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.
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...
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.
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.
And getting jammed up at a car stop by an over enthusiastic LEO. But that's the topic of another thread ...Therein lies the problem with any restrictions at all. You're inherently in peril of violating them and losing all your rights.
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.
Anyone know if I can open carry at work with a LTC-A that has hubting and targer restrictions?
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.
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?
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!
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).
(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...
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.
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.
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]
Technically you can open carry anywhere in the state except prohibited places.
Just curious what is the penalty for violating the "restrictions" in MA?
MGL 140-131 said: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;