Mass LTC Restriction Definitions

I would love to read that transcipt!!!!!!With all that is said about the restrictions I dont see how anyone can interpet them.The cop must really like you!!!LOL
 
I can see how you would be able to beat the Intoxicated charge but how on gods earth the carrying outside of his restriction charge????
 
38specialD said:
I can see how you would be able to beat the Intoxicated charge but how on gods earth the carrying outside of his restriction charge????
Click to expand...

The testimony at trial was that my client told the jury he did not feel comfortable leaving his gun locked up at the factory, and felt his gun would be more secure locked up at home in his safe.
 
WayneWong said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never directly addressed this issue during my closing, and I did so for a variety of reasons. The Commonwealth's case had many, many holes in it, so much so that I was sure I'd win because I felt the jury would feel the police had absolutely no business bringing charges against my client. Also, in the grand scheme of things, the carrying a firearms outside his restriction charge was the most minor of the charges.

One of the most bizarre aspects of this case was that the arresting officer never even charged my client with operating under the influence, nor did he order him to take field sobriety tests!

This case took years to get to trial. By the time the case was tried, that officer had been promoted from sergeant to lieuntenant! I don't think he won his promotion due to being a good street cop. I was disgusted to learn of that promotion.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the story..This is why I dont understand why almost everyone on this site says you CANT carry your gun on you to the range!!!!!I have said this once and I will say it again THE LAW dosent say that you CANT!!!!Now everyone will jump up and down about RESTRICTIONS.Every LEO I have talked with says the same thing LTC means LICENSE TO CARRY.I have read now that one of the restrictions Boston P.D. use say right on the LTC that you are not allowed to carry it on you.So if this is true then I would tend to think that if LEO intended you NOT to carry it on you they would put that restriction on your LCT like Boston does.
 
One thing the LAW does say is when transporting a firearm you cant carry it on you if you have a LTC-B.Funny how the LAW states you CANT carry it on you with a CLASS-B but says nothing about a CLASS-A!!!!
 
38specialD said:
Thanks for the story..This is why I dont understand why almost everyone on this site says you CANT carry your gun on you to the range!!!!
Click to expand...

38specialD: This fellow beat the charges. After 3 years. Just how much do you think Cross-X's bill was by that point?

Soooo, you wanna be the next test case?
 
Im sure his bill was alot..What the hell does that have to do with the LAW!!!!The LAW specifies the difference between CLASS-A and CLASS-B.READ IT !!!!!I would not need his services because IM NOT breaking ANY LAWS by carrying my gun on me to the range!!!!The Police,Lawyers.Politicions.Gun shop owners and a few others have all said the samething you CAN carry it on you to the range.Now go ahead and make the point where all these people are WRONG and you are right because there is a restriction on it. Show me documented proof,not just your interpertation of the LAW.And to answer everyones question about being the next test case I would say YES rather than give up my right to carry!!!!
 
38specialD said:
Thanks for the story..This is why I dont understand why almost everyone on this site says you CANT carry your gun on you to the range!!!!!I have said this once and I will say it again THE LAW dosent say that you CANT!!!!Now everyone will jump up and down about RESTRICTIONS.Every LEO I have talked with says the same thing LTC means LICENSE TO CARRY.I have read now that one of the restrictions Boston P.D. use say right on the LTC that you are not allowed to carry it on you.So if this is true then I would tend to think that if LEO intended you NOT to carry it on you they would put that restriction on your LCT like Boston does.
Click to expand...


ok then, since you wont take our advice here, even LAWYER'S advice, them perhaps your arent mature enough to have that LTC to begin with. I would think that a lawyer is better at interpreting a law than you, who is hellbent on proving something to us with no factual backup!

If it doesnt say "restrictions: none" cant CCW unless you are actually AT your gun range. getting to the range is NOT the same as being there, as you want us to believe. But hey, go ahead and try it and see what happens the first time something happens and you lose your LTC.
 
I would like to see the stats on how many people, that have a LTC-A with the restriction on it that says target/hunting,have been arrested and charged with carrying a firearm outside his/her restriction!!!
 
38specialD said:
I would like to see the stats on how many people, that have a LTC-A with the restriction on it that says target/hunting,have been arrested and charged with carrying a firearm outside his/her restriction!!!
Click to expand...

just because it may not have happened, doesnt mean you are right!


stop trying to push it on us that you are right

read this: doesnt say "on the way to the range" just "at the range"

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...

If this doesnt sink in, please move to a state w here your case wont be used agaisnt us lawful, hoop jumping gun owners.
 
38specialD said:
Im sorry..I didnt get to the part where MGL gives stats on people being charged with carrying outside there restiction.
Click to expand...

the stats dont matter! ITS NOT FVCKING LEGAL!!! WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!?!?!?

reading comprehension escapes you. as does critical reasoning.
 
[pot]

OMG, I really see both sides of this debate. I am sorry to stir up some more shit here. Let's just keep this as a friendly debate.

Here's what I see

38specialD's position. The definitions that seem to have been distributed by the State specifically allow possession to and from the approved activity. 38specialD argues that a Class A LTC allows possession via concealed carry. This position has been supported anecdotaly by cops, dispatchers, and licensing officers.

[devil]

Scivener's and bostonasphalt2's position is that concealed carry in a vehicle serves no purpose related to Target Practice. Arguably, you could carry concealed 24 hours a day and say you are on your way to the range. Possession for travel to and from the range must therefore be in the trunk or locked container. Valid point and certainly the safest option.

[popcorn]

I'm not taking sides on the to and from thing, but if you have a restricted license this is a very interesting thread.
 
and anecdotes arent going to help him in court or when he appeals having his license taken away.

plus, you know, I sided with a lawyer on this one who specializes in firearms law. I quoted him in this thread stating that a restriction does not allow you to CCW, only ALP does. CCW would be having the gun on your person on the way to the range. The CCW at the range counts becuase its private property, which someones car on a public road is NOT.


