Mass LTC Restriction Definitions

[Raoul Duke]

It's already in writing. "LTC" = License to Carry

This is so stunningly stupid that I don't even know if it can be called "bad advice" You strike me as the type of person who can't figure out why years of drinking diet coke has made them fat. I mean, hey, it does say diet on the label right?

 

[kevin9]

Good luck with that. Just realize that:

A. He has a VERY unorthodox interpretation of the law and he won't be around when you're face down on the pavement in a felony stop.
...

FWIW there's at least one LEO-type I know of that shares this interpretation and has advocated it rather strongly here.

IMNSHO if the CLEO is willing to put it in writing such that the OP can carry it with him then I see little risk. Remember it's that same CLEO, not some random LEO, that makes suitability determinations regarding the OP. YMMV

 

[arlow]

So, after reading all of the above I have a dumb question: My Class A LTC states "Restrictions: None" ... my old one said "all lawfull purposes". Although I've never bothered to carry my handgun concealed, I'ts been my understanding that I can with this particular license. Is that correct?

I've read the laws and they are clear as mud. It seems that it's all about what a law does NOT say that tells you (or implies) what you CAN actually do .

So again, my simple question is: can I carry a concealed handgun?

Also, I read and hear that (if I can in fact CCW) you can't carry in schools, federal buildings and possibley other establishments ... where does it say that?

Finally, I see above discussion about Boston specifically not allowing CCW. But does that mean that nobody can CCW in Boston, or is it just the Boston issuing agent will not issue that privledge to Boston residents (even though it's a 2nd ammendment right, but that's a whole 'nother discussion!)? I.e., shouldn't my State issued LTC be good throughout Mass, including Boston?

I have always been unclear on this and I'm looking forward to your comments.

Welcome aboard Brotha Skip!!

 

[Libertarian]

Anyone out there know what the "Definition" of Sporting is? And can I have it added to my restrictions once t has already gone through the process?

I am just stunned at the shear stupidity of the gun laws in this state. Its like they are setting up all of us legal gun owners to have these situations where we put our freedom and $ at risk. Between the "Mass Compliant" list of guns to the moronic restrictions to magazines... its just terrible.

 

[Raoul Duke]

FWIW there's at least one LEO-type I know of that shares this interpretation and has advocated it rather strongly here.

I can find you a cop who will tell you he's been sodomized by aliens, but that doesn't mean I'd risk my license on his ravings. I am, however, more than willing to put yours on the table so, by all means, don't let the man keep you down.

IMNSHO if the CLEO is willing to put it in writing such that the OP can carry it with him then I see little risk.

You appear nearsighted.

 

[hunter46spring]

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.

These are what definitions the FRB wants issuing authorities to use when issing permits. This is an attempt to stadardize the process. These are directly taken from a drop down menu on MIRCS when filling out the information for the applicant. The bad news is that the issuing authority still can make any restriction he deems applicable under any of these headings.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

These are what definitions the FRB wants issuing authorities to use when issing permits. This is an attempt to stadardize the process. These are directly taken from a drop down menu on MIRCS when filling out the information for the applicant. The bad news is that the issuing authority still can make any restriction he deems applicable under any of these headings.

right, and unfortunately, the FRB guidelines are just that, guidelines, not laws. The restrictions have their definitions grounded only on departmental letterhead.

 

[Skipnoid]

Hey Arlow!
How 'ya been?

 

[kevin9]

I can find you a cop who will tell you he's been sodomized by aliens, but that doesn't mean I'd risk my license on his ravings. I am, however, more than willing to put yours on the table so, by all means, don't let the man keep you down.

My only point, which I was trying to make without being personally snippy or nasty about it, is that the position stated is not so unorthodox. As drumenigma and hunter46spring point out the FRB is attempting to standardize on a definition that you claim to be "unorthodox".

You appear nearsighted.

