So technically, if I have T&H restrictions, and I shoot an armed assailant in

[sbi]

my house in the middle of the night, I am in violation of my LTC, am I not? CoP 'limited' me for Target and Hunting, which means I can hunt with my weapon or target practice, not using for "self defense"?!

 

[headednorth]

Restrictions refer to outside the home.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A

 

[MisterHappy]

Regardless of what your license is good for, you're in a world of hurt if the scenario goes down as you state.

Or, just make sure there's a target on the intruder.

 

[rosefox911]

Honestly, in MA, let them take all your shit before you shoot them. Insurance will cover it and you won't be accused of being a murderer.

 

[edmxz2002]

If I NEEDED to use my gun to protect myself or my family in my home in the middle of the night, the last thing on my mind would be what the wording on my LTC is.

 

[sbi]

If I NEEDED to use my gun to protect myself or my family in my home in the middle of the night, the last thing on my mind would be what the wording on my LTC is.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be worried about the wording or legality either, I am simply curious about the technicality of these "restrictions" for after​ the assailant is dead.

 

[headednorth]

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131

"Section 131. All licenses to carry firearms shall be designated Class A or Class B, and the issuance and possession of any such license shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

(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;"

IANAL, but...

As long as you were in line with section 8a linked to in my first post, I would think the licensing authority ,with a straight face, would have to stand in a courtroom and tell a judge that its proper for you to shoot at a piece of paper at the club, but not to defend your life in your own home.

 

[terraformer]

Restrictions refer to outside the home.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A

This is a non sequitur. The castle doctrine is irrelevant.

The OP is right, the way the restriction is worded, it applies at all times. We actually made this claim to the judge in one of our cases and the town was quick to walk it back and say that in their minds, the restriction only applied outside the home. This is unofficial, but let's face it, Heller says you can have an operative gun in the home, so the correct reading would have cost them the case, so they applied it outside the home.

The reality is restrictions are civil in nature and there is no increased penalty that can be put on someone for violating their restrictions. So no prosecutor would be stupid enough to make something of this when heller makes it clear what one is allowed to do with a gun in their home on this point.

 

[ProGun]

This is a non sequitur. The castle doctrine is irrelevant.

The OP is right, the way the restriction is worded, it applies at all times. We actually made this claim to the judge in one of our cases and the town was quick to walk it back and say that in their minds, the restriction only applied outside the home. This is unofficial, but let's face it, Heller says you can have an operative gun in the home, so the correct reading would have cost them the case, so they applied it outside the home.

The reality is restrictions are civil in nature and there is no increased penalty that can be put on someone for violating their restrictions. So no prosecutor would be stupid enough to make something of this when heller makes it clear what one is allowed to do with a gun in their home on this point.

So, based on Heller, someone that moved into the state with a firearm could use it in the home for self-defense BEFORE receiving their LTC?

 

[terraformer]

So, based on Heller, someone that moved into the state with a firearm could use it in the home for self-defense BEFORE receiving their LTC?

Generally no, there is a difference between LTC and restrictions. The above was in re restrictions.

 

[Kicker96FS]

That doesn't make any sense. If Heller says you can have in your home, and defend yourself, and you are lets say for arguments sake still in the time frame to apply for a LTC and you had to use your firearm for said defense of person, Oh, never mind, they are gonna drag you through the coals regardless.

It all boils down to if you want to be carried by 6 or judged by 12.

 

[terraformer]

That doesn't make any sense. If Heller says you can have in your home, and defend yourself, and you are lets say for arguments sake still in the time frame to apply for a LTC and you had to use your firearm for said defense of person, Oh, never mind, they are gonna drag you through the coals regardless.

It all boils down to if you want to be carried by 6 or judged by 12.

I said "generally no". I am on a phone so was economical. You are right, there are exceptions and frankly it's not clear if licensing simple possession will be considered constitutional yet, but limited to Heller's specific ruling, any system which arbitrarily removes the right to self defense in the home from someone who is allowed to posses, it will be found unconstitutional.

 

[StevensMarksman]

OP, think of it like this;

a.) Do you worry about what law enforcement people will do to you?
or
b.) shoot the dirtbags dead before they can tie you up and rape your wife while they make you watch, and then kill you both?

