When I got my LTC Class-A in Aug '04, I noticed under "Reason for issuance:" it says "Protection of Life". I've been told that legally it's supposed to say "For All Lawful Purposes", and that because my town (Salem, MA) gives so few of these licenses that they don't even know what to put. Obviously my license is legal seeing how I have never had any problems using it, but is there any truth to what I've been told?
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
What should it say on a LTC-Class A?
- Thread starter rapture
- Start date
rapture said:
It would be nice if all class A LTCs were issued for "All Lawful Purposes" but in and around the Boston metro area and coastal cities it's really difficult to get one.
Protection of Life means you can carry concealed, which is good for you, but the ambiguous nature of that designation will leave you up the creek if you want to go hunting or enjoy an afternoon at the range.
My license is issued for Sporting and Target. I do not CCW because I figure something is better than nothing and I'm not willing to lose my license. In the end issuance of a Class A is not mandatory. It is at the discretion of the Chief and they have ultimate power. You can re-apply and try talking to the Chief and explain why you need an All Lawful Purpose designation. Or hire a lawyer.
looking at your question and my answer, I forgot the most important part. The answer is "no, it isn't true."
A Chief can (and often will) put any and all restrictions on a class A in order to prevent the masses from legally having guns.
Your license is 100% valid however.
A Chief can (and often will) put any and all restrictions on a class A in order to prevent the masses from legally having guns.
Your license is 100% valid however.
I've never had anyone give me any grief over it, whether it be at the ranges or at gun shops. A few stores have asked me how I was able to obtain the license. Because my city gives out so few, they hardly ever see them.
MarkM said:
Well, don't forgt how the Constitution begins:
"We the people of the United States..."
So it is logical to draw the inference that this document primarily governs citizens of this country.
It is not the Constitution of the World.
Nickle said:
[soapbox]
I will have to disagree with you there, I am not yet a citizen but the consitution applies to me (as a legal resident person in the United States) as much as it does to you.
I am not a citizen but I have the right to free speech
I am not a citizen but I have the right to bear arms
I am not a citizen but I have the right to a jury trial
etc
and unfortunately:
I am not a citizen but the constitution still give the congress the power to tax me.
The Bill of Rights doesn't give you the right to do anything: It is a list of some of the pre-existing god given rights that apply to all people, rights that Government is (supposedly) unable to take away. The whole point of the bill of rights is to limit Government not to authorise people to do some things.
[/soapbox]
FPrice said:
The preamble to the Constitution has no force in law, it is just an introduction to the document.
If the framers had intended the constitution to apply only to citizens wouldn't they have written:
"We the citizens of the United States..."
Instead it applies to all the People of the United States, citizens, legal resident aliens, illegal immigrants, temporary residents, and even tourists.
Do you have the right to vote? That's given to the people.
Remember, I mentioned the Constitution, not just the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights just verifies and enumerates those rights that are "God Given". Most of them are actually based on the Magna Carta.
And I'll add that restricting the rights (including gun rights) of non-citizens has been found to be acceptable on a National Level in this country. I don't agree with that, but it is true. CCW has also been decided as a "State's Rights" issue. By the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, I don't think they intended us to have a right to carry concealed. If they could have seen the current crime trends, they would definitely give us that right, though.
Remember, it's been proven that NFA '34 is clearly unconstitutional, US v Miller clearly showed that. Miller had a sawed off shotgun, which wasn't considered to be a "Military type" weapon. If he had a BAR (or 1919A4) that was unregistered, it would've been a slam dunk acquittal.
Remember, I mentioned the Constitution, not just the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights just verifies and enumerates those rights that are "God Given". Most of them are actually based on the Magna Carta.
And I'll add that restricting the rights (including gun rights) of non-citizens has been found to be acceptable on a National Level in this country. I don't agree with that, but it is true. CCW has also been decided as a "State's Rights" issue. By the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, I don't think they intended us to have a right to carry concealed. If they could have seen the current crime trends, they would definitely give us that right, though.
