would get confirmation from a lawyer before carrying if indeed you do have a restriction.

But of course IANAL.

Can’t say how glad I am to live in a green town.
 
My understanding is that those descriptions would be what your CLEO means by various restrictions he/she uses. That does not mean that those definitions have the same meaning for any other CLEO.
 
To M1911's question it was from the CHSB. I do not know if these are the standardized definitions or not however or if all CLEO's are supposed to abide by them.
 
Last edited:
drumenigma said:
To M1911's question it was from the CHSB. I do not know if these are the standardized definitions or not however or if all CLEO's are supposed to abide by them.
Click to expand...

Why would they not want to abide by them? After all, the definitions allow for "other", which essentially allows them to cobble together any sort of incomprehensible, self-contradictory BS they "deem proper". [rolleyes] [rolleyes] [rolleyes]

SSDD

Ken
 
It's a good bet that these definitions vary from town to town and cop to cop. At significant risk, you could try to use the vagueness of the definitions to your advantage. Or...for consistency, perhaps GOAL could negotiate the definitions with the AG, allowing for some type of on-the-person carry for people engaged in hiking and camping.

The option I have chosen is to get out of state permits and avoid Massachusetts problems completely. The NH permit is inexpensive, quick to get, and recognized in many states. Consider Maine as well; anybody who enjoys camping and wildlife know Maine and New Hampshire are perfect destinations.
 
WayneWong said:
Or...for consistency, perhaps GOAL could negotiate the definitions with the AG, allowing for some type of on-the-person carry for people engaged in hiking and camping.
Click to expand...

GET A CLUE! [slap]



That's how we LOST the "'Reason For Issuance' is not a restriction" decision. And what does the AG have to do with it? Licenses come from EOPS - you know, the EXECUTIVE Office of Public Safety.

No rational gun owner wants the AG intermeddling again.
 
drumenigma said:
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; and 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.
Click to expand...

...so you can conceal carry for a walk in the woods, but not for a drive to the store? Sounds fishy to me. I wouldn't bet you're license and 2nd Amendment rights on it.
 
That's how we LOST the "'Reason For Issuance' is not a restriction" decision.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but before GOAL helped us on that one an individual who was accused of "restriciton violation" would face all sorts of uncertainty regarding the outcome and would stay awake at nghts wondering if they would get the same decision as was handed down by one (not precedent setting) district court.

Now, such a person does not have the stress of uncertainty as conviction is certain if such a case goes to trial and the facts are proven.
 
Scrivener said:
GET A CLUE! [slap]



That's how we LOST the "'Reason For Issuance' is not a restriction" decision. And what does the AG have to do with it? Licenses come from EOPS - you know, the EXECUTIVE Office of Public Safety.

No rational gun owner wants the AG intermeddling again.
Click to expand...

The fact that these definitions are not codified in law and subject to individual interpretation make them unenforceable. No, I'm sorry, that would not be the case where we have activist ultra liberal judges.

The reality of a sporting LTC is glorified target and hunting. One should be able to carry a firearm in the wilderness for protection against two and four legged predators as well as rabid animals.

I thought the AG interpreted laws. I don't care if it's the AG or Phil McCracken at the Mass. Bureau of Sh*t. If the restrictions aren't codified they are useless and dangerous.

My recommendation is don't carry while camping or hiking in Massachusetts until a lawful order is enacted by one of our overseers.
 
I think I am going to follow suit like a lot of people and eventually just leave Mass. There are so many reasons to leave and so few to stay. And it makes having to figure out these restrictions and all of the other ridiculous laws null and void. Then maybe when the population gets low enough the lawmakers will get a clue and ease up on the taxes and gun laws. (oh wait, that'll probably never happen. since when do lawmakers take a hint?)
 
FWIW I obtained a copy of these exact same restrictions (See original post) from a nearby PD - not mine, and was told they come from the State. They are the same ones that Freetown has on line. When I asked about carrying on the person to and from the activities, I was told in a friendly, chiding manner "It's a License to Carry."