As far as my family is concerned, it is choice b.) without any hesitation. Your (and your families) safety is your responsibility. Don't expect anyone else to do it for you because you will either be disappointed, and/or come up short.

StevensMarksman

 

[dcmdon]

Regardless of what your license is good for, you're in a world of hurt if the scenario goes down as you state.

Or, just make sure there's a target on the intruder.

why would you say that. Hes in the guys house!!

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, in MA, let them take all your shit before you shoot them. Insurance will cover it and you won't be accused of being a murderer.

Seriously. This is massively stupid advice. How about the threat to the wife and kids?

- - - Updated - - -

This is a non sequitur. The castle doctrine is irrelevant.

The OP is right, the way the restriction is worded, it applies at all times. We actually made this claim to the judge in one of our cases and the town was quick to walk it back and say that in their minds, the restriction only applied outside the home. This is unofficial, but let's face it, Heller says you can have an operative gun in the home, so the correct reading would have cost them the case, so they applied it outside the home.

The reality is restrictions are civil in nature and there is no increased penalty that can be put on someone for violating their restrictions. So no prosecutor would be stupid enough to make something of this when heller makes it clear what one is allowed to do with a gun in their home on this point.

The most important answer. Because it applies inside AND OUTSIDE the home. Carry at will. The restrictions do not have the weight of a criminal offense provided your LTC is valid.

Good god. Sometimes, I think the gun owners in this state are inviting further infringement of their rights by their unwillingness to exercise those same rights even within the law.

Don

 

[dcmdon]

That doesn't make any sense. If Heller says you can have in your home, and defend yourself, and you are lets say for arguments sake still in the time frame to apply for a LTC and you had to use your firearm for said defense of person, Oh, never mind, they are gonna drag you through the coals regardless.

It all boils down to if you want to be carried by 6 or judged by 12.

It makes perfect sense. In the context of McDonald and Heller, many of the things that are done by local PDs are illegal and they know it. So they will do anything they can to NOT be dragged into court and have this adjudicated. Shoot, in the context of Heller, the new suitability requiremets around a FID are probably illegal.

 

[noxin]

The most important answer. Because it applies inside AND OUTSIDE the home. Carry at will. The restrictions do not have the weight of a criminal offense provided your LTC is valid.

Up until you get discovered carrying outside your home (for whatever reason), your CoP finds out, and yanks your LTC under suitability because you were unable to follow simple written directions (The Restrictions on your LTC). Say byebye to all your expensive guns and anything else that goes with them.

While you may be willing to "Carry at will" against a restricted license, it's bad advice to post here where under-informed people will take it as gospel.

 

[Squire]

I said "generally no". I am on a phone so was economical. You are right, there are exceptions and frankly it's not clear if licensing simple possession will be considered constitutional yet, but limited to Heller's specific ruling, any system which arbitrarily removes the right to self defense in the home from someone who is allowed to posses, it will be found unconstitutional.

So Heller suggests that LTC-A for the home should be SHALL ISSUE. Anybody cases over an LTC-A outright denial based on suitability?

 

[sbi]

OP, think of it like this;

a.) Do you worry about what law enforcement people will do to you?
or
b.) shoot the dirtbags dead before they can tie you up and rape your wife while they make you watch, and then kill you both?

As far as my family is concerned, it is choice b.) without any hesitation. Your (and your families) safety is your responsibility. Don't expect anyone else to do it for you because you will either be disappointed, and/or come up short.

StevensMarksman

As I said, of course I would use option B, no question about it. It is just a thought that came to my mind about the 'technicality' - and the sheer stupidity - of these restrictions. Because no matter how you look at it, T&H means this is what the CoP allows one to do when they put T&H on their license. Yes, the CoP knows that every reasonable person with T&H will shoot and kill an assailant at home if they find themselves in this situation, but after the body is taken and the floor is wiped where does everyone stand legally wise.

 

[drgrant]

If you need to use a gun to defend yourself from a bad guy you are not going to care about restrictions. Any potential punishment is inconsequential compared to the rest of the incident.