Remember, it's been proven that NFA '34 is clearly unconstitutional, US v Miller clearly showed that. Miller had a sawed off shotgun, which wasn't considered to be a "Military type" weapon. If he had a BAR (or 1919A4) that was unregistered, it would've been a slam dunk acquittal.
You are correct Nickle in that I do not have the right to vote.
My original response was directed at Jon who paraphrased the 2nd amendment substituting citizen for people and so yes I was referring to the use of the word person in the Bill of Rights.
The constitution however does make a distinction between person and citizen:
That seems pretty clear to me that the framers considers Citizens to be a subset of Persons, where Persons have many rights and there are additional rights that apply only to citizens such as the right to be eligible for the Presidency.
Also don't forget the original constitution did not give citizens the right to vote. It gave electors in each state the right to vote for President/Vice-President in the electoral college.
Voting is next covered in Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights
So by 1868 you could vote, if you were a white male citizen over the age of 21 who didn't live in Washington DC. By 1870 coloreds and ex-slaves were allowed to vote by the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment in 1920 allowed women to vote, it took until 1964 for people in DC to get the vote, and 1971 for the voting age to be lowered.
Going back to the 14th:
Again a citizen is defined as a subset of person: those persons born or naturalized in the United States. They make a distinction again protecting citizens (not persons) from certain state laws, compared to persons (including citizens) having protection against deprivation of life, liberty and property, and equal protection under the law.
At the end of the day this is why we have terrorist held outside the US at Guantanamo because if they were in the US they would have equal protection under the law.
Yes, I'm being pedantic![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
but the original constitution did not give citizens the right to vote and neither did the bill of rights.
That said, you are correct that there are a lot of gun laws that unconstitutionally affect both citizens and "non-citizen persons" both at a state and federal level. One of the main reasons I chose to move to New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts was that New Hampshire respects my second amendment rights whereas Massachusetts would have only given me a FID card not an LTC.
Some might think I am nitpicking here but the way we lose our rights is to let them get taking away bit by bit without standing up and saying hey thats wrong. I am standing up and saying hey don't forget that (almost all except voting) rights apply to non-citizen residents as well as citizens, and if someones disagrees with me I will tell them they are wrong (thanks to my first amendment free speech rights![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
)
My original response was directed at Jon who paraphrased the 2nd amendment substituting citizen for people and so yes I was referring to the use of the word person in the Bill of Rights.
The constitution however does make a distinction between person and citizen:
That seems pretty clear to me that the framers considers Citizens to be a subset of Persons, where Persons have many rights and there are additional rights that apply only to citizens such as the right to be eligible for the Presidency.
Also don't forget the original constitution did not give citizens the right to vote. It gave electors in each state the right to vote for President/Vice-President in the electoral college.
Voting is next covered in Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights
So by 1868 you could vote, if you were a white male citizen over the age of 21 who didn't live in Washington DC. By 1870 coloreds and ex-slaves were allowed to vote by the 15th amendment, the 19th amendment in 1920 allowed women to vote, it took until 1964 for people in DC to get the vote, and 1971 for the voting age to be lowered.
Going back to the 14th:
Again a citizen is defined as a subset of person: those persons born or naturalized in the United States. They make a distinction again protecting citizens (not persons) from certain state laws, compared to persons (including citizens) having protection against deprivation of life, liberty and property, and equal protection under the law.
At the end of the day this is why we have terrorist held outside the US at Guantanamo because if they were in the US they would have equal protection under the law.
Yes, I'm being pedantic
but the original constitution did not give citizens the right to vote and neither did the bill of rights.That said, you are correct that there are a lot of gun laws that unconstitutionally affect both citizens and "non-citizen persons" both at a state and federal level. One of the main reasons I chose to move to New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts was that New Hampshire respects my second amendment rights whereas Massachusetts would have only given me a FID card not an LTC.
