"Protection of Life"

[Scully714]

Hello all,


Would a "Protection of Life" restriction on a Class A not allow me to go shotgun hunting for waterfowl? I would think that a Class A, no matter how restrictive, would cover that seeing as all you need is an FID I believe for that, but I'm just curious....

 

[Tweed]

that would be OK in addition to a hunting license and a migratory waterfowl stamp

 

[Scully714]

that would be OK in addition to a hunting license and a migratory waterfowl stamp

Thanks!

Just got the hunting license, now I gotta go and get that damn stamp...more ways for the government to drain my wallet lol

 

[Mikey]

WTF does "Protection of Life" mean anyway and how is it a restriction? Did the PD tell you what you were restricted from doing. Sounds like a dumbass PD chief being a moron and making stuff up.

But anyways I think Tweed is right.

 

[Scully714]

I think it's their way of saying of saying ALP, but I'm not sure. They didn't mention any restrictions to me at all.

 

[TomH]

Just say you've gotta hunt to survive!

 

[Scully714]

Just say you've gotta hunt to survive!

Or, I could say I'm protecting myself from the bird flu

 

[Mikey]

Or, I could say I'm protecting myself from the bird flu

You mean the bird that just flu by your head......

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't think you can hunt with it as you are not protecting the animal's life, but taking it !

 

[Bigtitan33]

thats almost the same as Springfield...they either issue for "personal protection" or "target and hunting" ...when issued for "personal protection" the actual ID card comes back as "Restrictions:None" ...

 

[RKG]

"Protection of Life and Property" was the standard phraseology, in the days when LTCs had a block for "Reason for Issuance;" it was deemed to be the equivalent of "All Lawful Purposes."

 

[Coyote33]

Don't forget also "Personal Protection".

 

[Xak]

I think, and I may be dead wrong, that "Protection of Life" is a reason for issuance of a non-restricted Class A LTC, where as "Personal Protection" is a restriction on a Class A LTC that doesn't allow you to carry an extra magazine when you CC.

 

[Bigtitan33]

I think, and I may be dead wrong, that "Protection of Life" is a reason for issuance of a non-restricted Class A LTC, where as "Personal Protection" is a restriction on a Class A LTC that doesn't allow you to carry an extra magazine when you CC.

i'm sure a chief could make it whatever they want but around here "personal protection" as a reason for issuance gets you an unrestricted LTC.

 

[drgrant]

I think, and I may be dead wrong, that "Protection of Life" is a reason for issuance of a non-restricted Class A LTC, where as "Personal Protection" is a restriction on a Class A LTC that doesn't allow you to carry an extra magazine when you CC.

IMO that doesn't make any sense to me, unless there is some court/case
law saying so. MGL's certainly are quiet on further defining the actual
restrictions... so all one can go by is case law/experience. Even if we
were to apply logic to MA LTC restrictions (which is often a dangerous thing!)
there might be some really bad situation where you might need that
extra mag, even if it's just yourself you're trying to "protect".

IMO if they don't come out and say it (on your license) it's not a
restriction, although we damn well know that the chiefs in this state
basically get to do whatever they want WRT licensing. They could
write "Bathroom Only" and basically get away with it, if they really
wanted to.

Further, nowadays seeing those oddball reasons are less likely because of
the verbiage change from "reason for issuance" to "restriction".

-Mike

 

[squeeze]

I think, and I may be dead wrong, that "Protection of Life" is a reason for issuance of a non-restricted Class A LTC, where as "Personal Protection" is a restriction on a Class A LTC that doesn't allow you to carry an extra magazine when you CC.

How does "Personal Protection" equate to not being able to carry an extra magazine?

 

[Ripach]

They could write "Bathroom Only" and basically get away with it, if they really
wanted to.
-Mike

Lets not give them any ideas.

 

[Xak]

How does "Personal Protection" equate to not being able to carry an extra magazine?

I may be confusing it with Boston's laws about CC, but I thought I heard/read somewhere that if under "restrictions" on your license it says "personal protection" that is an actual restriction because you can't carry an extra mag.

If I recall there is still a spot on the application for reason of issuance and I assume "protection of life" will either get you an unrestricted LTC or "Personal protection" (if the chief OK's it of course).

Like I said, I could be wrong and I am pretty unsure of myself here so take it for what it's worth. If anyone knows otherwise please enlighten us.

 

[highlander]

up until this year my permit said " protection of life and property" and to my understanding was the equivalent to ALP

 

[bpm990d]

under "restrictions" on your license it says "personal protection" that is an actual restriction because you can't carry an extra mag.

You have to be kidding. What type of tortured logic comes up with a restriction for one magazine? This sounds like gun store talk to me. Where did you hear this?

B

 

[Lynne]

I may be confusing it with Boston's laws about CC, but I thought I heard/read somewhere that if under "restrictions" on your license it says "personal protection" that is an actual restriction because you can't carry an extra mag.

Simple answer - no.

 

[Xak]

You have to be kidding. What type of tortured logic comes up with a restriction for one magazine? This sounds like gun store talk to me. Where did you hear this?

B

Like I said, I thought I was wrong. Doesn't Boston have a 10 round restriction for CC or something?

Sorry if I confused anyone, the laws are confusing enough. I really don't recall where I heard this from.

 

[Cross-X]

Doesn't Boston have a 10 round restriction for CC or something?

No, there is no such magazine capacity restriction in the City of Boston. What you heard is just another gun law myth. Please don't give new life to it.

 

[drgrant]

No, there is no such magazine capacity restriction in the City of Boston. What you heard is just another gun law myth. Please don't give new life to it.

IIRC, there was noise about Boston having an 8 round limit, but nobody said
anything about a magazine # limit. It probably is a nullity at this point, and
it's possible that there never was a real limit to begin with. (I think packing.org
used to publish it many years ago). I never remember it being a law, just something
someone typed on a page, "boston has a limit blah blah blah" so it probably was just
invented nonsense that some guy heard from some source he thought was authoritative.
The inference never seemed to have anything to back it up, so I didn't think about it very
much.


-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

Boston does not have, and never did have, either a round or magazine limit.

It does have its own AWB, which may be the source of this misinformation.

 

[vellnueve]

The only restriction on magazines in Boston is on high capacity long arm magazines by Boston residents in Boston. There is no restriction on handgun magazines.