Whether you take these seriously or not, my sense from what I have experienced and what I read here is that at least a few cops take these restrictions less seriously than we do. YMMV with some of the a**h*** chiefs and licensing officers, but it may not be necessary to damn yourself to target practice hell if you use common sense with how you behave, where you carry, and what your activity is.

OK, I'm waiting for incoming flames. And I'll post the [rolleyes] to save some of you guys that extra mouse click.
 
WayneWong said:
FWIW I obtained a copy of these exact same restrictions (See original post) from a nearby PD - not mine, and was told they come from the State. They are the same ones that Freetown has on line. When I asked about carrying on the person to and from the activities, I was told in a friendly, chiding manner "It's a License to Carry."

Whether you take these seriously or not, my sense from what I have experienced and what I read here is that at least a few cops take these restrictions less seriously than we do. YMMV with some of the a**h*** chiefs and licensing officers, but it may not be necessary to damn yourself to target practice hell if you use common sense with how you behave, where you carry, and what your activity is.

OK, I'm waiting for incoming flames. And I'll post the [rolleyes] to save some of you guys that extra mouse click.
Click to expand...

Well, IF your PD truly wanted you to have an unrestricted license, why didn't it issue you one?

And I repeat my earlier query: What part of "restricted" do you - or the cop you spoke to - NOT comprehend?
 
The state laws just get curiouser and curiouser.

I've met guys, in the old days of "Reason For Issuance" LTCs who would have a "restricted license", ie:Sporting and Target, but also a letter from the licensing authority laying out a variety of ... for lack of a better term ... clarifying clauses. Usually this piece of paper would be a tattered shred that had been carried around in the guy's wallet next to his LTC.

I once talked to a State Police friend of mine who said that he'd encountered these "letters" as well, and never knew what to make of them. Most often, if a guy checked out OK otherwise, he'd let a concealed carrier go without further ado whatever his "Reason for Issuance" was, but these letters have remained a mystery to me.

Generally, these letters allowed a guy carrying outside of his "Reason" to say "yeah, but ...".

I wonder if anyone here has ever been issued any kind of supplemental letter, or heard of such a practice.

It wasn't until I recently renewed my LTC that I was even aware that "Reason For Issuance" had been replaced by "Restrictions". (That's why I've joined this board ... so I'll know what the heck is going on).

My Chief explained that it was best just to put "None" in that field, in order to eliminate any possibility of confusion in the future, implying strongly that to put anything else there would surely cause confusion in the future.

Having said all this, I must say that I've found this thread intriguing.
 
I wonder if anyone here has ever been issued any kind of supplemental letter, or heard of such a practice.
Click to expand...

My first LTC was upgraded from T&H to "protection" by just such a letter. However, that was 1980 and wholly irrelevant to our present system.
 
Scrivener said:
My first LTC was upgraded from T&H to "protection" by just such a letter. However, that was 1980 and wholly irrelevant to our present system.
Click to expand...

So you were ugaded before you came up for renewal? Didn't know you could ever do that. Was this based on a change in your status (like, you didn't NEED to protect yourself when you first applied, but did at some subsequent time?

Curiouser and curiouser, I tell ya.

When I got my first LTC in the 80's (issued in Worcester), they said I could get a "Sporting" license first, and if I kept my nose clean during the period of my license I'd be upgraded to ALP on renewal.
 
Scrivener said:
Well, IF your PD truly wanted you to have an unrestricted license, why didn't it issue you one?

And I repeat my earlier query: What part of "restricted" do you - or the cop you spoke to - NOT comprehend?
Click to expand...


Answer to #1: My PD apparently did not want me carrying in Walmart or McDonalds, but felt it would be OK to carry in the middle of Sherwood Forest where I was unlikely to encounter a 7-11 holdup.

Answer to #2: I understand "restricted" quite well, counselor, and in this case "restricted" refers explicitly to the "purpose of possession" as opposed to the "means of carry."

A sporting restriction therefore would allow one to carry on ones person for the purpose of outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing and other similar activities.

There is an Employment restriction which limits possession to the time someone is on the job. That's a restriction and it does not exclude someone from carrying on his/her person.