Some might think I am nitpicking here but the way we lose our rights is to let them get taking away bit by bit without standing up and saying hey thats wrong. I am standing up and saying hey don't forget that (almost all except voting) rights apply to non-citizen residents as well as citizens, and if someones disagrees with me I will tell them they are wrong (thanks to my first amendment free speech rights
)
Last edited:
Nickle said:
And what legal significance does this alleged "common usage" have?
The US Constitution protects ALL PEOPLE on US soil; not just citizens. However, the right to bear arms is an indicator of citizenship and not all states allow aliens to possess arms.
Read US v. Verdugo-Urquidez; 110 S.Ct. 1056 at 1063 (1990).
Nonsense. The issue of whether Miller's gun qualified as a "militia" weapon was not even argued in the original court; therefore it could not be argued on appeal. Neither did the court find that "NFA '34 is clearly unconstitutional."
The court expressed NO opinion as to whether the shotgun was or was not a "'Military [sic] type' weapon" and sent the case back down for further review.
As Miller either died or disappeared (I forget which), this was not resolved.
Scrivener said:
Again I must disagree with the second part of that statement, the Constitution and Amendments as written state that the right to bear arms belongs to people not just citizens. It is the lawmakers and courts erosion of that preexisting god-given right that is the problem. Because of that erosion of the second amendment some states (such as MA) unconstitutionally restrict the rights of legal resident aliens.
Yes I am nitpicking again but I tend to do that when I am discriminated against by the state.
MarkM said:
Correct as stated. However, the Constitution was written to define the role of the FEDERAL government and the Bill of Rights was designed to impose express limits upon that government. Powers which had always been held by the states remained there, including deciding who could possess arms (read: NOT slaves or native Americans).
The application of the Second Amendment to state action ( the "Incorporation Doctrine") has never been applied to the Second Amendment, even though arming freed slaves was part of the reasoning for the Fourteenth Amendment.
Scrivener said:
If only they had written the 14 as "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, arms, or property"
That said, if I had moved to Massachusetts wouldn't the state be depriving me of property as I would no longer be allowed my handguns etc because as a non-citizen MA would only give me a FID?
Last edited:
Scrivener said:
Just because it has never been applied to state action doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied to state action.
If a state tried to restrict my free speech rights or ruled I could be searched anytime anywhere there would be an outcry, if a state decided that as a resident I couldn't get a jury trial in the states courts there would be an outcry.
Why is it therefore considered ok by states to restrict my right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms even though under Federal Law I am considered part of the unorganized militia (US Code Title 10 Section 311)???
Most incorporation has only occured since the 60's, hopefully the time will come soon for the 2nd to be treated the same way.
Last edited:
The District of Columbia is an execrable example of "disenfranchisement" as its citizens were never intended to have the right to directly elect legislators, It's a DISTRICT; not a state or possession. As the seat of the nation's capitol, it is UNIQUE and its own form of government reflects that fact.
It's citizens knew that moving in.
It's citizens knew that moving in.
Miller was killed. His body was found after the appeal had been decided; IIRC, it wasn't clear just when he was killed. Layton was given a deal by the government for what amounted to time served. It strongly smells as if they didn't want him pursuing the case for fear of having a big chunk of the NFA ruled unconstitutional.
Ken
Ken
KMaurer said:
According to Dr. Brown:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801usvmiller.htm
Sounds like the time, or at least approximate date of death could have been estimated fairly well.
Based on what happened to Miller and their mutual line of work, it may have been more a case of self-preservation than any "conspiracy theory" that the government "arranged" to pressure him.
But I have to thank you for the reply. I always wondered about some of the details and your post gave me reason to search a little deeper.
Last edited:
I agree that there's no need for any giant consiracy theory, but if the government actually thought it stood a chance of winning, one has to wonder why they let Layton walk away with 5 years probation. The case had been returned to the judge who rejected the defendant's original guilty pleas and issued the demurrer; I think it's reasonable to suspect he'd have found evidence that a short barrel shotgun (or a machine gun) had legitimate military uses, thus killing most of the NFA. BTW, you can read most of the original documents of the case from beginning to end here.
Ken
Ken