*sigh*

Im done trying to save this guy from himself. WayneWong, to you I apologize if I stepped on your toes on this topic in any way because I know that you take the opposite viewpoint, but you have presented your side much more intelligently, even though i still disagree, lol
 
Last edited:
bostonasphalt2 said:
and anecdotes arent going to help him in court or when he appeals having his license taken away.
Click to expand...
Unless those anecdotes happen to be previous court decisions in which case I believe it is called a precedent. The case Darius described would seem to lend some credence to the idea that carrying to and from a permitted activity may be allowed.

AFAICT license restrictions are not defined in the laws or regulations anywhere, therefore I see it as a very grey area. Personally, I'm now of the opinion that carrying to and from approved activities probably is legal, unless your licensing authority has specifically said it is not. I think it is still quite risky and you may end up with a 3 year court battle so I can certainly see why many do not and that is entirely up to them.
 
kevin9 said:
Unless those anecdotes happen to be previous court decisions in which case I believe it is called a precedent. The case Darius described would seem to lend some credence to the idea that carrying to and from a permitted activity may be allowed.

AFAICT license restrictions are not defined in the laws or regulations anywhere, therefore I see it as a very grey area. Personally, I'm now of the opinion that carrying to and from approved activities probably is legal, unless your licensing authority has specifically said it is not. I think it is still quite risky and you may end up with a 3 year court battle so I can certainly see why many do not and that is entirely up to them.
Click to expand...

+1
 
kevin9 said:
Unless those anecdotes happen to be previous court decisions in which case I believe it is called a precedent. The case Darius described would seem to lend some credence to the idea that carrying to and from a permitted activity may be allowed.

AFAICT license restrictions are not defined in the laws or regulations anywhere, therefore I see it as a very grey area. Personally, I'm now of the opinion that carrying to and from approved activities probably is legal, unless your licensing authority has specifically said it is not. I think it is still quite risky and you may end up with a 3 year court battle so I can certainly see why many do not and that is entirely up to them.
Click to expand...

yes, but he wasnt using precedents in his argument, just anecdotes. Sure, he now has one precedent to use in his defense, but from the sounds of it Darius' case was all kinds of trumped up, so it may not be a good one....
 
38specialD: Two experienced firearms attorneys have given you their opinion. Feel free to ignore their advice if you choose.
 
bostonasphalt2 said:
and anecdotes arent going to help him in court or when he appeals having his license taken away.

plus, you know, I sided with a lawyer on this one who specializes in firearms law. I quoted him in this thread stating that a restriction does not allow you to CCW, only ALP does. CCW would be having the gun on your person on the way to the range. The CCW at the range counts becuase its private property, which someones car on a public road is NOT.


*sigh*

Im done trying to save this guy from himself. WayneWong, to you I apologize if I stepped on your toes on this topic in any way because I know that you take the opposite viewpoint, but you have presented your side much more intelligently, even though i still disagree, lol
Click to expand...

No, you didn't step on my toes at all. I like the discussion and the debate. It's the only way we can all muddle our way through this.

This debate would not be taking place in some 40+ other states. It's because the inmates are running the asylum here in MA.

Can you imagine how many people with restricted permits are out carrying 24 hours a day because they don't go on the internet or can't afford an attorney. All because a well meaning police officer told them, "go ahead its no problem." I would bet there are...thousands...of them.
 
I will say this:

For what its worth, this kind of debate should be a good indicator of why towns should be "Shall Issue" as opposed to being left up to political agenda. issuing ALP to anyone who meets the reqs would clear all this up and this conversation wouldn't need to occur!

This type of vagueness was actually going to be in my letter to the Attleboro Police Department if they werent so green. Whether it would've helped or not is one thing, but it is certainly a very valid point.
 
bostonasphalt2 said:
I will say this:

For what its worth, this kind of debate should be a good indicator of why towns should be "Shall Issue" as opposed to being left up to political agenda. issuing ALP to anyone who meets the reqs would clear all this up and this conversation wouldn't need to occur!
Click to expand...
+1!
 
bostonasphalt2 said:
Im done trying to save this guy from himself. WayneWong, to you I apologize if I stepped on your toes on this topic in any way because I know that you take the opposite viewpoint, but you have presented your side much more intelligently, even though i still disagree, lol
Click to expand...

We can disagree all we want- the bottom line is that a restriction is defined by the issuing authority. This means, that if the chief wants to "let someone off" they have the capability to do so- because the IA is (going to be more than likely) the actual arbiter of whether or not a restriction was violated. EG, if your chief issues you a restricted permit, but then says "I don't care if you carry your gun in the woods" you're probably OK (for that purpose); problem is, since this is just a verbal thing, and not formalized, he could probably change his mind later on and get away with ripping your license away. Cases have come and gone that basically reaffirm that a restriction is basically whatever the IA wants it to be. They could say BOZO MAKEUP ONLY and it'd be valid [laugh]

So if your IA/Chief is a buttwad and doesn't want to delineate exactly what a restriction means, Then it is wise to assume the worst. Anything less than ALP/None is going to be shaky at best. For instance, what happens to permits issued by one IA, and then one anti chief is replaced by another anti chief? Will the 2nd anti, consider the restrictions to be the same?

WRT this issue, there are usually more questions than answers.
[laugh]

-Mike
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
511
67ray
67ray
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
211
milktree
milktree
Mass Legal Combat Shotguns
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Knob Creek
Knob Creek
LTC Renewal Received in Natick
Replies
0
Views
170
RockStar
R
LTC references
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
paul73
paul73
Back
Top Bottom