Thank you for your constructive response
Let me go through the logic again point by point in case it wasn't clear:

1. Restrictions are defined solely by the issuing CLEO. Yes/No?
2. Suitability determinations are also solely made by that same CLEO. Yes/No?
3. Said CLEO is put their definition of the OP's restriction in writing on department letterhead
4. OP carries IAW said definition and keeps the CLEO's definition on hand
5. Please then explain the specific increased risks resulting from then carrying IAW the documented definition of one's restrictions.

If the CLEO is not willing to clearly define the OP's restriction in writing then I agree with you, otherwise I think you're advocating an overly cautious approach. Everyone makes their own decisions. If you want to assume a no-risk profile that's fine, but IMNSHO advocating such is one of the things that is turning even the gun owners of this state into sheeple.

 

[drgrant]

IMO if you get a clear delineation from the issuing authority of what the restriction means -to them- then that should be good enough, barring that the policy itself doesn't change behind your back, etc. (For example, if your PD has a "regime change" I would definitely go back and obtain another
letter. ).

One part that is problematic here is that I'd wager that the number of cases brought to court over "violating a restriction" issue are rare to nonexistent, for a variety of reasons.

-Mike

 

[Bfatz]

Bla Bla Bla I have a Class A restricted ( sporting )for now, what ever, I will carry anyways if I feel the need to or want to and you would not even know I was. If you walk around like Dirty Harry you deserve what ever fate comes upon you.

We live in a very, very interesting time, un-employment is way up and as we are all aware with high un-employment comes High crime. If I am in the unfortunate place at the right time, you seriously think I would not defend myself or someone else for that matter because my issuance says ( sporting on it )? your kidding yourself. Class A is class A in my book, the rest ( restrictions ) is just a " whatever and a how do you do ".

The law clearly states Class A LTC in laments terms can carry, Class B LTC can not.

And if the repercussions to this ( on any restriction ) is on the individual.

 

[M1911]

The law clearly states Class A LTC in laments terms can carry, Class B LTC can not.

And if the repercussions to this ( on any restriction ) is on the individual.

"Laments terms?" Perhaps you meant laymen's terms. Actually, the law reads as follows:

(a) A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it deems proper. A violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation.

Full text is here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131.htm

Violating the restrictions on your LTC is clearly illegal, as the law above shows, and brings with it specific penalties including suspension or revocation of your license and a fine of $1,000 to $10,000. If someone violates their restrictions and is caught, I would expect that their LTC would be revoked and they would never get another one.

Whether you choose to break that law or not is your own choice, but I would recommend against admitting to breaking that law on the internet. Furthermore, please do not imply it is legal to violate the restrictions on your license. It isn't and saying that it is might mislead others.

 

[Bfatz]

Under the gun
Your hometown can be the key to a concealed-weapon license, and some say that's not fair

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/29/under_the_gun/

Interesting read, and I appreciate your comments m1911

 

[TrailJeepin]

I just read this whole thread for the most part. And all I gotta say is MA F*CKING BLOWS!!! Im a new gun owner and just received my license a few months ago. I have T&H, but I moved to another town because I was pissed I got that when I asked for it for protection. The new town says they are most likely going to issue me an ALP. Anyways, my interpretation on these unclear laws is so they can be easily bent. Those political pencil pushing punks dont want us to have guns, and I think they leave the rules vague so they can use it against us and pull our license. Im new to all these lame laws, but this is how I am seeing it! My Cheif wouldnt even give me written "do's and don'ts" about what I can and can not do with my permit. Therefore, I dont trust doing anything besides locking it up in the back of my trunk and using it at the range. I own a pistol, and only care to own one for the time being. So what good does my license do? I walk down the street and get run down by some gangster punk looking for a few bucks to buy some crack with the sight of a knife or gun, and I cant even defend myself! Sorry, had to vent after reading this thread. I got really pissed off.

