Open carry at work with a restricted LTC-A?

usp45ct

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
6,007
Likes
2,310
Location
Western Ma
If your employer will write a letter stating it isrequired, then your restriction will probably change. The change may be to none for restrictions, or the chief may limit you to for business only I believe.
 

edmorseiii

Navy Veteran
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
21,497
Likes
18,568
Location
NH
You know, I have never walked into a gun shop and thought to myself, I wonder what kind of license the folks that work here have...
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,927
Likes
15,776
Location
NH
You know, I have never walked into a gun shop and thought to myself, I wonder what kind of license the folks that work here have...

This!


MGL specifically allows anyone with a LTC (regardless of restriction) to carry on their own property and where they work (work company policies are another story and not MGL . . . at least for most employees). So you can try to get restrictions removed but if that doesn't work it won't matter wrt the question posed here.
 
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,857
Likes
1,149
Location
Eastern Mass.
Like LenS said, you should be good to go.

Problem is if you have to close up shop and drive home, then you're in a pickle to disarm when leaving. But if you're part time maybe that won't be a problem.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
573
Likes
74
Location
South Shore
I always wondered how that "work" restriction thing works on an LTC.... Does work start when you leave your home with the sole purpose of going to the workplace? Does it mean only on company premises? What if your job changes? Does this mean you can only use it while working and you cant take it to the range?
Restrictions are completely insane.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
493
Likes
112
SkydiveGuy said:
I always wondered how that "work" restriction thing works on an LTC.... Does work start when you leave your home with the sole purpose of going to the workplace? Does it mean only on company premises? What if your job changes? Does this mean you can only use it while working and you cant take it to the range?
Restrictions are completely insane.

Therein lies the problem with any restrictions at all. You're inherently in peril of violating them and losing all your rights.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,927
Likes
15,776
Location
NH
I always wondered how that "work" restriction thing works on an LTC.... Does work start when you leave your home with the sole purpose of going to the workplace? Does it mean only on company premises? What if your job changes? Does this mean you can only use it while working and you cant take it to the range?
Restrictions are completely insane.

That is 100% DEPENDENT on your Chief's "interpretation" and rules! Some chiefs say "OK to carry to/from" others say "no way in hell". Problem is that the officer on the street has no clue what YOUR CHIEF means and this can lead to a very nasty situation if after 4PM M-F (when most PD admin folks go home). In my classes I advise folks (not legal advise, just my thoughts having been the cop on the street years ago) to use caution about this and not carry unless they get in writing from their chief that it is OK to/from.
 
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,857
Likes
1,149
Location
Eastern Mass.
I always wondered how that "work" restriction thing works on an LTC.... Does work start when you leave your home with the sole purpose of going to the workplace? Does it mean only on company premises? What if your job changes? Does this mean you can only use it while working and you cant take it to the range?
Restrictions are completely insane.

It means what the issuing chief thinks it means.

For an employment exemption they typically require a letter from the employer, which that's your chance to be as specific as possible. Like I'd write something like "while at the place of employment, transporting company property and funds, and traveling to and from the place of employment" then see what they say.

However, my simple interpretation would be you carry when you're on the clock and not too and from--and before people get all bitchy that's just my opinion. As stated, the only opinion that really matters is the issuing officer. It gets really confusing though if your job had undefined hours, like if you're self employed.
 
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
7,857
Likes
1,149
Location
Eastern Mass.
Thank you for all the input, everyone. As usual the law is clear as mud. I will put a call in to GOAL to see what their take on the situation is.

Just to clarify, in Mass there's no difference between open carry and concealed carry. You're either transporting (unloaded and locked in a case) or you are carrying (unloaded/loaded/concealed/open makes no difference). Most people carry concealed in Mass because if some sheeple calls the cops and reports "a man with a gun" you risk having your license revoked for "suitability"--and there are other reasons too.

So what you are asking is can I carry a gun at my place of employment? As LenS answered, legally, yes! Will it cause a disturbance? NO! It's a gun store.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
67
Likes
44
Location
North Attleboro
This!


MGL specifically allows anyone with a LTC (regardless of restriction) to carry on their own property and where they work (work company policies are another story and not MGL . . . at least for most employees). So you can try to get restrictions removed but if that doesn't work it won't matter wrt the question posed here.

Can you give me a link to thar particular section, please?
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,927
Likes
15,776
Location
NH
Can you give me a link to thar particular section, please?

Read MGL C. 269 S. 10 (a) (1) - It's an exemption (regardless of any restrictions) from prosecution at your residence and "place of business" (wording does not require ownership in the business).

Glidden expends a long paragraph further defining what is stated in this exemption in his book (pg. 123, 17th Ed . . . yes I know he's up to the 19th edition now).
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
573
Likes
74
Location
South Shore
Interesting law..... technically this means I can open carry while I mow my lawn (as long as I don't leave the property). Of course, once a neighbor sees me, and complains, I lose the LTC on account of being "unsuitable" to possess a firearm.

Stop the madness!
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,172
Likes
81
Location
MA
Interesting law..... technically this means I can open carry while I mow my lawn (as long as I don't leave the property). Of course, once a neighbor sees me, and complains, I lose the LTC on account of being "unsuitable" to possess a firearm.

Stop the madness!


Technically you can open carry anywhere in the state except prohibited places.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
4,718
Likes
536
Read MGL C. 269 S. 10 (a) (1) - It's an exemption (regardless of any restrictions) from prosecution at your residence and "place of business" (wording does not require ownership in the business).

Glidden expends a long paragraph further defining what is stated in this exemption in his book (pg. 123, 17th Ed . . . yes I know he's up to the 19th edition now).