A restriction such as "no concealed carry" which is used in Boston sometimes would restrict the "means of carry" as would a class B which never allows carry.


Now, I don't deny that in a land ruled by men and not law, any police chief with an agenda can make your life miserable at any given time. However, the restrictions that are printed in the first post were only pulled out of the ass of a state employee who had enough clout to get them distributed to all the local PD's. They are available for the asking and are the closest thing to a published, official definition I've seen.
 
Last edited:
WayneWong said:
Answer to #2: I understand "restricted" quite well, counselor, and in this case "restricted" refers explicitly to the "purpose of possession" as opposed to the "means of carry."

A sporting restriction therefore would allow one to carry on ones person for the purpose of outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing and other similar activities.

There is an Employment restriction which limits possession to the time someone is on the job. That's a restriction and it does not exclude someone from carrying on his/her person.

A restriction such as "no concealed carry" which is used in Boston sometimes would restrict the "means of carry" as would a class B which never allows carry.


Now, I don't deny that in a land ruled by men and not law, any police chief with an agenda can make your life miserable at any given time. However, the restrictions that are printed in the first post were only pulled out of the ass of a state employee who had enough clout to get them distributed to all the local PD's. They are available for the asking and are the closest thing to a published, official definition I've seen.
Click to expand...

The real confusion comes from cops, dispatchers, secretaries and other luminaries who tell the holders of a restricted "A" that they may carry concealed when the restriction makes it explicit that they may not. That misinformation is then spread like a virus courtesy of posts to that effect on the net.

So long as you understand you are being misinformed and "carrying" anywhere but the range or at home on a "Target" restriction is an invitation to a total loss of license or worse, we're good. [wink]
 
Scrivener said:
The real confusion comes from cops, dispatchers, secretaries and other luminaries who tell the holders of a restricted "A" that they may carry concealed when the restriction makes it explicit that they may not. That misinformation is then spread like a virus courtesy of posts to that effect on the net.

So long as you understand you are being misinformed and "carrying" anywhere but the range or at home on a "Target" restriction is an invitation to a total loss of license or worse, we're good. [wink]
Click to expand...


A Target restriction makes it explicit that the licensee may possess and carry the firearm for Target practice only. It is implicit that carrying the weapon (for personal protection or any other purpose) elsewhere is prohibited.

I think though we're on the same page as what is permissible and what is not.
 
Last edited:
Scrivener have you or any of the other lawyers that are on this site ever have a case dealing with this issue?And if not have you ever "heard" of a case that had to deal with it?
 
I represented a client once whose LTC said Employment Purposes Only. He left work, was on his way home, had a beer in a bar, and was stopped for a speeding and driving erratically.

After a three day jury trial he was found Not Guilty. [grin]
 
Cross-X/Darius - put in a few words, what was your position on your client carrying the firearm on his person while not engaged in the approved activity?


Oops, this was already asked by 38SpecialD. I second the question. I'd love to hear this.
 
Last edited:
38specialD said:
What was his defense?It was issued for work not to carry in bar?And what was he charged with?
Click to expand...

He was the production foreman in a manufacturing facility, and had finished work and was heading home after a beer.

He was charged with carrying a firearm while intoxicated, carrying a firearm outside of his restriction, and improper storage of a firearm.

The trial was a defense cross-examination slugfest.
 
Cross-X said:
He was the production foreman in a manufacturing facility, and had finished work and was heading home after a beer.

He was charged with carrying a firearm while intoxicated, carrying a firearm outside of his restriction, and improper storage of a firearm.

The trial was a defense cross-examination slugfest.
Click to expand...

So the court found that it was OK to travel to and from the approved activity with the firearm on his person?
 

Similar threads

Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
12
Views
350
Laura
Laura
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
208
milktree
milktree
Mass Legal Combat Shotguns
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Knob Creek
Knob Creek
LTC Renewal Received in Natick
Replies
0
Views
164
RockStar
R
LTC references
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
paul73
paul73
Back
Top Bottom