 

[BigAce74]

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 was given the same thing when I picked up the application at the clerk's office. Funny though...the lady crossed out the word "none" and wrote in "protection" as she told me that "Springfield doesn't issue them for ALP." I guess I'll have to cross my fingers for that one as it seems the least restrictive. I was told I could try for "protection" since I pointed out that I'm a landlord with a multi-family (advised by another gun-owner in the masslive forums). Will probably end up with T & H. Although T & H affords "personal protection within the home," I wonder what would happen if I was assaulted and defended myself in an empty unit while showing it since it could be argued that the unit is technically not my residence.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Bla Bla Bla I have a Class A restricted ( sporting )for now, what ever, I will carry anyways if I feel the need to or want to and you would not even know I was. If you walk around like Dirty Harry you deserve what ever fate comes upon you.

We live in a very, very interesting time, un-employment is way up and as we are all aware with high un-employment comes High crime. If I am in the unfortunate place at the right time, you seriously think I would not defend myself or someone else for that matter because my issuance says ( sporting on it )? your kidding yourself. Class A is class A in my book, the rest ( restrictions ) is just a " whatever and a how do you do ".

The law clearly states Class A LTC in laments terms can carry, Class B LTC can not.

And if the repercussions to this ( on any restriction ) is on the individual.

Like I said before, don't let the man keep you down...

 

[clinotus]

Not with restrictions it isn't, unless, of course, you're in the mood to test
your luck if you get caught carrying against the restriction.

-Mike

He should. The restrictions mean absolutely nothing.

 

[drgrant]

He should. The restrictions mean absolutely nothing.

Uhh, the thing M1911 just quoted above would tend to disagree with that assertion. (Although he bolded the wrong part, but right above it is the relevant text... )

I don't know how many licenses have been yanked for violating a restriction (I doubt it's very many.. ) but it would seem the provision exists in the law for the IA to yank a permit and assess a fine if they really wanted to.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

Uhh, the thing M1911 just quoted above would tend to disagree with that assertion. (Although he bolded the wrong part, but right above it is the relevant text... )

I increased the text in bold.

 

[drgrant]

I increased the text in bold.

The part you bolded only talks about large capacity rifles and shotguns. Part "i" talks about "firearms", which in MA covers most handguns.

-Mike

 

[clinotus]

Uhh, the thing M1911 just quoted above would tend to disagree with that assertion. (Although he bolded the wrong part, but right above it is the relevant text... )

I don't know how many licenses have been yanked for violating a restriction (I doubt it's very many.. ) but it would seem the provision exists in the law for the IA to yank a permit and assess a fine if they really wanted to.

-Mike

The provision for yanking falls under whatever criteria the C.O.P may utilize to invalidate the license; yet the issuance of the license is still a License to Carry. The restrictions on the license are just words, again defined by the criteria of who is going to pull your license.

Its the same semantics that are involved, though somewhat separately, when people make the statement that open carry is not illegal... Cause and effect.

Its either a law or it is not a law.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

The provision for yanking falls under whatever criteria the C.O.P may utilize to invalidate the license; yet the issuance of the license is still a License to Carry. The restrictions on the license are just words, again defined by the criteria of who is going to pull your license.

Its the same semantics that are involved, though somewhat separately, when people make the statement that open carry is not illegal... Cause and effect.

Its either a law or it is not a law.

LOL ok, go tell yourself that, but do not be spreading bad information to people trying to learn the ins and outs.

 

[clinotus]

LOL ok, go tell yourself that, but do not be spreading bad information to people trying to learn the ins and outs.

Is LOL a sheep callsign or something?

I am not telling myself this that I am telling the rest of you this. Dont take the absence of a definition to mean that something is explicit, nor should you accept the limits of a provision for something that is not stated.

 

[drgrant]

The provision for yanking falls under whatever criteria the C.O.P may utilize to invalidate the license; yet the issuance of the license is still a License to Carry. The restrictions on the license are just words, again defined by the criteria of who is going to pull your license.

Yes, but it's a safe bet that most of the PDs that restrict licenses do so with the intent of being able to use that as an axe against you if they catch you doing it. If they weren't trying to screw with people, they'd set it to "none".