Do you have an actual citation (as opposed to a "Gliddenism") for the bolded portion?

Using his definition of "place of business", an individual is eligible to apply for (and potentially receive) a LTC in a municipality in which they are merely employed at a business (i.e. absent an ownership interest in said business), pursuant to MGL 140-131...

(d) Any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority ... may submit to such licensing authority ... an application for a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms...

I disagree with his interpretation, as "place of business" is not necessarily synonymous with "place of employment".

Case law applicable to MGL 269-10(a)(1) has held the terms "residence" and "property" as denoting those areas over which one has "exclusive control"...

Comm. v. Dunphy (1979) said:
The terms "property" and "residence" shall retain their common law meanings and denote those areas, including outside areas, over which the defendant enjoys exclusive control.

Consequently, an unlicensed individual in a residence other than their own (i.e. a visitor) in possession of a firearm would be in violation of 269-10...

Comm. v. McCollum (2011) said:
the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that the apartment was not the defendant's residence or place of business. A police detective testified that the lessee of the apartment, Lynch, had told him that the defendant did not reside in the apartment and only stayed there occasionally. On cross-examination, a police officer testified that he found no papers bearing the defendant's name in the apartment and that the defendant told him the apartment was Lynch's, not his. This evidence, with reasonable inferences in favor of the Commonwealth, constituted sufficient evidence of possession of the firearm outside the defendant's residence.

Therefore, I believe the courts would follow the same reasoning in defining "place of business".

Further, as you know, State courts frequently look to other State's rulings for guidance. There is case law from the CT Supreme Court (citing cases from DC, IL, MI, NJ, NY and PA) that addresses almost identical verbiage as found in MGLs...

State v. Vickers (2002) said:
Specifically, he claims that: (1) the phrase "place of business," reasonably construed, includes an individual's place of employment; and (2) if it means what the trial court interpreted it to mean, that interpretation cannot constitutionally be applied to him. The state contends, to the contrary, that the "place of business" exception set out in § 29-35 (a) is limited to businesses in which the individual has a proprietary, controlling or possessory interest and, therefore, does not include place of employment in its scope. The state argues that this is the only reasonable interpretation of the statute and that the defendant reasonably should have known that his conduct was proscribed. We conclude that the state's interpretation properly reflects the legislature's intent in its enactment of § 29-35 (a).

>snip<

The defendant correctly cites Black's Law Dictionary's definition of "place of business" as "[t]he location at which one carries on his business or employment.. . ." (Emphasis added.) Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). The defendant argues that this is reflective of the common usage of the phrase. Our analysis, however, does not end there. We consider the syntax of the sentence containing the phrase in order to construe its intended meaning in this particular context. The structure of the sentence in § 29-35 (a) indicates that the phrase "place of business" is to be read in conjunction with the preceding phrase: "his dwelling house or. . . ." (Emphasis added.) The use of the possessive "his" informs the reader that both "dwelling house" and "place of business" are possessory or proprietary in nature and that the two are parallel in terms of "his" relationship to each. One's dwelling house is one's own place of abode; similarly, one's place of business is the place in which one conducts one's own business. One does not have a possessory or proprietary interest in one's place of employment; rather, one has such an interest in one's place of business. Thus, individuals in the places in which they have a possessory or proprietary interest, such as one's own home or the premises in which the business one owns or controls is located, are exempt from the general law requiring one to have a permit for a handgun.

>snip<

There are several other jurisdictions with similar prohibitions against unregulated handguns that limit the "place of business" exception to businesses in which there is a possessory or proprietary interest. See, e.g., Scott v. United States, 392 A.2d 4, 6 (D.C. App. 1978) (exception limited to those with "controlling . . . interest in the business premises"); Berkley v. United States, 370 A.2d 1331, 1333 (D.C. App. 1977) ("The common understanding of `place of business' read in context with `dwelling house' . . . is one of a protectible possessory interest. . . . [T]he exception is applicable only to those who have a controlling, proprietary or possessory interest in the business premises in question."); People v. Free, 112 Ill. App. 3d 449, 453, 445 N.E.2d 529 (1983) (exception extended to "proprietor's fixed place of business"); People v. Clark, 21 Mich. App. 712, 716, 176 N.W.2d 427 (1970) (exception created to allow people to defend place in which they have possessory interest); State v. Valentine, 124 N.J. Super. 425, 427, 307 A.2d 617 (1973) ("place of business" not extended to cover manager of bar owned by another); People v. Francis, 45 App. Div. 2d 431, 432, 358 N.Y.S.2d 148 (1974) ("place of business" implies possession and right to defend); Commonwealth v. Carr, 334 Pa. Super. 459, 462, 483 A.2d 542 (1984) (exception limited to "persons who have a controlling, proprietary, or possessory interest in their place of business"). These cases illustrate their respective jurisdiction's statutory intent to restrict the presence of unlicensed handguns in the public sphere. Because we conclude that this is the same purpose behind § 29-35 (a), we are persuaded to follow the example of our sister states who have interpreted the phrase "place of business" to mean that in which one has a possessory or proprietary interest.[8]

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/260cr65.pdf

As the statutory language and intent of CGS 29-35(a) are substantially similar to the statutory language and intent of MGL 269-10(a), I honestly can't see a MA court ruling any differently. IANAL, YMMV etc.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
3,170
Likes
251
Location
Live Free or Die
Just curious what is the penalty for violating the "restrictions" in MA? Is this actually a violation, or is it just a suitability issue? We don't deal with such BS here in NH.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
4,718
Likes
536
Top Bottom