"Reason: ALP" vs "Restrictions: None"?

[doobie]

I apologize if this is buried in the forum, but I tried the search and went a ten pages of threads back and didn't see anyone on it.

A friend of mine has had an LTC-A for a while, his says "Reason: All Lawful Purposes" however my newly issued LTC-A states: "Restrictions: None" I just wanted confirmation that I really have an ALP LTC-A.

Did they change the wording or does each town put their own wording?

Thanks
Jason

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Same license, different format thats all.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There are two changes:

Reason for issuance -> Restriction

There was some wiggle room for persons carrying in a manner inconsistent with "reason for issuance" to argue it was simply the reason the license was not issued, not a restriction. One court accepted this argument (though it was just a district court that did not set statewide precedent). GOAL stepped in and demanded a clarification as to what the "reason for issuance" meant and the state, predictably, obliged by changing the wording to "Restriction". This is part of the template, not a term chosen by the issuing agency. In what can only be described as an attempt to polish a turd, GOAL explained that this was good since there was no longer any ambiguity (so, I guess persons who violate the restrictive nomenclature are better off since they no longer have to worry wondering how their case will turn out).


ALP -> None

This change was made some time later, and they two are functionally equivalent. It was really a grammer change "Restriction: None" makes more sense than "Restriction: ALP", and they obviously never used "Reason for issuance: None."


Restriction:ALP

These were the transitional design - sort of like the 1994 Colt HBARS with the bayonet lug filed off.

 

[doobie]

Thanks for the quick responses! I was worried for a moment even though the Sgt. at my towns PD stated they only issue LTC-A ALPs.