I see what you're getting at- yeah, it's a license to carry, but frankly, if it says "clown suit only" it's not really much of a carry license anymore, unless you're into that sort of thing.

Its either a law or it is not a law.

The law is pretty clear on the matter. An IA can revoke a permit and
assess a fine if you violate one of their restrictions.

I could care less if someone carries against restrictions, but if they do they should know that it is potentially a one way ticket if the issuing PD decides
to throw the book at them.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

The part you bolded only talks about large capacity rifles and shotguns. Part "i" talks about "firearms", which in MA covers most handguns.

Good point.

 

[M1911]

Prior to Chapter 180, there was no penalty for carrying outside of your restriction, other than the threat of license revocation. After Chapter 180, that threat of revocation is still there, but now there is also the threat of a fine up to $10,000.

 

[Bfatz]

I also seen that drgrant, but I was in no mood for a pissing contest, none the less my comment stand as is....Personal responsibility. I have been around firearms since I was 17 I grew up with them, I am now 42...I am a big boy now and can make my own decisions as to what the interpretation of Class A means. ..Restricted or not...Besides that I am not walking around Wal-Mart or out to a family restaurant packing hardware.

And the penalty...what ever it's only money, you can not take it with you, just ask Ted Kennedy.

I would rather pay a fine than have one of my kids get hurt in a robbery attempt or me gunned down for $10 in change.

I really have no other comment on the subject.

 

[Skipnoid]

And from left field comes ...

Here's some food for thought that might put it in perspective (or not! ). If an LTC is essentialy a License to operate a firearm in this state and an MDL is a license to operate a motor vehicle in this state (with basic reciprocity granted to out-of-staters), should not the restrictions stated on both of these licenses be treated in the same light?

MEANING THAT: These two licenses look alot alike, including the restrictions box ... My Class A says "Restrictions: none" (lucky for me!). My MDL says "Restrictions: B - Corective Lenses"

Sooooooo: Does it stand to reason that the average LEO making a stop would weigh the restrictions about the same regardless of the license type? Like if I was stopped for going 45 in a 35 and did not have my glasses on, I don't think the LEO would care too much (or even bother to ask). Seems like the same might be true if you had a Class A "sporting" (or whatever) and you were stopped after blowing away some scumbag trying to rape your daughter at gunpoint. I'd like to think the average Joe LEO would look beyond the restriction box on your LTC.

I love this thread!

 

[arlow]

Sooooooo: Does it stand to reason that the average LEO making a stop would weigh the restrictions about the same regardless of the license type? Like if I was stopped for going 45 in a 35 and did not have my glasses on, I don't think the LEO would care too much (or even bother to ask). Seems like the same might be true if you had a Class A "sporting" (or whatever) and you were stopped after blowing away some scumbag trying to rape your daughter at gunpoint. I'd like to think the average Joe LEO would look beyond the restriction box on your LTC.

I love this thread!

Fat chance Skip.

 

[GLOCK.Perfection]

And from left field comes ...

Here's some food for thought that might put it in perspective (or not! ). If an LTC is essentialy a License to operate a firearm in this state and an MDL is a license to operate a motor vehicle in this state (with basic reciprocity granted to out-of-staters), should not the restrictions stated on both of these licenses be treated in the same light?

MEANING THAT: These two licenses look alot alike, including the restrictions box ... My Class A says "Restrictions: none" (lucky for me!). My MDL says "Restrictions: B - Corective Lenses"

Sooooooo: Does it stand to reason that the average LEO making a stop would weigh the restrictions about the same regardless of the license type? Like if I was stopped for going 45 in a 35 and did not have my glasses on, I don't think the LEO would care too much (or even bother to ask). Seems like the same might be true if you had a Class A "sporting" (or whatever) and you were stopped after blowing away some scumbag trying to rape your daughter at gunpoint. I'd like to think the average Joe LEO would look beyond the restriction box on your LTC.

I love this thread!

facing a $10,000 fine and loss of LTC I wouldnt want to chance it